Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-26 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: February 26, 2020 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak on items not on the agenda. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2,3 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is permitted. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment is permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Up to five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Consideration of and Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning) to Update Five Sections Related to Enforcement, Hearing Procedures, and to Reflect the New Name of the Planning and Development Services Department. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 840 Kipling Street [18PLN-00185]: Recommendation on a Variance to allow (1) a Second-Story Addition to a Historic Home on a Substandard, Irregular Lot, and (2) an Extension of a Noncomplying Wall That Encroaches Into a Side Setback. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Additions to Existing Structure). Zoning District: R-2 (Two Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Christy Fong at cfong@m-group.us _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. January 29, 2020 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Carolyn Templeton Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar Commissioner Michael Alcheck Commissioner Bart Hechtman Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner William Riggs Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Development Services Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11114) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/26/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: • PTC Meeting Schedule • PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) • Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Vinh Nguyen (Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: • Attachment A: February 26, 2020 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2020 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 2/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Hechtman 3/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/8/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/15/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Tentative 4/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/13/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/27/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/10/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/24/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Hechtman 8/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/9/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/30/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/14/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/28/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled Veteran’s Day 11/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled Day Before Thanksgiving 12/09/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/30/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled Day Before New Year’s Eve 2020 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Billy Riggs Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Michael Alcheck Cari Templeton Ed Lauing Bart Hechtman Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa July August September October November December Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Planning & Transportation Commission 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics March 11, 2020 To Be Scheduled: Topics Co-Working Office Model SB 50 Data Briefing Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11058) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/26/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Periodic Ordinance Update of Title 18 (Zoning) Title: Consideration of and Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning) to Update Five Sections Related to Enforcement, Hearing Procedures, and to Reflect the New Name of the Planning and Development Services Department From: Molly Stump Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC): 1. Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to update five sections of Title 18 (Zoning) related to enforcement, hearing procedures, and to reflect the new name of the Planning and Development Services Department. Discussion Staff periodically identify sections of the municipal code that need to be updated for technical reasons or to better conform with current practice. In this round of periodic updates to Title 18 (Zoning), staff recommends updating the five sections below. 18.01.080 Violations – Penalties Section 18.01.080 is the general charging section for zoning violations in Title 18. The proposed edits clarify that violations of Title 18 can be enforced through the administrative citation (Chapter 1.12) and administrative compliance order (Chapter 1.16) processes. While administrative enforcement of Title 18 is already authorized by Title 1 of the Code, the new language identifies the various enforcement methods within the charging section itself. This reduces potential confusion that violations of the zoning code must be handled as criminal misdemeanors. Also, the new language matches the charging sections contained in each of the newly adopted 2019 Building Code updates found in Title 16. 18.01.085 Enforcement - Criminal Enforcement Authority 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The California Penal Code allows the City to designate specific employees to enforce municipal ordinances with criminal penalties. The proposed language updates the staff positions authorized to do this to include the chief building official and code enforcement officers. 18.04.030 Definitions The definition of “Director” is updated to reflect the new name of the combined Department of Planning and Development Services. 18.40.170 Deferral of Director's Action Section 18.14.170 allows the Director to refer items to the City Council for decision without first issuing a Director’s decision. For some application processes, the code currently only provides for a public hearing before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) or PTC on appeal of a Director’s decision. The proposed update to Section 18.14.170 clarifies that an application referred to the City Council may still be presented to the ARB or PTC for a recommendation, even though an appeal or hearing request is not possible in such circumstances as there is no Director’s decision. The proposed update also adds a category of projects that may be referred to the City Council – those that require a statement of overriding considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act. 18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process This update to Section 18.77.060 deletes the language that there shall be “no fee for requesting a hearing.” This language was inconsistent with the City Council’s directive that Planning applications be administered on a cost recovery basis. While the City still does not charge a fee for requesting a hearing, it does hold a project applicant responsible for the costs incurred by the City in holding a hearing on the project. Next Steps After receiving the PTC’s input and recommendation, staff will present this ordinance to Council for its consideration in March 2020. Environmental Review These updates to the sections of Title 18 are not a “project” under CEQA. Attachments: • Attachment A - Ordinance Amending Five Sections of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 8 *NOT YET APPROVED*  20200220_TS_24_202  Ordinance No. _____  Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of  the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update Five Sections Related to Enforcement,  Hearing Procedures, and to Reflect the New Name of the Planning and  Development Services Department    The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:    SECTION 1.  Section 18.01.080 of Chapter 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes, and Enforcement)  of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (strikethrough text is deleted,  underlined text is added):      18.01.080   Violations ‐ Penalties     Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provision of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor,  and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in Section 1.08.010 of this code.  Such person, firm, or corporation is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during  any portion of which such violation of this title is committed, continued, or permitted by such  person, firm, or corporation and shall be punishable as provided in this section.    It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the  requirements of this Chapter or any permits, conditions, or variances granted under this Chapter,  and shall be subject to any penalty or penalties authorized by law, including but not limited to:  administrative enforcement pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this code; and criminal  enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.08 of this code.  Each separate day or any portion thereof  during which any violation of this Chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a  separate offense.    When the code enforcement officer determines that a violation of this Chapter has occurred,  he/she may record a notice of pendency of code violation with the Office of the County  Recorder stating the address and owner of the property involved. When the violation has been  corrected, the code enforcement officer shall issue and record a release of the notice of  pendency of code violation.    SECTION 2.  Section 18.01.085 of Chapter 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes, and Enforcement)  of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:     18.01.085   Enforcement ‐ Criminal Enforcement Citation Authority     The following designated employee positions may enforce the provisions of this chapter by  the issuance of citations. Persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the  authority provided in Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for  violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: chief building official, plan  check engineer; ordinance compliance inspector.     The employee positions designated in this section are authorized to exercise the authority  provided in California Penal Code section 836.5 for violations of this Chapter. The designated  2.a Packet Pg. 9 *NOT YET APPROVED*  20200220_TS_24_202  employee positions are: (1) chief building official; and (2) code enforcement officer.    SECTION 3.  Subsection (a)(44.8) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions), of Chapter 18.04  (Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:          (a)(44.8)   “Director” means the director of planning and development services community  environment, unless indicated otherwise.    SECTION 4.  Section 18.40.170 of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of  the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:        18.40.170   Deferral of Director's Action  The director shall have the authority to forward projects to City Council for final action in the  circumstances listed below. No action by the Director shall be required, and the appeal process  and or request for hearing process shall not apply to such referred actions, provided, however,  that the Director may seek a recommendation from the Architectural Review Board or Planning  and Transportation Commission prior to action by the City Council.     (a)   In the case of projects having multiple entitlements, where one requires City Council  approval, all entitlements may be referred to City Council for final action;     (b)   Projects involving leases or agreements for the use of City‐owned property;      (c)   Projects requiring a statement of overriding considerations, pursuant to Section  18.31.010; and     (cd)   Projects, as deemed appropriate by the director.    SECTION 5.  Subsection (c)(4) of section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process), of  Chapter 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby  amended as follows:          (4)   Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing of the planning and  transportation commission on the proposed director’s decision by filing a written request with  the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing.     SECTION 6.  Severability.  If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this  ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such  invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect  without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are  hereby declared to be severable.      SECTION 7.  CEQA.  The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a  “project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act  (CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the  environment, either directly or ultimately.        //  2.a Packet Pg. 10 *NOT YET APPROVED*  20200220_TS_24_202  SECTION 8.  Effective Date.  This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after  the date of its adoption.      INTRODUCED:      PASSED:     AYES:     NOES:    ABSTENTIONS:    ABSENT:     ATTEST:      APPROVED:    ______________________________    ____________________________  City Clerk      Mayor    APPROVED AS TO FORM:          ______________________________    ____________________________  City Attorney or Designee    City Manager              ____________________________  Director of Planning and Development  Services    2.a Packet Pg. 11 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11073) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/26/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 840 Kipling Street: Request for Hearing on Variance Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 840 Kipling Street [18PLN- 00185]: Recommendation on a Variance to allow (1) a Second- Story Addition to a Historic Home on a Substandard, Irregular Lot, and (2) an Extension of a Noncomplying Wall That Encroaches Into a Side Setback. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Additions to Existing Structure). Zoning District: R-2 (Two Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Christy Fong at cfong@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council approve the requested Variance for 840 Kipling Street, for: • a second-story addition to the historic resource on a substandard, irregular R-2 zoned lot, and • a six-foot extension of the noncomplying wall, which currently encroaches 2’-6” into the required six-foot side yard setback, to provide additional first floor and basement level floor area Report Summary This report is to support the Planning and Transportation Commission’s review and recommendation of a Variance for two-story, single-family home on a substandard, R-2 zoned lot. The project site is located within the boundaries of the South of Forest Area I Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA I). The Director tentatively approved the application for a Variance and the Individual Review (IR) application. Subsequently, a representative of the neighboring property at 441 Channing Avenue requested a hearing on both applications. The PTC is the reviewing body for Variances for which a hearing has been requested after the Director has issued a tentative decision. The Variance will now be acted on by the City Council, following the Commission’s review and recommendation. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 In a separate action, the Individual Review (IR) application will be discussed at a Director’s Hearing, followed by a separate Director’s decision that is appealable to Council. If the Director’s decision on the IR is appealed, both the IR and Variance would be placed on the Council’s consent calendar. If three Council members vote to remove the project from the consent calendar, the Council will have the opportunity to hear the appeal of the IR and Variance on a new noticed hearing. Background Process History Martin Bernstein, the applicant representing the property owners, submitted applications for Individual Review and a Variance on June 6, 2018. The property owners reside in the existing single-story, single family residence located on a substandard R-2 zoned lot. The proposed project includes: • exterior alterations, • expansion of the basement and first floor at the rear, and • second floor addition. The requested variance is for: • a second-floor addition to a one-story home on a substandard, irregular lot, and • an approximately six-foot extension of an existing noncomplying wall, which encroaches 2’-6” into the required six-foot side yard setback. In 1998, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) determined the existing residence was eligible as a ‘contributing residence’. More recently, the HRB reviewed the project on February 14, 20191 and December 12, 20192. The HRB found the project, as conditioned, is consistent with all ten Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI standards). City staff determined the project conforms with all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements, including the Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines and the Variance regulations set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76.030. The Director of Planning and Development Services (Director) tentatively approved the project applications on January 15, 2020 (Attachment D). The Director’s determination was based upon a review of all information contained in the project file, which included six neighbor letters received during the review process (Attachment C). On January 23, 2020, the City received the hearing request from a representative of the neighboring property at 441 Channing Avenue. In addition to requesting a PTC hearing of the Variance, the requestor seeks a Director’s Hearing of the Individual Review application. The Director’s Hearing date is set for March 5, 2020. The Director’s Hearing will be an opportunity to review the project’s consistency with the five Individual Review Guidelines. Project Description The property is developed with a 1,192 square floor (sf), single-story, single-family residence and a detached garage containing 336 sf of floor area. The main residence is a one-story bungalow with an 1 February 14, 2019 HRB staff report can be found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68958 2 December 12, 2019 HRB staff report can be found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74373 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 attic, constructed in 1912. The residence is located on a substandard R-2 zoned lot. The home is a noncomplying facility, due to the 2’-6” encroachment into the right-side yard setback. The applicant requested Individual Review and Variance approvals for: • a 184 sf ground floor addition at the rear part of the main residence, • a 397 sf partial basement beneath the rear addition, and • a 489 sf second floor addition. Along with the proposed additions, the applicant proposes modifications to existing windows and doors for all exterior walls of the building. The main residence was designed with Craftsman style influence. The applicant proposes: • composition asphalt roofing, to match the existing roofing, • new exterior wood siding, with a similar profile as the existing siding, • windows at the additions, comprised of aluminum-clad wood with simulated divided lites, with double-hung or awning sashes. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The PTC's purview is limited to review of and recommendation regarding the Variance request to allow: (1) A second-story addition with a height of 26 feet 8 ¼ inches on a substandard lot, on which development is limited to one habitable floor with a maximum height of 17 feet, and (2) An approximately 6’-4” horizontal extension to the existing noncomplying first floor and basement walls on the west elevation that encroaches 2’-6” into the required six-foot, right-side yard setback. The Commissioners’ comments and recommendation on this application should be specifically related to the variance request – the second story/height and side yard setback variance. Recommendations made by the PTC will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. The process for evaluating a Variance is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76.030. A Variance is intended to provide a way for a site with special physical constraints to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. Variances provide a way to grant relief from strict application of the zoning regulations. Strict application of codes can subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. Variance applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Additionally, the project also requires review and approval for the following application types not subject to PTC review: - Single Family Individual Review: For the construction of a new second story in the R-2 zone district. - Historic Review: For project involving exterior alteration and modifications of identified historic resources. Analysis Neighborhood Setting City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 The project site is surrounded by single- family, low-density and multi-family residential uses (Attachment A). The areas north and west of the site are zoned R-2 and areas to the east are zoned DHS (Detached Housing on Small Lots). The lot to the west of this residence is 836 Kipling Street, also a substandard lot. It contains a smaller one-story home constructed in approximately 1916. The lot at 441 Channing Avenue to the east of this site is larger and contains two units: a two-story single-family residence and a single-story accessory dwelling unit. The location map shows the project site’s irregular shape and location. The block in which the site is located has a variation of lot sizes, widths, and depths. Most of the substandard lots found on this block have a lot width of 25 feet and the lot areas are ranging from approximately 1,970 sf to 2,840 sf, where the remaining properties on this block have a consistent lot width of 50 feet and consistent lot area of 5,625 sf. Site Information The subject property has a non-rectangular shape with a lot width of 39 feet 6 inches and lot area of 4,893 sf, which is unique to the general lot pattern found in the block. The subject property is substandard as it does not meet the minimum lot requirements in the R-2 zone district. The lot area is less than 4,980 square feet (83% of the minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet in R-2 zone) and the lot width is less than 50 feet, which make the subject property a substandard lot. Two protected redwood trees are found on the property and in the vicinity of the subject property. One additional Redwood tree was located on the property of 836 Kipling Street, prior to removal in 2018. The two protected trees have diameters of 42 inches and 26 inches are located near the rear property line, at 840 Kipling Street. These trees share a tree protection zone (TPZ) of 35 feet in radius and limit development on approximately 530 sf of the 2,268 sf buildable area on the subject property. The required covered parking space for the main dwelling is located at the rear part of the lot in an existing one-car detached garage. The project will continue to utilize a 1’-6” by 75-foot easement area, granted by SummerHill Channing LLC along the left property line to access this rear detached garage. This easement area allows the fence of the subject property to extend beyond the legal property lines. The sole purpose of this easement is to grant access. The easement area is not considered as part of the subject lot in the review of the variance applications. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The proposed site plan is found sensitive to the surrounding landscape and will minimize impact to the two protected trees on site (Policy N-2.9, N-2.10). A one-story structure is located immediately adjacent 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp N City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 to the subject property. However, the proposed additions have appropriate scale and height to respect nearby structures and existing neighborhood character (Policy L-3.1, L-6.1). The proposed additions will preserve natural light exposure for nearby residences, conforming to current regulations for daylight planes and setbacks (Policy L-6.8). The project will rehabilitate a residence with historic merit by preserving its historic integrity consistent with the SOI Standards (Policy L-2.9, L-6.4, L-7.1, L-7.8). The project is consistent with the objectives and relevant policies in the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. The subject property is located within SOFA I. It is in a transitional area between R-2 and Detached Housing on Small Lots (DHS) zoning districts. The project, with increased living space, supports the City’s policy for a range of housing options for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles, and incomes in the neighborhood (Policy H-6). Through the requested Variance from the strict development standards, the project will reconfigure building footprint and massing to preserve significant trees (Policy DC-7). The project is designed to be consistent with the SOI standards, which will reinforce its original architectural style and use (Policy DC-9). Overall, the project is compatible with the historical patterns of the surrounding low-density residential areas and is generally consistent with the SOFA I objectives and policies. Zoning Compliance4 The purpose of R-2 zoning district is ‘to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate sites in areas designated for single-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use.’ (PAMC Chapter 18.10.010(b)). The project will maintain its original use as single-family residential and the proposed additions will be consistent with the existing architecture to preserve the essential character of single-family use. Although two dwelling unit is encouraged on appropriate sites within the area, the project site does not meet the minimum site area of 7,500 square feet established by the Comprehensive Plan (Housing Element) and R-2 zoning regulations, to permit additional residential units. Given the site constraints, the project is generally consistent with the purpose of R-2 zoning regulations. Variance Requests As noted, the PTC's purview for this project is the proposed variance for height and side yard setback encroachment. Attachment B provides a table to illustrate the project’s compliance with zoning standards. Height Variance The R-2 zoning regulation prohibits second floor additions on substandard lots and encourages expansion on the ground floor. One of the design options for this project is to allow a variance for lot coverage by placing the allowable expanded floor area on the ground floor. However, the subject property presents various site limitations for expansion on the ground floor. One of these expansion limitations is the tree protection zone (TPZ) of a 35 feet radius from the two protected trees at the rear side of the property. The applicant had initially proposed an optimal TPZ of 42 foot in radius that left no room for ground floor expansion. Urban Forestry Department staff, in accordance to the guidelines set forth in the City’s Tree Technical Manual, determined that a TPZ of 35 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 foot in radius would be appropriate for the preservation of the two protected trees. The City would typically allow a maximum of 25% infringement for a healthy tree. After considering prior impacts and existing intrusions to the root system within the TPZ area, the undisturbed area in this case is 27% (when typical practice is 75%). Staff determined the existing 27% of undisturbed area is crucial to maintain for the vitality of these trees. For the preservation of protected trees, staff supports the proposal to maximize lot coverage outside of the TPZ and construct the remaining amount of allowable floor area on the second floor with the request of a variance. The need to maintain the TPZ from further intrusions qualifies this project site as unique, which supports the findings for a variance. Along with the vegetation constraints, the other design challenge is providing adequate driveway clearance for access to the existing rear detached garage. The unique lot shape and vegetation impose constraints to the configuration and the size of horizontal expansion on the ground floor within rear part of the buildable area. As noted, the property is a substandard lot with a lot area and lot width that are less than the minimum lot requirement. The intent behind limiting development on a substandard lot to one-story development is to respect neighborhood character and scale, to mitigate privacy impacts and to preserve natural light for neighboring properties. Neighborhood Character and Scale The proposed exterior modifications and additions are in substantial compliance with the five Individual Review Guidelines for single-family homes. The primary goal of these guidelines is to promote new construction that is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. As conditioned, the project will preserve the original architectural style and features by complying with the ten SOI standards. Unlike other substandard lots, this site offers reasonable space for a second story addition that would meet the floor area, lot coverage, height and daylight planes limitations for a typical two-story home in the R-2 zoning district. Privacy Impact The Individual Review process addresses the issue of privacy impacts. The proposed second story windows are small in size and their placement is above five-foot sill height on both left and right elevations. These design elements will reduce the opportunities for direct sight lines onto adjacent properties. In addition, existing landscaping offers visual buffer and limits views from the rear-facing windows onto neighboring properties. Natural Light Preservation The proposed second floor addition is rectangular and is set back from the first-floor wall planes, so that massing is not highly expressed from all sides. The second-floor addition will be built within the required side and rear daylight planes at a height of about 26 feet 8 inches. The existing building height is 18 feet and the height limit for two-story development in the R-2 zoning district is 30 feet. The proposed height is lower than some nearby homes on this block and is compatible in massing with the adjacent one-story home at 836 Kipling Street. Side Yard Encroachment Variance The existing main residence is a noncomplying facility with a wall on the west elevation that is located 2’-6” within the required six-foot side setback. The project will replace one window on this existing wall. This replacement will not exceed the thresholds contained within PAMC Chapter 18.70.100, therefore the noncomplying wall may remain. Additionally, the project includes an approximate six-foot horizontal City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 extension to this existing 40 foot 6 inches wall to the rear part of the home, which will not be visible from the street. The proposed extension will not decrease privacy and the scale is compatible with the existing homes. This request would normally fit within the specific limits set forth for Home Improvement Exception (HIE). This setback encroachment is part of the variance request, because the project will alter more than 75% of the existing walls, including siding and cladding, which makes the project not eligible to request for HIE. Attachment D is the Director’s decision with findings and conditions for approval of the Variance. The variance findings in the code are as follows: (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography and surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Environmental Review The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) (Additions to existing structure). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on 2/14/2020, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on 2/12/2020, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, staff received written letters from both the hearing requestor (Attachment E) and the applicant (Attachment F). As this is not an appeal of a Variance, but a request for hearing of an application, staff has not presented a section to summarize the hearing requestor’s statement. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may recommend to the City Council: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC5 Liaison & Contact Information Christy Fong, Project Planner Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (408)340-5642 x 110 (650)329-2167 cfong@m-group.us Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Zoning Compliance Analysis (DOCX) • Attachment C: Initial Public Comments and Applicant’s Response Letters (PDF) • Attachment D: Director's Tentative Approval Letter (PDF) • Attachment E: Hearing Request Letter dated February 3, 2020 (PDF) • Attachment F: Applicant Letter dated February 3, 2020 (PDF) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 120-17-006 120-17-025 120-17-030 120-17-032 120-17-027 120-17-028 120-17-021 120-17-017 120-17-018 120-17-090 120-17-045 120-17-044 120-17-089 120-17-044 100.0' 51.7' 100.0' 51. 7' 10 0.0' 37.5' 100. 0'10 0.0' 37.5' 50.0' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50 . 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 112.5' 25. 7' 25. 0' 112.5' 25 . 0' 112.5' 39. 5' 75.0' 5.5' 50.0' 20. 0' 12.5' 25 . 0' 112.5' 112.5' 50. 0' 50.0' 112.5' 50. 0' 25 . 0' 12.5' 10 0.0' 50.0' 125. 0' 62.5' 12 5.0' 50.0' 125. 0' 50.0' 50 . 0' 112.5' 50. 0' 112.5'112.5' 50. 0' 112.5' 10 0.0' 50.0' 100. 0' 50.0' 13 5. 0' 135 . 0' 50.0' 13 5.0' 62.5' 135 . 0' 62.5' 42. 5' 42. 5' 125.0' 125.0' 50. 0' 125.0' 250.0' 50.0' 135. 0' 62.5' 100. 0' 75 1' 37. 9' ' 115.1' 15.1' 38. 0' 115.1' 115.1' 38.1' 48.3' 100.3' 48.3' 100.0' 85.5' 74.8'85.7' 75.0' 50.0' 80.2' 50.0' 80.0' 42.5' 125 .0' 125.0' 832 8 471 459 835 840836834 845 400 835-837 833 839 841 843 451 453 25915 440 428 426 483 865 857 441 441A 829 818-824 430 42 852A 85 62A 862 872 425 831 26 905 905 A 909 909A R E E T KIPLIN G S T R E ET C H A N NIN G DHS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes 0'57' 840 Kipling Street CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2019-02-06 18:21:18 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) Attachment A R-2 DHS Location Map ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS Development Standards for R-2 Zone District 840 Kipling Street / File No. 18PLN-00185 R-2 zone district Zone District Standards Existing Proposed Project Conformance Lot Area Min 6,000 sf 4,893 sf (81.55%) 4,893 sf (81.55%) Substandard Less than 4,980 sf 83% of minimum lot size Lot Width Min 60’ 39.5’ 39.5’ Substandard Less than 50’ Lot Depth Min 100’ 112.5’ with 12.5 ft extend in small portion 112.5’ with 12.5 ft extend in small portion Yes Minimum Building setback Front yard 10’ 12’ 12’ Yes Rear yard 20’ 50’ 45.5’ Yes Interior side yard (right) 6’ 3.5’ 3.5’ Variance Request for approximately 6’ horizontal extension Interior side yard (left) 6’ 8’ 8’ Yes Side daylight plane (side lot lines) Initial height (ft) 10 1/F roof ridge encroachment on both left and right sides 1/F roof ridge encroachment on both left and right sides No change from existing Angle (degrees) 45 Front and Rear daylight plane (front and rear setback line) Initial height (ft) 16 Yes Angle (degrees) 60 Maximum site coverage Single Story 40% 1,957.2 sf 31.2% 1,528.4 sf N/A N/A Multiple Story 35% 1,712.6 sf 31.2% 1,528.4 sf 35% 1,712.3 sf Yes Permitted area covered by patio or overhang 5% 244.7 sf 2.1% 103.29 sf 2.1% 103.29 sf Yes Maximum height 17’ and 1 habitable floor for substandard lot; 30’ for two story development 18’ 26’ – 8 ¼” Variance Request for height and habitable floor Maximum floor area ratio 45% 2,201.8 sf 31.2% 1,528.37 sf 45% 2,201.4 sf Yes Parking requirement 1 covered 1 uncovered 1 covered 1 uncovered 1 covered 1 uncovered Yes Law Offices Of Charles S. Bronitsky Telephone 533 Airport Blvd, Suite 328 Fax (650) 918-5760 Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 649-2316 www.bronitskylaw.com December 16, 2019 Via Email: Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Jonathan Lait, Director City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 840 Kipling Street - 18PLN-00185 Dear Jonathan: Hopefully you remember me from when we worked together on the relocation of the New Mozart School of Music from its prior location at the Baptist Church to its new and current location on El Camino Real. My thanks again to you and your staff for working with us and helping to find and expedite a mutually beneficial solution. I am writing today on behalf of Alexander Gubbens and Karen Han, owners of 441 Channing Avenue, in connection with the variance application submitted by the owners of 840 Kipling Street, their immediate neighbors. For a number of reasons, including those set forth below, we are asking that the City deny the variance application. 840 Kipling is zoned R-2, is a substandard lot, is part of the South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan Phase I (“SOFA I CAP”) and has been determined to be an historic property by the Historic Resources Board (“HRB”). The property owners are seeking a variance to allow the construction of a 489 square foot second story addition. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.10 contains the regulations that determine what can and cannot be built on 840 Kipling. Municipal Code § 18.10.040(a) provides that the minimum lot size for an R-2 zoned property is 6,000 square feet. The parcel at 840 Kipling is 4,893 square feet and is therefore a substandard lot under Municipal Code § 18.10.040(b). As a substandard lot the Municipal Code expressly provides that “[t]here shall be a limit of one habitable floor.” Municipal Code § 18.10.040(b)(1)(B)(ii). Thus, the law in Palo Alto is clear that no second story is allowed on a substandard lot in the R-2 zone. In addition, the house at 840 Kipling is also only 5.5 feet away from its nearest neighbor at 836 Kipling. Municipal Code § 18.10.050 which allows for additional extensions into existing setback requirement, also has no provisions that would allow a Attachment C Jonathan Lait, Director December 16, 2019 Page 2 structure with a height of 26 feet, 8.25 inches as is proposed in the plans submitted in this matter. It also appears from the submitted topographic survey, Plan Sheet C.0, that there is ample room in the rear yard of the property to construct an addition that would comply with the “one habitable floor” limit for a substandard lot in the R-2 zone. Additional space can also be found in the front yard where the current porch area could be converted into habitable space. In fact, in early correspondence with the assigned planner, my clients were told that the applicants would be required to fully expand the first floor before the City would even consider a variance for a second-floor addition. It does not appear, however, that such a policy was actually applied in this case. Turning to the issue of the requested variance, as a very experienced planner you are certainly aware that variances are very rare and require not only unusual but extraordinary circumstances to be granted. Frankly, having some thirty-three plus years of experience myself, I do not see the type of extraordinary circumstances required to approve a variance. In fact, the only thing that appears to be unusual about this property is that it is a substandard lot. That alone clearly should not be the basis for granting a variance, as it would render the Municipal Code requirements moot or worse, subject to the individual whim. As discussed above, the Municipal Code clearly states that in the R-2 zone only one habitable floor is allowed on a substandard lot and so the mere fact that the lot is substandard is already addressed and not sufficient by itself for the granting of a variance. The only other unique aspect of 840 Kipling that I could see from the material provided are the heritage trees in the rear yard. What is not clear, however, is the extent of the tree protection zone, as it appears that there is sufficient space in the rear yard to extend the current single story into the rear yard without coming into the tree protection zone. Moreover, the two new homes across the street from my clients, at 400 Channing, appear to have been built very close to the exiting heritage trees, in fact the rear structures on that property are only set back five feet from the rear property line despite the existence of heritage trees in that location. From the approved plans for the development of those homes it appears that the structure is about twenty-eight feet into the tree protection zone of what is a slightly larger tree. If the City is able to approve such construction at 400 Channing, then it should also be able to approve extending the single story at 840 Kipling further into its rear yard. Other than the substandard lot, which should not in and of itself be a factor, and the heritage trees which could be addressed in the same manner as they were addressed in the project at 400 Channing, I see no other extraordinary circumstances that would justify the granting of a variance in this matter. In an effort to see what has been done in similar situations, I performed a search on your Attachment C Jonathan Lait, Director December 16, 2019 Page 3 Building Eye application for the term “variance.” The search, which goes back to January 1, 2014 revealed only nine instances in which the term was even used and after looking at the details of each of these nine instances I found none in which a variance was granted in a similar situation. In fact, in almost all of these instances the variance application was denied and none of them presented facts as contrary to the existing Municipal Code as those presented in this instance. I also attempted to find the staff report as well as any prior staff reports or minutes from the HRB. I believe that 840 Kipling was the subject of an earlier decision by the HRB but was unable to locate that decision or the staff report. When I went to find the staff report for the December 12, 2019 HRB meeting on the property, all I was able to locate was the agenda, no staff report was available and given the recency of the meeting, no minutes were available either. As these reports and minutes may be important to an overall understanding of the property and its development, I would ask that they be provided and that we be given time to review and submit comments. Finally, it is my understanding that since 840 Kipling is located in the SOFA I CAP, I reviewed the 172-page report. It is my understanding that any new development in the area governed by that Report should be evaluated as to whether the proposed development complies with the policies set forth therein. In fact, in earlier correspondence with the previously assigned planner, my clients were told that such an analysis was going to be undertaken. If it has, then I would also request a copy of that as well. Having reviewed the SOFA I CAP Report myself it appears to me that the proposed addition at 840 Kipling does not comply with the policies established. The Report, in Chapter II states: “The livability and the walkability of the neighborhood will be preserved and enhanced through the provision of open space with a proposed neighborhood park, through the maintenance of pedestrian scale urban design improvements, the calming of traffic on area streets, and the creation of new housing for a variety of household types. The area's traditional grid street pattern, its historical buildings, its mature tree canopy, and its mix of land uses will also be preserved.” “Land vacated by PAMF adjacent to existing lower density residential uses on Channing Avenue between Waverley and Kipling Street will be developed with detached single family homes on small lots (typically 5,000 square feet) consistent with the existing development pattern of these neighborhoods. The Plan allows increased floor area ratios (FAR) as incentives to construct second units as accessory cottages in the rear of the property, usually beside or above the garage, or attached second units as found in many older Palo Alto neighborhoods. These second units will expand the range of available housing types and will increase the total number of housing units in the area.” Attachment C Jonathan Lait, Director December 16, 2019 Page 4 Housing and a mix of housing types seems a common theme of the Report. “The Plan has also addressed the City's desire to create housing for a variety of users beyond the traditional single family neighborhood. This interest has been furthered by the desire to maintain compatibility of land uses and density with the surroundings and has resulted in the plan facilitating a range of housing types. These include moderately- sized detached single family homes on small lots with or without rear cottages, multiple- family attached apartments and/or condominiums, and rental housing units in mixed use projects, along with provisions for the inclusion of special housing types such as affordable housing, senior housing, or co-housing.” Chapter III(C) (emphasis added). This is specifically addressed in Policy H-2 which calls for lower density housing in the area where 840 Kipling is located with increased density closer to downtown and Alma Street. This policy of preserving neighborhoods and having a broad variety of residential unit types would be violated by allowing the variance requested by the applicant. One need not look very far to see that small detached “starter homes” like what is currently located at 840 Kipling are being developed into larger, more expensive and less affordable homes at an alarming rate. Allowing the type of development requested by the variance application in this case will only serve to reduce the pool of “starter homes” in Palo Alto by yet one more, making it difficult, if not impossible for young people and young families to own anything other than a condominium. A pool of “starter homes” is essential for diversity and opportunity and from my reading of the SOFA I CAP Report, a clear and strong policy adopted by the City of Palo Alto. At the very least that issue should be evaluated, and a determination made as to whether yet one more overbuilt lot is a better community option than stabilizing the already limited pool of “starter homes.” In general, I see very little here that would support the granting of a variance in this instance. There is nothing exceptional about the particular lot or situation and the neighborhood is already much denser than current zoning requirements would allow. Making it even more dense by granting a variance for no compelling reason is, in my opinion, poor policy. It also makes it problematic for other residents who select particular properties to purchase understanding what can and what cannot be built in adjacent areas. Allowing what is prohibited by the current law be built by the granting of a variance, undermines these expectations and creates problems where none would exist by the simple application of the existing laws. Thank you for reading and considering our concerns. I am currently away but back on December 23 if you think that perhaps meeting with me, with or without my clients, would be beneficial. Attachment C Jonathan Lait, Director December 16, 2019 Page 5 Thank you, Charles S. Bronitsky Attorney at Law Attachment C 1 Fong, Christy From:Stephen Reyna <stephencreyna@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 30, 2019 6:46 PM To:christylmfong@gmail.com Cc:Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Steve Reyna; Martin Bernstein Subject:Response to Charles Bronitsky's letter of December 16, 2019 concerning the 840 Kipling Variance Application Dear Jonathan and Christy,  Thank you for sharing the letter dated December 16, 2019 you’ve received from Charles Bronitsky, the attorney  representing the owners of 441 Channing Avenue.  Mr. Bronitsky is requesting that the City deny our variance  application for a second habitable floor at 840 Kipling Street.  We are writing at this time as a response to Mr.  Bronitsky’s letter and the issues he brings up with our application for a variance for a modest second story addition.   Mr. Bronitsky repeatedly asserts that he does not see the conditions necessary to support a variance  application.  However, in looking over this letter, it is apparent that Mr. Bronitsky is not familiar with our proposed  project, the extraordinary conditions that affect 840 Kipling, the SOFA CAP, or the historic rehabilitation standards.   As per City of Palo Alto Planning Department website “A Variance is an entitlement granted to property owners to  provide relief from certain zoning regulations when a property has special physical constraints, or when the zoning  regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not  normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district.” Any property owner in any zoning district has the  right to apply for a variance if the necessary findings set forth by Palo Alto Municipal Code can be made.  We believe that we do have a strong case for making the findings that support the variance application for 840 Kipling  and that we have worked very hard to meet the City’s requirements.  We had a preliminary meeting to review feasibility  of a variance before we started our project. From then on, we acted on and satisfied every requirement raised by the  Planning department as a necessary precondition before they would consider our variance request.    These include:  1. Expanding the first floor to the Site Coverage Limit before putting the remaining FAR on the second floor,  2. Moving the second story as far back as possible and away from the street view,  3. Lowering the height,  4. Retaining the historic cross‐gable roof and some of the original windows and doors to satisfy the Secretary  of the Interior’s Standards,  5. Getting an arborist report that shows the impact of all structures around the protected trees  We believe we have fully complied with all the requirements of the PAMC in our application.  We would like to address specific issues raised and claims made by Mr. Bronitsky one by one.  SUBSTANDARD LOT  In the last paragraph of the first page, Mr. Bronitsky cites Municipal Code 18.10.40 as the basis for 840 Kipling being  considered a substandard lot and, therefore, not allowed to have a second habitable floor.  However, we are allowed to  apply for a variance, as any property owner is.  And, we are allowed to have a second habitable floor if we can meet the  necessary findings for a variance, as we believe we can.   840 Kipling St. is effectively a conforming 5005.5 sq.ft. lot.  As such, it would not have required a variance for a second  story.  A small 112.5 sq.ft. easement contributes to making 840 Kipling an effectively conforming lot combined with the  Attachment C 2 4893 sq.ft. of the existing lot. The easement is exclusive use, exists in perpetuity, and can be found in the County  Records.  This is a significant special condition that contributes to the findings for a variance.    We would note that the owners of 441 Channing Ave are well aware of the existence of this easement, since it was the  subject of multiple conversations between us while we were exploring the possibilities of an addition, and prior to our  engaging an architect.  SETBACK ENCROACHMENT  On the last paragraph of page 1, Mr. Bronitsky also cites Municipal Code 18.10.050 related to allowed encroachments  into setbacks and then claims that a proposed structure with a height of 26 feet 8.25 inches is not permitted as an  encroachment.    There are no structures of that height located in any setbacks, front, rear, or side.  The ridgeline of the second story  addition is the only part of the house with a height of 26 feet 8.25 inches.  This ridgeline is located 20 feet from the  shared property line with 836 Kipling.  The proposed second story addition is located entirely within the Daylight Plane  with not even the eaves extending through the plane.  It is located nowhere near any setbacks.  FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AND TREE PROTECTION ZONE  In the first paragraph of page 2, Mr. Bronitsky refers to the survey on Plan Sheet C.0 stating that there appears to be  ample room to extend into the rear yard.  He also questions whether the applicants were actually asked by the City to  fully expand the first floor before considering a second story variance, as his clients were told by the assigned  planner.  In the third paragraph of page 2, Mr. Bronitsky claims that the extent of the Tree Protection Zone is not clear  and there appears to be sufficient room to extend the current single story into the rear yard without coming into the  Tree Protection Zone.  Yes, we have been asked by the City to expand the first floor to the Site Coverage Limit before a second story variance  would be considered.  We have worked very hard to meet the City’s requirements.  Comparing our first plan submission  to the current plan set, it can be seen that we have taken 151 sq.ft. from the second story addition and applied it to the  first story.  We have extended the first story 4’‐6” towards the rear to maximize Lot Coverage up to the 35% limit for R‐2  zoning (not counting the front porch) as required by Planning.  We have also reduced the height of the second story  addition by 1’‐2” as compared to our first plan set.  The Tree Protection Zone for the two protected redwood trees in the rear of our property is not shown on the survey on  Plan Sheet C.0, but is clearly identified on Plan Sheet A1.0.  It can be seen that the first floor comes very close to the TPZ  boundary.  Planning has been very consistent about the TPZ requirements with respect to the protected trees on 840 Kipling.  For a  given Tree Protection Zone as defined by the Tree Ordinance, Planning allows an intrusion of up to 25% of the area of  the TPZ.  As clearly documented on Plan Sheet T2, the TPZ area of the protected trees on 840 Kipling are already  impacted by 73%, far in excess of the allowed 25% intrusion.  The Forestry Department does not support additional  intrusion into the TPZ.  Mr. Bronitsky mentions new construction at 400 Channing Avenue, where homes have been built very close to existing  heritage trees, and that if the city can approve something like 400 Channing, it should be able to approve something  similar for 840 Kipling to extend the first floor further into its rear yard.  We’ve seen the construction at 400 Channing and the proximity of the structures to the trees there.  It does not match  the clear direction given to us by the City.  We don’t know the TPZ conditions of 400 Channing, but we don’t think it’s  appropriate to be asked to replicate what looks to be a problematic situation.  Every application should be decided upon  based on its own merits.  CONVERSION OF THE FRONT PORCH TO HABITABLE SPACE  Attachment C 3 In the first paragraph of page 2, Mr. Bronitsky suggests that the front porch can be converted into additional habitable  space.  Preservation of what can be seen from the public right of way and, in particular, the front façade, is one of the  important objectives of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.  The front porch has been in its current  form since before 1924.  Converting this porch into habitable space would be in direct conflict with the Standards.  We have worked very hard to be in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and our current plans meet 10  out of the 10 criteria in the Standards, according to Page & Turnbull, the city’s historic consultant.  The HRB also recently  gave us a unanimous vote of approval in the December 12, 2019 hearing.  Mr. Bronitsky’s suggestion is in complete  conflict with how an historic resource should be rehabilitated.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOFA 1 CAP   Starting with the third paragraph of page 3 and continuing through the second paragraph of page 4, Mr. Bronitsky  quotes some passages from SOFA 1 CAP Overview Chapter II (A) Land Use Pattern Transition, a passage from Policies  Chapter III (C) Housing, and refers to policy H‐2 from Chapter III (C)(1) Housing Quantity and Density. Mr. Bronitsky then  cites these quotes as evidence that the proposed second story addition is not in compliance with the SOFA 1 CAP.  The  problem, though, is that the policies cited refer to the general vision for new development on the land vacated by PAMF  and to the establishment of new lots and associated zoning that also includes 441 Channing, not to housing that existed  prior to the SOFA CAP.   The first paragraph he cites, from Chapter II (A) Land Use Pattern Transition, includes the text “and the  creation of new housing for a variety of household types.”, emphasis added.   The second paragraph he cites, from Chapter II (A)(i) Land Use Pattern Transition, starts with the sentence  “Land vacated by PAMF adjacent to existing lower density residential uses on Channing Avenue between  Waverley and Kipling Street will be developed with detached single family homes on small lots (typically 5,000  square feet) consistent with the existing development pattern of these neighborhoods.”, emphasis added.  The  Detached Single Family Homes on Small Lots referred to is the DHS zoning introduced as a part of the SOFA  CAP.  The land vacated by PAMF referred to in the quote is the former PAMF staff parking lot that used to be  adjacent to 840 Kipling.  This land was assigned DHS zoning, and now includes 441 Channing.   The third paragraph he cites, from Chapter III (C) Housing, also contains the text “These include moderately  sized detached single family homes on small lots with or without rear cottages,”, emphasis added. This is  another direct reference to DHS zoning.   Policy H‐2, cited by Mr. Bronitsky, is located in SOFA CAP Chapter III (C)(1) Housing Quantity and Density.  It  follows Policy H‐1 which states: “Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the Plan Area, with  residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF sites.”, emphasis added.  The general  transition in housing density mentioned in Policy H‐2 starting from the corner where 840 Kipling is located refers  to the DHS zoned single family homes.  The increased density closer to downtown and Alma Street refers to  Multi‐family condominiums at Homer and Bryant and Channing and Bryant streets. The fact that Policy H‐2 has a  portion of it marked “To Be Implemented in Phase 2” also highlights how it refers to new housing introduced by  SOFA.     We’ve lived in our home since 1998 and are very familiar with the SOFA CAP as we were one of the most affected pre‐ existing properties in the SOFA Plan Area by the much denser development that SOFA CAP introduced. SOFA CAP  policies included more and denser new housing.  It is clear that the intent of the policies Mr. Bronitsky cited was actually  to establish new single family residential properties with DHS zoning on former PAMF sites.  441 Channing is one of  these lots.  Mr. Bronitsky’s argument that 840 Kipling’s variance application conflicts with these policies stands in  contradiction with their clear intent as documented in the SOFA CAP.     The treatment of existing zoning designations is also clearly defined on page 83 of the SOFA CAP where it is stated that  “Development within portions of the Plan Area which retain their existing land use and zoning designations will follow  the review process established by the PAMC and will not be subject to the policies and programs included in the  Coordinated Area Plan”, emphasis added.  The policies that Mr. Bronitsky mentions do not apply to 840 Kipling, which  Attachment C 4 was and is zoned R‐2. There is no conflict between the 840 Kipling variance application and the broader policies and  intent of the SOFA CAP.     “OVERBUILT” & “STARTER HOMES”     In the second paragraph on page 4, after citing various quotes from the SOFA 1 CAP, Mr. Bronitsky then goes on to  discuss a general housing issue about unaffordable “starter homes” in Palo Alto, asserts that the 840 Kipling variance  application would negatively impact the available pool of “starter homes”, and seeks to characterize the end result of  the 840 Kipling variance as “yet one more overbuilt lot”.     840 Kipling St. is zoned R‐2 and has a maximum allowed FAR of 0.45.  With this application, we are seeking to be able to  use the maximum allowed FAR.  We are adding a total of 673 sq.ft. split between first and second stories.  This project,  by any reasonable measure, is modest and limited in scope.  The primary issue that Mr. Bronitsky and his clients have  focused on is the 489 sq.ft. second story addition.     As shown on the Streetscape, on Plan Sheet A2.0, the second story addition is limited and set into the mass of the house  to minimize impact on the street and neighbors.  It is clear that 840 Kipling with its proposed addition fits well within the  scale and character of the existing neighborhood, and has less height and massing than some of those original buildings.     441 Channing is zoned DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots), which is a denser zoning designation introduced by the  SOFA CAP as a part of redeveloping the former PAMF sites.  By having a detached accessory unit, 441 Channing is  allowed a maximum FAR of 0.65, as opposed to a maximum FAR of 0.45 for R‐2 zoned 840 Kipling.  DHS has no Site  Coverage Limit as opposed to a Site Coverage Limit of 0.35 for R‐2.  According to the zoning regulation, DHS is supposed  to have a maximum lot size of 5000 sq.ft.  441 Channing is actually the single largest residential DHS lot in the SOFA Plan  Area with 6411 sq.ft. and is fully built out to 0.65 FAR and a height of 29 feet.     With a built out FAR of 0.65 on the single largest DHS lot in the SOFA Plan Area, the scale and massing of 441 Channing  dwarfs the properties around it.  840 Kipling exists as a transition zone between the intense scale and density of 441  Channing on the one side to the less dense R‐2 homes along Kipling on the other.  Being a transition zone is actually  another special condition of the property that helps support the findings for a second story variance for 840 Kipling.       It is impossible to understand how Mr. Bronitsky could reasonably argue that a modest 489 sq.ft. second story addition  to 840 Kipling that fits well within the existing neighborhood scale and character could possibly be considered  “overbuilt” and a threat to the affordability of “starter homes”.     Mr. Bronitsky also contradicts his earlier assertions that 840 Kipling can expand on the first floor, just not the second  floor.  In either case, 840 Kipling would expand and become, in Mr. Bronitsky’s words, “yet one more overbuilt lot”.  This  highlights that the affordability of “starter homes” is not really the focus of the arguments made against the application  for the second story variance.       CONCLUSION     Mr. Bronitsky repeatedly asserts in his letter that he sees nothing in the application that would warrant the granting of a  variance. And yet, throughout his letter, Mr. Bronitsky has shown that he is not familiar with the 840 Kipling plan details,  the many special circumstances of the property that support findings for the variance, the policy and code implications  of some of his claims and suggestions as they apply to 840 Kipling, as well as the context and meaning for various  policies he has referred to while seeking the denial of the application.  He also contradicts himself as he makes some  arguments.      We believe that we have a strong case, with a plan and findings that satisfy the requirements for granting a variance for  a second story.  We have worked diligently to meet the City’s requirements and the requirements of the Secretary of  Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Resources.  From the beginning, our goal has been a modest addition to  Attachment C 5 our house that maintains its existing historic character and fits in well with the existing neighborhood.  We believe we  have achieved that goal.  We engaged in neighbor outreach from the beginning, including outreach to the owners of 441  Channing before we even hired an architect for our project.  All the other neighbors support our project, including 836  Kipling, a single‐story house that is separated from ours by only 5.5 feet.  The owners of 441 Channing are the lone  exception and they have not offered any issue of substance against the granting of the variance.     We ask that you support our application and grant a variance for a second story for 840 Kipling. Thank you for your  consideration.     Regards,     Steve Reyna & Aysen Kutlu  Attachment C Dear Christy, We were very saddened to hear about the continuing opposition to our project by the owners of 441 Channing Street, Sander Gubbens & Karen Han. Even before we hired an architect, we made efforts at outreach as good neighbors. As we were moving through the design and variance process, we made additional efforts, both direct and through our architect, to hear their concerns, to share our evolving plans, and to share our efforts to accommodate their concerns as best we could. Most efforts were rejected. Their position was very simple and communicated directly to us: They did not want a second story to interfere with their views across our property. Before getting into comments about the specific issues mentioned in the emails from Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han, we would like to highlight that the owners of 441 Channing are a minority of one. Other immediate neighbors which share a property line with 840 Kipling have sent in letters of support for our project, as well as the property owner directly across the street from 840 Kipling (453 Channing), and Kipling neighbors on the same block face. This includes the owners of 836 Kipling, whose house is only 5.5’ away from our house at 840 Kipling. We have their full support. In the various letters to the city, Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han repeatedly highlighted the following concerns: ➢ Loss of views ➢ Loss of privacy ➢ Loss of light ➢ 840 Kipling has “no right to a second story in violation of building codes” ➢ 840 Kipling has “no right to take value from our property [441 Channing] for the benefit of theirs” We would like to address these one by one. LOSS OF VIEWS • When we purchased our house at 840 Kipling in 1998, the lot adjacent to our property was the staff parking lot for PAMF. This lot was redeveloped as a part of the SOFA 1 by Summerhill Homes. At that time, four 40+ foot Canary Island pine trees existed along the fence line for the portion now occupied by 441 Channing. • Because of issues related to privacy and compatibility, a Director’s Hearing was held for SOFA I Block E, which includes 441 Channing, on March 8, 2001. One of the decisions made by Ed Gawf, the Director of Planning at that time, was that retention of those four Canary Island pine trees was a condition of approval for 441 Channing in order to provide screening for privacy for our house. • In 2007, Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han became the second owners of 441 Channing. Those four 40+ foot pine trees were present when they purchased their house. • In 2009, Mr. Gubbens approached us asking if they can remove the pine trees because they were a maintenance issue for them. They had become a maintenance issue for us as well, so we agreed to let him remove the pine trees and replace them with new screening trees. It was at this point that Mr. Gubbens was first able to enjoy the view across 840 Kipling. • With the removal of the pine trees, our house at 840 Kipling suffered a significant loss of privacy from the second story windows of 441 Channing. They had views into both bedrooms, the bathroom, and the living room. As good neighbors, we were willing to allow time for the trees to grow and restore the privacy screen. After 10 years, 840 Kipling still suffers the same loss of privacy in all mentioned rooms. The replacement trees are currently providing little to no privacy Attachment C screening. The replacement trees never grew tall enough or filled in enough to provide screening. • In their objection to this project, Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han insist that the city should not let us build a second story because that would deprive them of their views across our property at 840 Kipling from their second story windows. It seems very disingenuous for Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han to insist on retaining views across 840 Kipling that they themselves created by cutting down the required screening trees between 441 Channing and 840 Kipling. LOSS OF PRIVACY • Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han claimed at one point about a loss of privacy from the proposed project. • Our project has passed Individual Review, for which privacy between neighbors is a major criteria. The two second story windows on the East Side facing 441 Channing have a sill height of 5’. • As mentioned above, though, we have suffered a major loss of privacy in our home when Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han removed the preexisting screening trees and their replacement trees still haven’t provided any meaningful screening after 10 years. It is completely within Mr. Gubbens’ & Ms. Han’s power to resolve both their future concerns and our current issues related to loss of privacy by providing appropriate screening trees to replace the required screening trees that they removed. LOSS OF LIGHT • Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han claim a loss of light from the proposed project. • The proposed second story addition fits entirely within the daylight plane. Not even the eaves are projecting through the plane. • Our addition fully meets the zoning requirements that protect a neighbor’s available light. • As a side note, the house at 441 Channing is located about 37 feet away from our house at 840 Kipling. 840 KIPLING HAS “NO RIGHT TO A SECOND STORY IN VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODES” • Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han have made this claim multiple times. • We are requesting a Variance for a second story addition. A Variance is a legal option available to any homeowner. We are not violating any codes by applying for a Variance. We are in fact operating within the municipal code by doing so. We have a unique situation, a physical condition, related to our property such that the strict application of the zoning creates an unnecessary hardship. The Variance is the only option that will enable us to use the allowed FAR to make a modest addition to our house. Our application is in harmony with the general intent and purposes of the code. • City Planner, Claire Hodgkins, also informed Mr. Gubbens by email on June 26, 2018, that the Variance process is a part of the municipal code and that we have the right to apply for one. He knows that we are following a legal process with our application. Attachment C 840 KIPLING HAS “NO RIGHT TO TAKE VALUE FROM OUR PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIRS” • Mr. Gubbens & Ms. Han have made this claim multiple times. • When Summerhill Homes redeveloped the PAMF parking lot next to 840 Kipling, they built four large two-story houses with granny unit-garage combinations on two sides of our property. These houses were zoned DHS, a much denser zoning than the R-2 zoning of 840 Kipling. Our house, which used to have views of green on the parking lot sides is now surrounded by large dense construction. Despite that, the property value of 840 Kipling did not suffer, rather it increased. • It is hard to imagine that a modest addition to 840 Kipling, which will increase its property value, will do anything other than increase the property values for the houses around it, including 441 Channing. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Regards, -Steve Reyna & Aysen Kutlu Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Law Offices Of Charles S. Bronitsky Telephone 533 Airport Blvd, Suite 326 Fax (650) 918-5760 Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 649-2316 www.bronitskylaw.com February 3, 2020 Planning and Traffic Commission City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 840 Kipling Street - 18PLN-00185 Dear Chair and PTC Members: I am writing today on behalf of Alexander Gubbens and Karen Han, owners of 441 Channing Avenue, in connection with the variance and Historic Resource applications submitted by the owners of 840 Kipling Street, their immediate neighbors. The owners of 840 Kipling are seeking a variance to add a 489 square foot second story to their property. The applications have been conditionally approved by City Staff. Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han want to make it clear that they do not oppose an addition. Rather, they oppose a second story addition for the simple reason that the ground floor has ample space on which to build an addition, whereas a second story requires a variance and would be injurious to the value and enjoyment of the Gubbens/Han home. It is important to note at the outset that Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han first informed the owners of 840 Kipling of their opposition to a second story addition in January 2016 and proactively informed the City’s Planning Department of their concerns back in May 2017, more than a year before any plans were even submitted. Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han have, since the very beginning, supported an addition on the ground floor. Despite this, the property owners have steadfastly refused to look at options available to them that would avoid a second story and use more of the ground floor. From various written communication Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han have seen they are further concerned that the owners of 840 Kipling were not required to fully study a number of feasible alternatives to a second story addition but were instead required to make only minor revisions to their design and obtain conditional approval of their proposed second- story addition. Since a variance should be a last resort, City Staff should have required additional studies be done. Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han believe, as shown below, that such a zoning-compliant reward Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 2 expansion is highly feasible and should be explored. Thus, we are asking that the PTC deny the variance. 840 Kipling is zoned R-2 which Zone is entitled “Low Density Residential”. 840 Kipling is also part of the South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan Phase I (“SOFA I CAP”) and has been determined to be an historic property by the Historic Resources Board (“HRB”). Within the R-2 zone 840 Kipling, is a substandard lot meaning that it is less than 50 feet wide and the total area of the lot is less than 83% of the minimum lot size. (Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.10.040(b)(1)(A)). Thus, to even be classified as a substandard lot is already a statement that the lot is very small. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.10 contains the regulations that determine what can and cannot be built on 840 Kipling. § 18.10.040(a) provides that the minimum lot size for an R-2 zoned property is 6,000 square feet. The parcel at 840 Kipling is 4,893 square feet and is therefore a substandard lot under Municipal Code § 18.10.040(b). Moreover, at thirty-nine (39) feet, the width of the 840 Kipling lot is less than 80% of the minimum fifty- foot width required in the Palo Alto Municipal Code for a standard lot in the R-2 Zone. Thus, when viewing the property from the street, the proposed remodeled home all but overwhelms the substandard lot size. As a substandard lot the Municipal Code expressly provides that “[t]here shall be a limit of one habitable floor.” Municipal Code § 18.10.040(b)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Thus, the law in Palo Alto is clear that no second story is allowed on a substandard lot in the R-2 zone. Because of that limitation, the property owner applied for a variance. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.76.030(c) (1) (A) specifically states that “Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are . . . The personal circumstances of the property owner.” However, in arguing in favor of their request for a variance to build a second story, the property owners made it expressly clear that the need for the second story addition was driven entirely by personal circumstances. As the property owner told the City Staff: “We were actually looking originally for a three bedroom two bathrooms so that we could have some space to grow in because we were looking for a family. Then when we walked into 840 Kipling this was home. This was the first home we’d walked into that just grabbed us and said this is where we want to live. You know it’s smaller than we wanted but the beauty of it the charm of it just made our decision when we walked in … Now we’ve been there 20 years. We now have a teenage son we have two aging moms that want to visit and take of as best we can and this two in one is just not working." Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 3 While it is understandable that the property owner wants a larger home than the one purchased due to family concerns, the fact is that such personal issues are not a proper consideration for the granting of a variance. “Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are . . . The personal circumstances of the property owner.” Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.76.030(c) (1) (A). Thus, whether or not the property owner’s family is getting larger is not a proper basis on which to grant a variance. In addition, the house at 840 Kipling is also only 3.5 feet away from the property line with its nearest neighbor at 836 Kipling versus the 6-foot interior side yard setback that is required. 836 Kipling, also a substandard lot, has only a 2.5 ft side yard setback with 840 Kipling and no side yard setback at all with 834 Kipling. 836 in fact overhangs 2 ft into 834’s lot! 840 and 836 together have only 6 ft of interior side yard setbacks, far short of the total 18 ft (3 x 6 ft) required by current zoning. This section of Kipling is already far too densely developed. This overall configuration should have been given significant consideration by City Staff, but it does not appear from the January 15, 2020 letter that it did. Plan Sheet C.0 of the plans submitted for 840 Kipling, shows that there is ample room in the rear yard of the property to construct an addition that would comply with the “one habitable floor” limit for a substandard lot in the R-2 zone. It appears from the Findings, that one of the primary features about this property that make it appropriate for a variance, at least according to City Staff, is the thirty-five foot (35’) Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). In fact, the property owner has pointed out that the intrusion into the Tree Protection Zone is already seventy-three percent according to Plan Sheet T2. What the property owner neglects to address is that most of the intrusion is from structures owned by neighbors, including a neighboring home, cottage and garage. All of these structures intrude much further than the property owners would even if they built the entire addition in the rear yard! Moreover, it appears that there was no attempt to look at whether there were roots in the area where a ground floor addition could be built and whether or not those roots could be cut or blocked without harming the tree. Again, why such a study was not required prior to staff conditionally granting a variance is unknown. The property owners also do not address that back in 2013 they dug a trench and cut major roots within feet of the very trees that they now claim are so sensitive and important to protect! Finally, neither the City nor the property owner address that just on the other side of the Gubbens/Han property, at 400 Channing, new development with basements was allowed wherein the new homes all but touch a number of protected oak and redwood trees!! There were three different reports prepared by the property owner relating to the TPZ. One concludes that it should be twenty-five feet, another thirty-five feet and another 42 feet! Clearly this is not an exact science and given how close other structures, including Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 4 the garage at the property, are to the trees, some additional consideration, engineering and study could have and should have been done to determine whether the entire addition could be built in the real yard. As to the TPZ being a critical aspect for granting the variance, as suggested by the Findings, there is no explanation for how those findings are consistent with even just the three new construction projects nearest to the property that received City approval. 441 Channing was built with a basement within 10 feet of a large protected oak tree. 458 Channing was built deep into the TPZ of an even larger protected oak tree than the trees on 840 Kipling. The development at 400 Channing is right now finishing two new homes with basements within 10 feet of a number of protected oak and redwood trees. All of the trees at 400, 458 and 441 Channing continue to do very well despite the far more significant intrusion into the tree protection zone on those properties than is being considered here! In addition, in early correspondence with the assigned planner, Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han were promised that the applicants would be required to fully expand the first floor before the City would even consider a variance for a second-floor addition. It does not appear, however, that such a policy was meaningully applied in this case. Every substandard lot presents special circumstances and so under that rationale, every substandard lot should be granted a variance to allow construction not in conformance with existing law. However, other than the substandard lot, which should not in and of itself be a factor, and the heritage trees which could be addressed in the same manner as they were addressed in the three most recent projects closest to 840 Kipling at 441, 458 and 400 Channing, there are really no other extraordinary circumstances that would justify the granting of a variance in this matter. The January 15, 2020 decision letter states: The purpose of the granting of a variance, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.030(a) is to provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulation would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the vicinity and same zoning district. The term “and same zoning district” in this case must be used when comparing to other substandard lots, not to other standard lots. Of course, substandard lots have their limitations, that is why the designation exists and that is why certain types of development, such as the development being proposed here, are prohibited. The constraints imposed by zoning rules for substandard lots cannot be used as the argument to ignore them. Allowing that argument would render any zoning regulations irrelevant. Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 5 The Findings also claim that the granting of the application does not constitute a grant of special privilege. As noted above, however, many projects have been approved that clearly have structures built well within the TPZ and clearly structures, including mostly neighboring structures, were built in the TPZ of the trees on this property. Back in 2013, the City allowed the property owners of 840 Kipling to trench and cut roots within feet of the trees. There is, however, no finding that root cutting would even be required were the entire addition to be constructed in the rear yard. In addition, the initial historical study, which will be discussed in more detail below, opposed the project as submitted and recommended a rear one-and-one-half story addition to reduce the overall impact that the proposed construction would have on the historical aspects of the home. There appears to have been no effort at all to study that option. The granting of a variance should require extraordinary circumstances. In an effort to see what has been done in similar situations, a search on the City of Palo Alto’s Building Eye application was done for the term “variance.” The search, which goes back to January 1, 2014 revealed only nine instances in which the term was even used and after looking at the details of each of these nine instances there were none in which a variance was granted in a similar situation. In fact, in almost all of these instances the variance application was denied and none of them presented facts as contrary to the existing Municipal Code as those presented in this instance. Thus, it appears that this application was, for some reason, treated more favorably than most others. That should not happen. In this case the owners of 840 Kipling and the City Staff appear to have gone out of their way to use the TPZ as the very reason to justify a second story addition. In addition, as noted above, the property owners were never required to do a fuller study and better explore a ground-floor only addition. Allowing the second story addition based on the TPZ would be treating this property different from the treatment afforded to others. One need only look only at the nearest three other projects at 441, 458 and 400 Channing where the construction was allowed deep into many TPZs. The fact is that even if the full 673 square foot addition that the 840 Kipling property owners desire is built on the ground floor, the intrusion into the TPZ would be significantly less than what was allowed at 400 Channing, 458 Channing and 441 Channing. Also conveniently ignored are the existing deck and back yard hard surfaces that could readily be for a rearward expansion with no impact on the trees. Turning next to the review by the HRB which is referenced in the Findings, the original March 19, 2019 report the City commissioned from Page & Turnbull specifically recommended against allowing the proposed development: Overall, the project as currently designed does not appear to be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATIONS Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 6 This section includes recommendations to better comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: • Consider a rear, one-and-a-half story addition, rather than a second story addition, which would have a more minimal impact on the historic roofline and form of the residence When compared to the second report which recommended approval, it is readily clear that there were very few changes. Moreover, as noted above, alternatives such as a rear one- and-one-half story addition were completely disregarded. In fact, all that changed were a few windows and a few exterior treatments, but when the plans for the proposed house with the new addition is compared to the existing house, it seems that there was a significant disregard for the fact that the structure has historic significance. Additionally problematic, is the fact that the property owners were represented at the HRB by its chair. While it appears that he obtained a letter saying that the Fair Political Practices Act did not prohibit him from representing the property owner, the fact is that it presents the appearance of unfair practice. I spent four years as a Planning Commissioner and then nine years as a member of the Foster City City Counsel with two terms as mayor. Much like you, I took the required ethics programs and from those I remember, and hope you do as well, that what is legal is not necessarily what is ethical. Appearance of impropriety can often be as problematic as actual impropriety. In this case, Mr. Bernstein first sat as the Chair of an HRB meeting and then stepped down to recuse himself to represent the property owners in a hearing before the very same body. In fact, the original minutes of the meeting refer to him as Chair Bernstein even though he had recused himself. Later, the minutes were changed to refer to him as Mr. Bernstein. If City Staff was confused as to his role, imagine how the public and other interested parties must have felt. While perhaps this is not the forum to address this issue, it seems to be an issue that should be addressed as the public and residents have a right to have an unbiased government and for their processes and hearings to appear unbiased as well. Finally, 840 Kipling is located in the SOFA I CAP, and so that too is relevant to the Findings and is therefore addressed therein. Having reviewed the SOFA I CAP Report myself it appears to me that the proposed addition at 840 Kipling does not comply with the policies established. The Report, in Chapter II states: “The livability and the walkability of the neighborhood will be preserved and enhanced through the provision of open space with a proposed neighborhood park, through the maintenance of pedestrian scale urban design improvements, the calming of traffic on area streets, and the creation of new housing for a variety of household types. The area's traditional grid street pattern, its historical buildings, its mature tree canopy, and its mix of land uses will also be preserved.” Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 7 “Land vacated by PAMF adjacent to existing lower density residential uses on Channing Avenue between Waverley and Kipling Street will be developed with detached single family homes on small lots (typically 5,000 square feet) consistent with the existing development pattern of these neighborhoods. The Plan allows increased floor area ratios (FAR) as incentives to construct second units as accessory cottages in the rear of the property, usually beside or above the garage, or attached second units as found in many older Palo Alto neighborhoods. These second units will expand the range of available housing types and will increase the total number of housing units in the area.” Housing and a mix of housing types seems a common theme of the Report. “The Plan has also addressed the City's desire to create housing for a variety of users beyond the traditional single family neighborhood. This interest has been furthered by the desire to maintain compatibility of land uses and density with the surroundings and has resulted in the plan facilitating a range of housing types. These include moderately- sized detached single family homes on small lots with or without rear cottages, multiple- family attached apartments and/or condominiums, and rental housing units in mixed use projects, along with provisions for the inclusion of special housing types such as affordable housing, senior housing, or co-housing.” Chapter III(C) (emphasis added). This is specifically addressed in Policy H-2 which calls for lower density housing in the area where 840 Kipling is located with increased density closer to downtown and Alma Street. This policy of preserving neighborhoods and having a broad variety of residential unit types would be violated by allowing the variance requested by the applicant. One need not look very far to see that small detached “starter homes” like what is currently located at 840 Kipling are being developed into larger, more expensive and less affordable homes at an alarming rate. Allowing the type of development requested by the variance application in this case will only serve to reduce the pool of “starter homes” in Palo Alto by yet one more, making it difficult, if not impossible for young people and young families to own anything other than a condominium. A pool of “starter homes” is essential for diversity and opportunity and from my reading of the SOFA I CAP Report, a clear and strong policy adopted by the City of Palo Alto. At the very least that issue should be evaluated, and a determination made as to whether yet one more overbuilt lot is a better community option than stabilizing the already limited pool of “starter homes.” As stated above, the granting of a variance should require exceptional circumstances. It seems from the initial application itself that the basis for the addition consisted of circumstances personal to the property owners, which is circumstances are under the Palo Alto Municipal Code expressly excluded from consideration. It also appears from the January 15, 2020 that the primary factor relied up by City Staff was the Tree Protection Zone. As discussed above in detail, further study could have an should have been done. In addition, the City has been inconsistent in applying the TPZ ordinance, allowing a Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 8 number of developments in the neighborhood to be built well into the TPZ. At the very least, credible further study should be done. The January 15, 2020 decision letter also seems to disregard the problems and potential solutions offered in the first Page & Turnbull letter, including the possibility of a one-and- one-half story rear yard addition. Clearly those options should be explored before a variance is granted. In general, we see nothing that would support the granting of a variance in this instance. There is nothing exceptional about the particular lot or situation and the neighborhood is already much denser than current zoning requirements would allow. Making it even more dense by granting a variance for no compelling reason is, in my opinion, poor policy and legally it fails to meet the applicable standards set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. It also makes it problematic for other residents who select particular properties to purchase understanding what can and what cannot be built on adjacent lots. As shown on the very first page of the Plans submitted by the property owners, this property is being built out to the maximum allowed and obtaining a variance to do so. Allowing what is prohibited by the current law be built by the granting of a variance, undermines the expectations of adjacent property owners and creates problems where none would exist by the simple application of the existing laws. These laws have a reason and there should therefore be compelling reasons to ignore them. That the property owners are nice people and would like a large home to care for their growing family is, for better or worse, not a compelling reason and certainly no reason to give them a variance to do so. In summary: • 840 Kipling is a substandard lot with only one habitable story allowed under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. • The existing zoning regulations allow the owners of 840 Kipling to expand on the ground floor without having to build a second story. • 840 Kipling does not suffer substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other substandard sites in the vicinity and same zoning district that should allow a variance for a second story addition. • The owners of 840 Kipling clearly describe their desire for a variance as driven entirely by personal circumstances. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.76.030(c) (1) (A) expressly excludes such personal circumstances from being considered. • Allowing a second story addition to 840 Kipling would be injurious to the value and enjoyment of 441 Channing. • 840 Kipling has only a 3.5 side yard setback with 836 Kipling. 836 Kipling Kipling has only a 2.5 ft side yard setback with 840 Kipling and no side yard setback at all on the other side. 840 and 836 Kipling together have only 6 ft of the required total 18 ft side setback. From a street side perspective this section of Kipling is already much denser than Attachment E Planning and Transportation Commission February 3, 2020 Page 9 allowed by current zoning. Allowing a second story would increase the density even further directly in conflict with the R-2, Low Density Residential zoning designation. • The City’s commissioned historic review by Page & Turnbull specifically recommended against allowing the proposed development recommending instead a rear one-and-one-half story addition. There is no evidence that this credible option was seriously considered. • There are significant ethical concerns with respect to the HRB review given that its chair was representing the owners of 840 Kipling at the same meeting at which he presided. • Adding a rear one-and-half story addition to the “allowable” square footage would leave a significant TPZ. In fact, the TPZ would still be much more than was left for all of the protected oak and redwood trees at the 3 nearest and most recent developments at 400, 441, at 458 Channing Ave. • The project history shows the owners shifted to a strategy using the TPZ as the reason to justify a variance allowing a second story addition. However, back in 2013 these same owners dug a trench and cut major roots of the two redwood trees much closer to the trees that they would be with a ground floor addition. No attempt was made to see if the trees could be protected with a ground floor only addition. That should have been required as it would be much less intrusive and much more consistent with the applicable zoning than granting a variance. • A rearward addition on the ground floor is readily possible in ways that do not or only minimally affect the trees. An above ground suspension should, for instance, be considered. Such a construction method was used for instance at 458 Channing. • The property owners of 840 Kipling were not but should have been asked to seriously consider obvious alternatives to a second story addition. At the very least, the project should be returned to staff and the owners to undertake such a study. • The owners of 840 Kipling understood the limitations of their substandard lot and accordingly purchased 840 Kipling at the lower price these properties sell for. Mr. Gubbens and Ms. Han trusted they understood what could and could not be built on 840 Kipling and accordingly paid a higher price for the enjoyment they believed was guaranteed with their property. Granting a variance here directly undermines the very reasons zoning regulations exist and makes it impossible for future property owners who select particular properties to purchase understanding what can and what cannot be built on adjacent lots. We respectfully ask that the variance for a second story addition be denied. Thank you for reading and considering our concerns, Charles S. Bronitsky Attorney at Law Attachment E 1 February 3, 2020 Dear Planning & Transportation Commission Members, We are the owners of 840 Kipling Street. We are coming before you as the result of an appeal filed on our project approval. We purchased our house in 1998 when the lot adjacent to us was still the staff parking lot for Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). This parking lot was later redeveloped, as part of SOFA I, into four DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots) zoned properties. And just as the SOFA Plan strived to have new construction fit into the surrounding context, our goal has always been a modest addition to our house that maintains its existing historic character and fits in well with the existing neighborhood. Even before we started and throughout the process of developing our project plans, we engaged in neighbor outreach, including to the owners of 441 Channing Ave (one of the DHS homes) who have appealed our project approval. We have strong support from multiple adjacent property owners as well as property owners directly across the street and along our block face. The owners of 836 Kipling St next door to us and whose house is separated from our house at 840 Kipling St by only 5.5’ due to pre- zoning development patterns fully support our project. The owners of 441 Channing Ave are the sole objectors to our application. We applied for and have been granted a Variance for a partial and recessed Second Story Addition due to unusual circumstances on our property which is zoned R-2 and is considered a Substandard Lot. The plans were tentatively approved on January 15, 2020, but that has been appealed by our neighbor at 441 Channing Ave and will be coming in front of you on February 26, 2020. As you will see in the following pages, the lot for 840 Kipling St is oddly shaped and restricted. And while considered a sub-standard lot due to its 4893 square footage, it functions and appears as a conforming lot at 5005.5 square feet due to a legal and permanent recorded easement in our favor. Back in 2000, while SOFA I plans for the area were being developed, we tried to buy a strip of land adjacent to our driveway to straighten our lot line but the developer was not willing to sell. We have been diligent on trying to address concerns of the neighbor at 441 Channing Ave and have made several changes to our plans at great expense over a three-year period. We had also previously explored all possible options to be able to use the available FAR, including a single-story expansion. However, the special circumstances of our property will not allow for that. Our property has significant special circumstances that limit our ability to use our available FAR and as such we believe the Findings can be made for a Second Story Variance. The City of Palo Alto Planning Department agrees and has approved our request for a Variance. In what follows, we want to highlight some of the special circumstances of our property. After reviewing all of the available materials, we hope that the Planning & Transportation Commission will affirm the decision of the Director of Planning and recommend approval of our application for a Variance. Regards, Steve Reyna & Aysen Kutlu Attachment F 2 840 KIPLING ST IS EFFECTIVELY A CONFORMING LOT 840 Kipling St. is effectively a conforming 5005.5 sq.ft. lot. As such, it would not have required a Variance for a second story. A small 112.5 sq.ft. easement that includes part of our existing driveway contributes to making 840 Kipling St an effectively conforming lot combined with the 4893 sq.ft. of the existing lot. The easement is exclusive use, exists in perpetuity, and can be found in the County Records. This is a significant special condition that contributes to the Findings for a Variance. The available FAR, location of Setbacks and Daylight Planes for 840 Kipling St project are strictly based on the 4893 sq. ft. we fully own. The easement does not modify or contribute to these. The easement does, however, contribute to the total usable lot area and provides additional Side Setback on the east side adjacent to the house, thus reducing impact of the project on 441 Channing Ave. The house at 840 Kipling St is located on an effective conforming lot area of 5005.5 sq.ft. The lot and associated easement can be seen on the figure below taken from Plan Sheet A1.0. 112.5 sq.ft. Easement 840 Kipling Lot 4893 sq.ft. Attachment F 3 PROTECTED REDWOODS IN REAR YARD AND ASSOCIATED TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) In the rear of the 840 Kipling St lot are two protected redwood trees. The associated Tree Protection Zone extends 35’ from the larger tree, and reaches almost to the proposed rear addition. According to the City, intrusions up to 25% of the area of the TPZ are allowed. As shown on Plan Sheet T2, the TPZ of these redwoods is severely impacted by up to 73% of the total area. Only 27% of the TPZ area is not impacted, which primarily consists of the rear yard area between the house and the protected trees. This significantly constrains our ability to extend towards the rear. The Forestry Department does not support additional intrusions into the TPZ. An excerpt from Plan Sheet T2 showing the impacted TPZ is below. PRESERVATION OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE 840 Kipling St has been determined to be a Contributing Historic Resource and therefore any additions or modifications had to substantially comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards. This imposes additional constraints on how we can modify or alter our residence. Our application has been deemed fully compliant in all 10 of the 10 criteria of the Secretary of Interior Standards by Page & Turnbull, the City’s historic consultant. Our project received a unanimous vote of approval from the Historic Resources Board. We understand that it is rare for a project to meet all 10 of the criteria, with projects typically being mostly compliant. Attachment F 4 TRANSITION ZONE FROM HIGH DENSITY TO LOWER DENSITY 441 Channing Ave is zoned DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots), which is a denser zoning designation introduced by the SOFA CAP as a part of redeveloping the former PAMF sites. By having a detached accessory unit, 441 Channing Ave is allowed a maximum FAR of 0.65, as opposed to a maximum FAR of 0.45 for R-2 zoned 840 Kipling St. DHS has no Site Coverage Limit as opposed to a Site Coverage Limit of 0.35 for R-2. According to the zoning regulation, DHS is intended to have a maximum lot size of 5000 sq.ft. 441 Channing Ave is the single largest residential DHS lot in the SOFA Plan Area at 6411 sq.ft. and is fully built out to the 0.65 FAR creating a house of 4,167 sq. ft. and stands at a height of 29 feet. With a built out FAR of 0.65 and 4,167 sq. ft. on the single largest DHS lot, the scale and mass of 441 Channing Ave dwarfs the R-2 zoned properties around it. 840 Kipling St, at a proposed 2201 sq. ft. (including garage) exists as a transition zone between the mass and scale of 441 Channing Ave on the one side to the less dense R-2 homes along Kipling St on the other. Being a transitional development is another special condition and even opportunity of the property that helps support the Findings for a second story Variance for 840 Kipling St. An excerpt from Plan Sheet A2.0 is shown below. We would also like to highlight that the second story of 441 Channing Ave is located 48’ away from the proposed second story of 840 Kipling St minimizing a lot of potential impact on that property. THE ADDITION FULLY COMPLIES WITH R-2 ZONING Other than the specific request for a Variance, the proposed addition to 840 Kipling St fully complies with all R-2 Zoning regulations, including Daylight Planes, Setbacks, etc. With respect to Daylight Planes, even the eaves are fully contained within the Daylight Planes. The original historic cross-gable roof did and still does project through the Daylight Plane. However, we were required to retain this cross-gable as a condition of satisfying the Secretary of Interior Standards. 48’ Attachment F _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Draft Minutes: January 29, 2020 2 Council Chambers 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 6:00 PM 5 6 Call to Order / Roll Call 7 6:04pm 8 Chair Riggs: Alright I think we’re ready to get started. Good Evening. 9 10 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Take roll and then (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Riggs: So welcome to the first Planning Commissioner meeting of the year for the City of 13 Palo Alto on January 29th, 2020. We’ll do a… well where’s Vinh? We’ll do a roll cal. You’re going 14 to do it? Alright so. 15 16 Ms. French: (calls roll) 17 Oral Communications 18 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 19 Chair Riggs: Alright the first item is if anyone has any… I don’t have any speaker slips but if there 20 is one… anyone that wants to communicate on things that aren’t on the agenda they can speak 21 to that now. Seeing no one jumping right up. 22 23 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [note – Oral Communication was reopened after approval of the meeting minutes] 1 2 Chair Riggs: I’m going to reopen the Oral Communication for things not on the agenda. Thank 3 you for being here Ms. Waris, you’ve got 3-minutes to tell us what you want. 4 5 Ms. Waris: Great, sorry for missing the Oral Communication (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Riggs: No worries, no worries, don’t worry. 8 9 Ms. Waris: Thing earlier. So, I’m a resident of Palo Alto and I was just coming here because I 10 wanted to raise an issue on the traffic light timing on University Avenue. So, when you’re 11 coming or entering off the Bayshore Highway there’s two lights, there’s one there and then 12 there’s one 200-feet beyond that at Woodland. And there… the timing of those two lights is 13 very poorly timed so that not enough cars can get through and because it’s such a short space 14 only a couple of cars can fit there. So, what happens is since the lights aren’t timed there’s a 15 long backup either on University Avenue or on the other side of the highway. And I just wanted 16 to raise to see if anything can be done about that. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Riggs: That’s great. Thanks for coming out, we appreciate that. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Waris: Alright, thanks. 1 2 Chair Riggs: Ok, if you’re good so I’ll close the hearing now again on I think (interrupted) 3 4 Vice-Chair Alcheck: [unintelligible - off mic] 5 6 Chair Riggs: No but (interrupted) 7 8 Vice-Chair Alcheck: [unintelligible – off mic] 9 10 Chair Riggs: No, we cannot. 11 12 Ms. Waris: (speaking from the audience) Thank you. 13 14 Chair Riggs: Sorry we can’t respond to that but Staff will. I think this is the point is that we’ve 15 heard you. Thank you for being here. 16 17 Ms. Waris: (speaking from the audience) Thank you. 18 [note – the Commission moved down to approval of the meeting minutes] 19 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 20 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 21 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: We will move on. So, I don’t have any suggested additions, deletions from the 1 agenda. We’re light today so I guess we’ll turn it over to Staff with reports, meeting schedules, 2 assignments. 3 City Official Reports 4 1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments. 5 Chair Riggs: And I think Amy, we… some of this may… just in full disclosure. Some of this… we 6 have an election tonight so some of this may get flushed out after we have a new Chair but I’ll 7 turn it over to you. 8 9 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Great, Racheal Tanner is not available tonight. She 10 gave me something to report out during this segment and I believe I left it on my desk so shame 11 on me. Basically, here we are, we have some interesting items coming up in the upcoming 12 months. I spoke with our Transportation Official today. It looks like they’re moving forward on 13 the position for Parking Manager. And so, looking towards coming back with a study session on 14 the RPP Program and so that would be towards the end of February. 15 16 We have some other items that will be of interest including the update on the Comprehensive 17 Plan Implementation and Housing Element Implementation. How are we doing on our goals 18 and Policies and Programs? That’s coming forward. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Let’s see, there was another thing that was happening as well. Well, certainly we’ll be coming 1 back with the permanent ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units. The Council recently adopted 2 an urgency Interim Ordinance on January 13th to address state law that became effective 3 January 1st. So, the Planning and Transportation Commission will be involved in that process in 4 the next several months this spring. 5 6 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Can I ask you a quick question (interrupted) 7 8 Ms. French: Sure. 9 10 Vice-Chair Alcheck: About the… is there a designated individual who’s the brains for all 11 questions for ADUs? I feel like I’ve gotten so many questions about ADUs that I’d love to be able 12 to be like contact so and so. 13 14 Ms. French: Well there’s… I’m not sure they’re the brains but they’re the bronze maybe that 15 will be collating and processing additional nuances and questions. For the January 13th 16 ordinance that was adopted that’s effective until January 31st of 2021, that was the work of our 17 City Attorney’s Office and some Staff help to surgically make sure that we’re not out of 18 compliance with the state law. Going forward there’ll be again, some teamwork there. You’re 19 welcome to send folks to me and I can filter that down. We’ll (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I was going to suggest maybe an FAQ Page because I’m sure maybe some of 2 the questions are pretty repetitive but I don’t know. 3 4 Ms. French: Yes, yes, so yeah, we’re working on some outreach. We’re going to have a webpage 5 that’s going to have some information there and as we move forward with the permanent 6 ordinance where there’s some nuances that will be discussed further. That will be coming 7 forward. Let’s see (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Riggs: So maybe I can chime in because I think I talked through some of these with Ms. 10 Tanner as well. I think there’s the co-working office model that we’re going to schedule as well 11 as SB-50 update. Those are in the agenda packet but also, I think we’ve talked about seeing the 12 Cubberley project again. I didn’t… I haven’t heard an update on that and also, I think this 13 Commission has expressed a desire to get the San Antonio… there’s been a couple San Antonio 14 projects. To get them back in and so keeping us apprised of when we can expect those would 15 be really, I think, of interest to all of us. At least when we heard those the first time there 16 were… there was a lot of interest in those. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: I had a follow-on question. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Yeah, Commissioner…. yeah? 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: Just we had the first Transportation Committee or sorry, Commission… 3 whatever he’s called now? Office, sorry. First Office of Transportation presentation to us in 4 August where they reviewed the 35 recommendation that had gone to them to be kind of pre-5 processed and come back to us. And haven’t heard a thing since our August 28th meeting on 6 that and I think it went to Council on sort of April-ish. So, we’re coming up on 9-months since 7 the Council said PTC has to look at this. So, if we could figure out where that is that would be 8 great. 9 10 Chair Riggs: Alright seeing no other lights I’ll just note that we do need… we have our meeting 11 schedule on Page 6 in the Packet. And one of the things that we’ll be refining and I validated 12 this with Ms. Tanner yesterday was that we would be refining some of the 2020 Council 13 assignments so once we have new leadership. Any other questions or comments? Ok. 14 Commissioner Lauing? 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: In that regard, someone pointed out to me that 4/8 is the first day of 17 Pass Over so. 18 19 Chair Riggs: So, we’ll leave that to the new… to new leadership to massage the schedule. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, just wanted to point it out. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Sure. Any other questions? Any other questions? Comments from other 4 Commissioners? Ok. 5 6 [note – this item was continued after hearing Item Number Two] 7 8 Ms. French: Through the Chair, I have my piece of paper for… if it’s possible to do Director’s 9 Report item because I don’t want to let that get lost in the shuffle to do backwards. 10 11 Chair Riggs: To go backwards, ok. 12 13 Ms. French: Yeah. 14 15 Chair Riggs: Of course. 16 17 Ms. French: I just didn’t want to miss an opportunity. Sometimes sensitive (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Riggs: Awesome, go ahead, go ahead. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. French: Thank you so much. So, we’re back on Director’s Report to finish up there. You’re 2 invited to participate in the Urban Land Institute’s Urban Plan for Communities. This will take 3 place on Wednesday, March 18th, 2020 and is hosted by the City of Cupertino. Urban Plan is a 4 workshop on real estate and land use. The workshop introduces its participants to the trade-5 offs and risks at play in the entitlement and the negotiation process associated with real estate 6 development; especially in public-private partnerships. This will be an interactive, all-day 7 training beginning at 8:30 am, registration and breakfast, until approximately 4:30 pm. 8 Breakfast, snacks, and lunch will be provided. So, if you’re interested we can accommodate 9 signing you up and all of that so let us know. The deadline to confirm it is this week so time-10 sensitive. Please let me know if you have an interest in attending and we’ll handle the 11 registration. So, have a look at your calendars maybe during the meeting and let me know if 12 you can at the end of this meeting or tomorrow give us a call. 13 14 A couple more items on the looking ahead, I neglected to mention changes to the Wireless 15 Ordinance. There’s been a couple of correspondences that you’ve received. The Council did 16 make changes in December 2019 to our standards and we’re going to be bringing forward this 17 ordinance for Planning Commission's consideration and recommendation. That’s coming up in 18 the spring. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I think there was another one about… oh yes. We’re going to have the results of our study 1 examining our Below Market Rate Policy in the City. Also, we’ll be having a study session on the 2 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan to bring the Planning Commission up to date on the draft 3 alternatives. 4 5 Finally, we are continuing to work to fill vacancies. We posted a Land Use Planner position this 6 week. That’s in the Data Team section for Mapping and Data Analysis. I know data and maps 7 are what we need so I thought you might be interested to hear about that. Thank you. 8 9 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Can I make a quick comment? 10 11 Chair Riggs: Can… sorry, Commissioner [note – Vice-Chair] Alcheck. 12 13 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah so just really quickly I want to add this planning… the event that Ms. 14 French mentioned tonight. At the same event last year former Mayor, currently Councilwomen 15 Kniss, myself, and then Commissioner Monk attended and it’s exclusively for appointed and 16 Elected Officials. So, I sat at a table… we each sat at a different table. I sat at a table with 17 Planning Commissioners from Menlo Park, Planning Commissioners from San Mateo, Mayors of 18 various Cities, Redwood City and I think Belmont. And so, it’s actually a really… if you’re 19 considering it or you’re on the fence it’s really, really great. You’ll meet… you’ll network with 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. people all over the peninsula and you’ll be… you’ll participate in a program where you’re 1 assigned one of several roles. You could be a community member, you could be a decision-2 maker, you could be a developer in a staged event and you have to grapple with many issues 3 that… don’t play the role of Planning Commissioner. You know branch out but anyways so I 4 really… it was very, very productive. The City paid for us to attend, it was really great. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: I went last year too. It was amazing, I highly recommend it. 7 8 Commissioner Lauing: I’m signed up. 9 10 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’m signed up. 11 12 Chair Riggs: Excellent, ok. Ok, enough to chat, let’s move on. 13 14 Ms. French: And then… I’m sorry, one more which is the Housing Work Plan, forgot to mention 15 that. February 3rd this is going to City Council. It had appeared on the Council agenda but was 16 not considered a week ago but if you’re interested hopefully have that Staff report. 17 18 Chair Riggs: Alright, we’re going to fast forward now back to where we were in the agenda. 19 Thank you, Ms. French. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 [note – The Commission moved down to approval of the Meeting Minutes] 2 3 Study Session 4 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5 2. Study Session to Review and Consider Amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code 6 Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 to Allow a Reduction in the Number of Vehicle Parking 7 Spaces for Existing Buildings/Uses to Meet State-Mandated Parking Requirements 8 Related to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, 9 to Provide for Additional Bicycle Parking, and to Comply With Other City Standards 10 Including Stormwater and Waste Management. CEQA: Not a Project. Zone District: 11 Citywide. 12 13 Chair Riggs: So, with that said I think we will move to our study session and before we do that I 14 believe we have a presentation from Staff. And just to remind Commissioners, this is a… this is… 15 there’s no action on this item. This is… we’ve seen this before, there won’t be any action and 16 we will be seeing this again. So hopefully we can make it efficient both times so with that said 17 take it away. 18 19 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Introduce… this is Samuel Gutierrez who will be 20 presenting the report. 21 22 Mr. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good evening to the PTC. Tonight, we have a 23 presentation on Staff suggestions for changes to the Municipal Code Chapter 18. 52 which 24 involve parking regulations. Again, the purpose here is to get input from the PTC on five aspects 25 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. of parking regulations. Originally, we were seeking to draft an ordinance and bringing that to 1 you but there were some changes with state laws of January 1st that required Staff to adopt 2 that path that we were on. And also, we wanted to present what the state law requires now 3 which wasn’t presented to the PTC previously when you discussed this back in March of last 4 year. So, focusing on the project steps again, this is a draft ordinance in code changes. We seek 5 to return to the PTC in February for consideration before recommendation to Council and then 6 we will present that recommendation to Council following that future hearing in February. 7 8 Here’s an overview of what we’re going to focus on tonight. Again, the five aspects of proposed 9 changes to parking lot regulations. One involves ADA parking spaces, these are the accessible 10 spaces, to involve the EVSE and ADA combined together. And again, that is a state law tweak 11 that happened at the first of this year and we had to kind of change direction per that state law. 12 The next one has to do with EVSE retrofitting so this is separate from ADA. It has to do with just 13 EVSE charging parking spaces for standard stalls. The next one is substitution of bicycle parking 14 for vehicular spaces and finally restriping and maintenance of existing parking lots. 15 16 So, jumping ahead here to the accessible spaces, this… again, this is just standard accessible 17 spaces not electric. Staff is proposing to bring new code language to formalize the current 18 practice of allowing reductions in of required parking spaces to existing sites to allow 19 compliance with state requirements and that would be within the PC [note – PAMC?] 52.030 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [note – 18.52.030?]. The proposed language is shown here which is also shown in the Staff 1 report. This would be inserting a new language to just show that the City which again we’ve 2 been doing in practice is constant with state law, and we would allow a reduction in existing 3 parking lot even if they’re not compliant per parking ratio to become compliant as far as 4 accessibility requirements because that is, of course, coming from a higher authority than the 5 City to require those. 6 7 The next code suggestion is EVSC and ADA spaces. Now, this focuses on the code language that 8 we had to modify because of state law that was effective January 1st of this year. The state law 9 requires that we count EV ready and EV installed accessible spaces, they’re van accessible, as 10 two parking spaces. This is sourced from Assembly Bill 1100 by the state. The state found that 11 per the state goals of having a lot of electric vehicle infrastructure throughout the state to 12 promote the switch from fossil fuel vehicles to electric vehicles. A lot of jurisdictions were not 13 counting these accessible spaces. They were deducting it from the total because the van 14 accessible area results in a loss of a standard stall. So, what the state did was require all 15 jurisdictions within the state of California to count them as two parking spaces towards the 16 requirement so we had to adjust that in our draft ordinance. Also, there’s state law that says 17 we have to count a standard parking stall or excuse me, a standard EV parking stall, so not 18 associated with accessible, as one space. In Palo Alto, we’ve always done that. We’ve never 19 differentiated whether it’s an electric vehicle parking stall or a gas vehicle parking stall. It’s one 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to one, they’re apples to apples. But again, in compliance with state law, we wanted to 1 formalize that with some language so it’s clear in the code to everyone who reads our code. 2 And here’s a snippet of the proposed language that suggests counting accessible spaces twice 3 and of course counting standard electric vehicle spaces as one parking stall towards the 4 requirement. 5 6 When… now we’re moving long to retrofitting, so this is purely separate from the accessible 7 spaces. When existing sites are seeking to retrofit there’s a lot of problems that come with that. 8 The existing sites you have property owners or new tenants that are moving into spaces, 9 they’re upgrading the facilities to meet their needs now or even state requirements per Green 10 Building Code, and they have to accommodate electrical vehicle chargers on their site. Often 11 the problem is these sites are legal non-conforming grandfathered in from long ago and they’re 12 not meeting today’s standards. So, to introduce a new element to these parking lots is difficult 13 for Staff and for the applicants because there is no room, physically no room. The other 14 problem that you run into if there is room for these chargers to fit in, the sites are often under 15 capacity in terms of their electrical service. So, when they have to upgrade that electrical 16 service on-site that means a new transformer has to come or other associated utility 17 equipment. And then that equipment also, where do you put that? So, it becomes an issue 18 again and the current code language does not allow for any increase in non-compliance or 19 creation of non-compliance. So, to resolve these issues and line up with the law of our Comp 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Plan Policy and Goals, Staff is suggesting some changes to the code. But to get in great detail 1 here you can see this is just a mock-up of an existing parking lot. This is in the Staff report but I 2 wanted to be clear to show you what happens here. So, in the blocked area you have these 3 wheel stops. Previously they’re located here in the hashed area and then they have to be 4 adjusted because they’re introducing new equipment here. This would be the chargers and 5 that’s blown up here. So, you can see the chargers and they need bollards for collision 6 protection. When you do that you can notice here the existing wheel stop was here before and 7 then got pushed back so they could not collide with the EV equipment and the bollard. The 8 issue with that is the wheel stop isn’t the full extent of how we count a parking stall because of 9 this factor. The wheel stop actually stops the car but the vehicle overhangs and if you introduce 10 this element here which is a mock-up of EV equipment with the bollards, typically the bollards 11 go here. So, if you have a vertical implement introduced here, then that car sticks out of the 12 space more, and then again if everything is to the minimum standard it’s a domino effect down 13 the row. And that’s where Staff struggles to accommodate these required EV equipment. So, 14 with that said now we’re moving to the other element. Even if we could get around the EV 15 charger and bollards, now we have these transformers which you can see in these photos 16 they’re rather large. In these examples, you can see that these transformers are located in 17 areas where there’s planting strips that are sizable but that’s not always the case. So, if these 18 planting strips aren’t there or there’s a conflict with a large mature tree then they cannot go 19 there. And then we run into issues again, where do we put this upgraded service equipment? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So, to address that we’re proposing code changes that would allow a reduction in parking 1 spaces, total parking spaces. So, then you could take that removed parking space and 2 rearrange, restripe to one, accommodate wider stalls. And then the bollards and the 3 equipment, the charging equipment, can go into that space now. And also provide an area, a 4 pad of asphalt where that use to be a parking space, for the transformer. 5 6 Moving onto the next topic, the substitution of bicycle parking for vehicle parking. We want to 7 allow bicycle parking to be installed in place of vehicle parking spaces. Up to a certain amount 8 of parking can be replaced with vehicle parking. That’s what we’re trying to find a ratio for and 9 this would actually mimic the language that was previously in our code but was removed for an 10 undetermined reason in 2007. So, it existed prior and now based on the current Comp Plan 11 Policies which were identified in the Staff report we need to move towards that direction again. 12 This is just an example of one bicycle or set of bicycle parking spaces in a space that was for a 13 vehicle. We could mimic this or we could distribute the bicycle racks throughout the site but 14 this is just to show you one car might be removed but then you gain about eight bicycle spaces 15 in that same space. So that could have been eight possible single-occupancy vehicles but now 16 it’s eight bicycles which again comply with a lot of the Policies of our Comp Plan. So again, the 17 proposed language that we’re looking is a bit of a tweak on the original language that was 18 previously in the code. It allows for a long term or short-term bicycle facilities to be substituted 19 for a vehicle space up to 5 percent of the required stalls for the site or at least one space, 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. whichever is greater. The exact number of substituted bicycle facilities would be a minimum of 1 four short term bicycle parking spaces per single vehicle space. Although the Director may 2 require more than that minimum given site conditions if it allows for additional bicycle parking 3 space. I do want to be sure that it’s clear that Staff was looking at this and considering smaller 4 parking lots that may not be able to accommodate that 5 percent maximum. If you do a calc 5 [note – calculation] of 5 percent and you introduce one it’s really you need 20 parking spaces to 6 even reach a 5 percent maximum. So, parking lots that have 11 parking spaces could take 7 advantage of this unless we added the clause of at least one space. So at least those smaller 8 ones could also take advantage of this and that was in the thought of certain areas around Cal. 9 Ave which are very close to the train station or even downtown. Again, which is close to 10 downtown Caltrain station. 11 12 The fifth item that pertains to code changes is about restriping and maintenance of existing 13 parking lots. So regular maintenance and resurfacing of lots requires restriping. There is a need 14 to allow the Director to make adjustments when restriping for to accommodate conforming 15 parking spaces and other types of new waste management facilities and trach enclosures. Even 16 if it would result in the loss of parking space. We do have requirements for our stormwater 17 protection to have covered trash enclosures. A lot of existing sites again don’t have that, they 18 just have the trash bins on the outside and that isn’t meeting the regulations for the region or 19 for the City. So, if we allowed restriping of parking lots and then we may be loose three spaces 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to create a covered trash enclosure and then be all compliant. Then that would be a good thing 1 overall. And also, there have been situations as Staff has observed, projects that have come in 2 for restriping and we see that there’s non-compliances that have been grandfathered in and 3 they are problems with… we see problems with circulation. So, turning radiuses may not be 4 sufficient, we would never approve it that way today, parking stalls might be to narrow and it 5 creates a difficult situation just for visitors to those sites. So, it would be a good benefit to be 6 able to maybe loose some spaces again, that are not compliant, to create a very compliant 7 parking facility that then has better circulation overall and here’s a bit of the proposed 8 language. It would allow a Director’s adjustment for parking lot restriping. They… the language 9 that we seek is to allow the Director to approve a reduction of on-site parking spaces to achieve 10 compliance with state law, the City’s waste management objectives, and on-site circulation or 11 to adjust the existing substandard stall dimensions to meet correct codes. This… it’s important 12 that we’re only seeking to apply this to sites that are existing and are going to remain mostly 13 intact in terms of the existing development. So, this wouldn’t be a demolition of a building and 14 then they get to keep their non-complying parking lot. In that scenario, they would need to 15 make everything compliant but these are for sites that are restriping and keeping the building … 16 maybe re-stuccoing or something like that minor. So, with that in mind, we also are cognizant 17 of that some of these proposed code changes for this restriping and maintenance, if given to 18 the Director, could have some possible negative side effects that we hadn’t foreseen. So, Staff 19 is analyzing that and we’re looking to avoid that and abate that as much as we can to the extent 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. feasible. Things that came to mind are maybe long-standing existing PCs from the ‘70s or ‘80s 1 that had different code regulations and now they’re not compliant or again, sites that were 2 previously approved by Major Architectural Review and normally they would go again for these 3 proposed changes. So, we’re still working on how do we abate those issues. The other conflict 4 that we thought that might be there would be with the Downtown Parking Assessment District 5 and the Parking In-Lieu Fees and how we would manage these restriping and loss of parking of 6 spacing in the downtown area where you could pay for In-Lieu Fees. So, we drafted a bit of a 7 tweak of language there to kind of address that issue that we identified. 8 9 Focusing back on this discussion here and what Staff seeks as a PTC input is for the first item is 10 what is PTC’s thoughts on counting the accessible spaces as two? We could apply that state 11 requirement to count the EV accessible spaces twice to just the standard accessible spaces. So, 12 it’s just an easy code and there’s no difference between the two. We also would like to receive 13 feedback from the PTC on if we should for these other suggested code changes, lean more 14 towards Director’s adjustments so we could have more a specialized adjustment per site 15 condition or should we have more fixed ratios or percentages for sites. Kind of a one-size-fits-16 all. So, if the PTC could be so kind as to provide with some feedback and have a discussion on 17 some of these points that would be great. And that concludes Staff’s presentation. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Alright questions or comments from Commissioners? Oh, actually we actually have 1 public comment, don’t we? Yeah, ok so I don’t have any cards but if… when we… have any 2 public comments now’s the time to make your voice. 3 4 [note – female from the audience:] (off mic) If I have a couple comments but not on this, do I 5 hold (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Riggs: Sorry just this item, yeah. Ok, seeing none we’ll bring it back to the Commission. 8 Hearing is closed. Any Commissioners questions, comments, feedback to Staff? And actually, 9 maybe I could chime in before just to mitigate a comment, Sam. We talked before about could 10 you maybe explain the interplay with new buildings that have to meet… they already have to 11 meet certain parking space requirements based on I think you said energy efficiency yesterday 12 so maybe you can explain that. 13 14 Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, so new buildings and even existing building they have to meet California 15 State Building Code Standards and that involves the Green Building Code. That’s where these 16 EVs are popping up everywhere. A part of that is you have to provide a certain number per 17 threshold that you might pass for occupancy, office versus retail versus restaurant, so forth and 18 in their existing parking lot they have to provide these EV charging stations. New buildings have 19 to provide existing or excuse me, new charging stations with the new development and they 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. also have to provide EV ready. So, they kind of have to plumb or re-wire some parking spaces 1 and they’re noted as EV ready. That’s where the EV ready language came through in the Staff 2 report. Those are for the future because the City… the state already knows what they’re going 3 to do in the next code Cycle and afterward and afterward and they’re going to keep up ticking. 4 So, they thought ahead and as sites are being developed they already have these kind of 5 earmarked parking spaces that you just put a charger in basically. So, they already have the 6 capacity for them thus they’re ready. 7 8 Chair Riggs: Thanks. Any questions or comments from Commissioners? Ok, Commissioner 9 Lauing. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I didn’t know if you wanted the lights. So, I think you want us to 12 address this slide but I just wonder questions before that if that’s ok? 13 14 Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, but I would be happy to answer any questions. This slide is just intended to 15 kind of be an overview of what we’re looking for. 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: My first one is sort of a three-part question, I’m going to ask it all at once 18 because you can answer it however you want. So, it’s sort of are there any indication from the 19 state that they’re going to give Cities individual quotas on this or not relative to the overall 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. needs? And the second question is when you’re forecasting our needs for doing this what… 1 kind of what’s the numbers consistent with the predicted overall state usage because I know 2 we’re very high? We’re like the best in the state in terms of electrical usage. And then thirdly do 3 I understand that the total number of potential grant money is $10.8 million? The $9.8 plus $1 4 [note – million]. Was that the right number? And so, whatever it is the question is how far does 5 that money go to satisfy all the needs that you’re projecting that we have? 6 7 Mr. Gutierrez: So, I’ll start with your first question which is about if the state has some type of 8 requirement or goal. I guess similar to like housing numbers? 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Exactly. 11 12 Mr. Gutierrez: Not that I’m aware of. The state has a goal for the entire state to have the 13 infrastructure. Meaning that they want 200,000 plus by a certain date throughout the state but 14 it’s not allocated in the same way towards the Cities. What they are predicting the Cities to 15 meet that number by is this any new development that triggers a threshold in the Green 16 Building Code to then require the EV parking spaces. And then again… or even a tenant 17 improvement that exceed a certain evaluation threshold would have to now install EV chargers. 18 So, it covers new development and existing improvements to sites. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: That’s what I expected otherwise it would be mandating where electric 1 cars have to be but I just wanted to clarify that point. 2 3 Mr. Gutierrez: Right and then that’s difficult because the state does know that people are 4 moving in these cars so it’s a bit more organic. Where the new development is or renovation, 5 that’s where cars are going to go. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Ok and (interrupted) 8 9 Mr. Gutierrez: And to the number forecast of your second question are you referring to our 10 forecast as in user shifting to electric vehicles? 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: How… in that how many of these stations are we going to need in the 13 City by X dates? 14 15 Mr. Gutierrez: That I’m not sure about. I could try to research it and bring that back at the 16 future hearing but to the best of my knowledge, we don’t have forecasts for that. I do know 17 that we are number one in the country for EV vehicle usage. 18 19 Ms. French: (off mic) In sales. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Gutierrez: In sales, excuse me, sales so anyone who walks around downtown Palo Alto can 2 see Teslas or other electric vehicles everywhere. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: So, the answer to the third question is we don’t know either because we 5 don’t know how much money it’s going to take since we don’t know how many stations we 6 need. 7 8 Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: But this grant money is… is it a total of $10.8 [note – million]? Did I read 11 that correctly? 12 13 Mr. Gutierrez: I believe so, in the Staff it is $10.8 [note – million]. 14 15 Ms. French: Where you reading that in the prior Staff report from last year’s (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: In the Packet. 18 19 Ms. French: Study session? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: No, this Staff report. It was $9.8 [note – million] and then they added a 2 million so I presume that was an additive situation. So, we don’t know how that… what kind of 3 a dent that’s going to make in our (interrupted) 4 5 Ms. French: So, you’re on Packet Page 10? 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 8 9 Mr. Gutierrez: (off mic) Yes, I think that’s [unintelligible - off mic] 10 11 Ms. French: (off mic) $9.5… 8 in the next 4-years added to (interrupted) 12 13 Mr. Gutierrez: Yep. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: I don’t think he knows so we can’t really dwell on that. 16 17 Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, we could research that further. I’m actually not sure of the metrics on that. 18 The grant money is to support upgrading facilities. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: Ok. I mean since we have to do this by state law and it takes money. 1 Then we got to figure out where we’re going to get the money and I’m just trying to figure out 2 how close we are to solving our overall problem. 3 4 Ms. French: It’s possible there’s a link to the utilities' Staff report in the… on Packet Page 10 as 5 well in that same paragraph so possibly that report could provide more data for you. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: I’ll check that and then just a quick question. Within these, either by local 8 law or landlord, can it be restricted how long a given parked car is hooked up to the station? So, 9 if it was 8-hours, then the next person could come for 8-hours, the next person can come for 8-10 hours, and so in 24-hours in one space three cars could get done. Do you do any of those kinds 11 of calculations? 12 13 Mr. Gutierrez: So, I know that some jurisdictions do do that and the actual charging parking stall 14 is noted with that. It says once charged is complete you must vacate. We don’t have that 15 practice in Palo Alto at the moment. By code requirement, it could be that for example maybe 16 the shopping center might have that but as far as the other sites where this is being installed 17 they’re usually either commercial or retail spaces. So, people are parking and then getting out 18 and shopping and then they leave or they’re office buildings. They’re job spaces so then people 19 are there 8-hours and then they leave to go home. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: So, I’m asking it now in the context of this new law that you’re putting 2 together. Should Palo Alto have some control over how many cars can use that in a given 24-3 hour period because you could obviously theoretically reduce the number of stations necessary 4 if you required turn over in the spot? So, that would just be something that I’d raise for your 5 consideration as to putting it into the ordinance. 6 7 Ms. French: Certainly, it’s something for public parking lots that should be a conversation. For 8 private parking lots I’m not sure where that would enter in but certain we’ll discuss it. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Ok and then on one of your questions here, I don’t think I’m quite in sync 11 with the substitution of bicycle parking for vehicle spaces. Particularly when you look at 12 something like ADA. It’s not going to be the same user probably that uses a bike instead of a car 13 and I fully understand why we need an ADA kind of space to… for access to that driver. But it 14 doesn’t seem like that’s correlating with the same sort of person/user if we’re just using some 15 other space for incremental bikes. I mean I understand what you’re trying to do of let other 16 people “park” there although they have to park in a bike instead of a car. So, it raises all the 17 classic issues of rain and etc. etc. but I guess I just think that’s a pretty loose correlation. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. French: I might expand on that as far as the prior code that did include this until 2007. The 1 prior code talked about Class One which is normally a bike locker and contrary to the picture 2 where it shows a bunch of bikes kind of sitting there in one spot. The code was really utilized or 3 intended more for smaller parcels where the geometries where such that it was hard to 4 squeeze an additional… put a parking space for vehicles but there was extra usable area for 5 additional bikes beyond the required bikes that were close to the entrance of the building let’s 6 say. So that in a downtown or someplace where its bicycle use near transit makes a lot of sense. 7 You could squeeze bikes in places other than the parking lot and thereby provide means for 8 folks to use the building. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: I guess my concern is that if we put out their sort of the tone of don’t 11 worry we’ll have more parking spaces for bikes and therefore the total parking spaces are the 12 same. They aren’t so I’m just concerned (interrupted) 13 14 Ms. French: Yes. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: About being credible with the public. 17 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. French: Yes, makes sense to consider the Director’s adjustment as the method which is 1 where it uses to be in the code was related to Director’s adjustments. And so that would have a 2 measured consideration by the Director. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: My last comment is just that I appreciate the awareness of and the 5 attention to the issues of aesthetics because while we have to comply with the law and that 6 requires a certain amount of equipment. I’m just glad that that’s part of the overall look that if 7 all these things… just if you take down trees and put up these all over the place we’re going to 8 have another nightmare like cell phone towers. So that should be in there somehow, you know 9 being constantly a tentative to ways to disguise that equipment. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Riggs: Ok Commissioner Summa followed by Commissioner Roohparvar. 12 13 Commissioner Summa: Thank you. So, I have some questions but I’ll just kind of go through 14 them in order. Definitely, I think with regards to ADA, ADA, EVSE, and ADA compliant with state 15 law, of course, we have to do that and that’s all good. I am wondering about ADA spots with we 16 wouldn’t want them all to be compliant with EVSE. Only so that the people that need the 17 parking closes to the entrance to buildings have more options. That was my only thought about 18 that. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And then with regards to the… putting in the code the practice already that EVSA is one space. I 1 think that’s fine but in the language that you proposed you say “as at least one space”. And I 2 can see how that if one space is your intention I can see how the “as at least one space” might 3 create some confusion. 4 5 Let’s see so the retrofitting you referenced on Packet Page 14 18.70.090 and 080 which are the 6 general non-complying facility and maintenance repair rules but I just wanted to clarify that 7 you’re not intending on changing that portion of the code. 8 9 Ms. French: It hasn’t… it was not in the draft that we began to prepare for this meeting that we 10 didn’t bring forward but it’s something that often we have references in one part of the code to 11 another part of the code. So, to the extent that if that’s needed with respect to parking lots we 12 might consider addressing that because right now non-complying facilities it’s not specific to 13 parking lots or buildings so. 14 15 Commissioner Summa: So, you might consider changing it later… in 18.52 but also have an 16 exemption explicit in the general law. 17 18 Ms. French: It could be a reference in that non-compiling facilities portion of the Zoning Code 19 that refers to parking lots and it sends you to the other chapter perhaps. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Summa: Ok, thank you. With regards to substituting bikes… vehicle parking spots 2 to bike parking spots, I would think that maybe if we’re finding that we’re falling short of our 3 bicycle requirements we might want to change the general requirement. I don’t know that but 4 it sounds like that’s where you were going. And I’m not sure that switching a vehicle one when 5 we have standards for that in areas of the City that frankly are very much in need of every 6 parking spot they have on private sites and on-street parking and City parking lots. So, the 7 substitution aspect seems a little odd for me. It seems like it would be prudent to change the 8 bicycle requirement if that is actually inadequate as people use bikes more. And I will mention 9 that the DMV data that we have and maybe we’ll get new data soon doesn’t show a reduction 10 in use of cars and sadly our public transportation we do show a reduction in that use. So that 11 seems like a funny trade-off to me though I would like cars to have… I mean I would like… there 12 would be an opportunity for ample bicycle parking. And for long term bike parking, I have a 13 preference for it to be accommodated inside a building or a shed or something for people who 14 are using their bike as a commuting vehicle so it just stays safe and dry. 15 16 And the restriping I think is fine. It’s just an attempt to bring… an opportunity to bring parking 17 lots in existing buildings into compliance so that seems fine with me. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So, and I agree with Commissioner Lauing’s comments, it would be interesting to know the 1 answer to some of those questions going forward. So that’s it for now, thank you. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar. 4 5 Commissioner Roohparvar: So, let me give you a little bit of background as to how I’m looking 6 at this. When I think of buildings or parking I think we should take a holistic approach and think 7 not just 2-years, 3-years, 4-years ahead but more like 10, 15, 20, 30-years ahead. What’s the 8 landscape going to look and we’re if we’re going to revise things now let’s look at everything 9 bike picture. Where I’m coming at this with is from a perspective in real estate. So, in buildings 10 a lot right now I’m seeing a lot of artificial intelligence, smart devices, these sorts of things 11 getting embedded in buildings. However, then the issue that you run into is 3, 4, 5-years from 12 now or before those products are out on the market that technology has become obsolete. So, 13 when we look at something like parking, that’s the lens I’m looking at it with. And I’m 14 wondering is it possible that these EV stations that we’re now putting in place are going to be 15 obsolete in 2, 3, 4, 5-years? Should we think about it differently and anticipate what’s coming? 16 And the fact that we’re also trending towards more electric vehicles, get ready for that in the 17 way that we plan for the use of our space. So, I would just… I just wanted to comment let’s 18 think about that stuff too. Maybe there’s a way where we can be proactive about things to 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. come rather than reactive and working in piece mill fashion to fix things. That’s my only 1 comment. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Templeton. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton: I generally like most of these proposals. I had a question about the 6 restriping. Is this motivated because people want to make these changes but they would 7 become non-compliant or loose spaces and not be able to implement these… the upgrades to 8 their parking lot? Is that one of the things that’s driving this? 9 10 Mr. Gutierrez: That is one. It is applicant driven and also Staff driven because we do again have 11 these code requirements for trash enclosures for example (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: Right. 14 15 Mr. Gutierrez: Or even trees. We have a lot of parking lots that don’t meet the current 16 requirement of every 10 parking spaces you need a tree planter aisle or space. So, they’re just 17 vacant of vegetation at all and that’s not good for heat island effect, that’s not good for 18 aesthetic purposes either. So, they’re able to continuously just restripe and keep that condition 19 where we would prefer to see trees on sites to make them more aesthetically pleasing as well. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Templeton: That’s awesome. I support that and regarding the bicycle parking, a 2 place where I use to work did this. They converted, depending on the size of the parking lot, 3 one or two spaces to bike parking. And it was really effective and very satisfying to drive your 4 bike to… from building to building instead of driving your car so I’m supportive of it in general. 5 You know I share the concerns that some of the other Commissioners have brought up about 6 making sure that the tradeoffs map out appropriately but in general I think it’s an interesting 7 idea. Maybe just a little bit more detail on it, the tradeoffs. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Riggs: I’m going to jump in and make comment first. So, I just… one comment I wanted to 10 chime in on was kind of similar to some of the stuff that was said but it feels to me like we 11 should be looking for some case studies or best practice on this. Particularly with regard to use 12 type and land-use intensity and that say that particularly with regard to… I think the ratios may 13 need to vary based on use type or land-use intensity. I didn’t see that anywhere in the report 14 but the… also the bike… I mean clearly, you may have different levels of need for substitution 15 for bike parking based on use type, use location, use intensity. So, on that aspect, it just might 16 be good to see how other Cities in California have dealt with this and also how they may be 17 varying it based on land use type. Commissioner… I’m really sorry, I don’t know how to 18 pronounce your last name just yet. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Hechtman: Hechtman. 1 2 Chair Riggs: I haven’t pronounced it yet so Commissioner Hechtman. That probably was easy 3 and so I do apologize but I think… believe that’s the first time I’ve pronounced your last name. 4 Commissioner Hechtman welcome and after that Commissioner [note - Vice-Chair] Alcheck. 5 6 Commissioner Hechtman: [unintelligible – off mic] I’ll catch up. So, in effect, that’s part of what 7 I’m doing on this item because I understand that the Commission has actually already seen it 8 once and provided you some comments. So, this is a refined version so if I ask about something 9 some ground that’s already been plowed I apologize. So, and I’m just going to go front to back 10 through the report, the items that caught my eye. 11 12 So, I do see that the state is looking for a quarter-million of these EV stations by 2025. Do we 13 know how many EV we have currently in Palo Alto that are either existing, permitted and being 14 built or EVA ready or EVSE ready? 15 16 Mr. Gutierrez: I’m not sure of the total but I could ask other Staff like utilities may know for 17 example so I could look into that. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Hechtman: Ok. I do think it would be a good idea for us to have a target on sort 1 of how we’re doing in adding these. I ran some kind of basic math comparing our population 2 with the state population, that would give us an obligation if you will of 424 of these EVSE 3 stations. Now that doesn’t account for the fact that electric vehicles are far more popular here 4 than they are at other places. So, I would say that 425 number would be our floor and that 5 realistically we’re going to need a lot more than that. And as another Commissioner pointed 6 out I think in the future the proportion of electric vehicles is only going to increase. And so, I do 7 think we have to be proactive and look at those issues long term. 8 9 So, on Page 5 of the report there is some proposed language in the middle of the page that 10 would go into 18.52.040 and as one of the Commissioners pointed out a couple times we use 11 the term… the phrase at least. That if it’s just an EVSE spot it will count as at least one parking 12 space. If it’s an accessible space that has an EVSE component then it would be at least two. And 13 I do think that it might be useful to the public as and developers who are looking at this 14 language, give them some kind of guidance in the language. So that they would know who 15 decides what the at least is and what are the factors? So that’s something that I’d like Staff to 16 think about whether there’s a way to give a little more guidance in the text there. 17 18 And then just below that paragraph in part of the Staff report it says, “several justifications 19 have been counting charging spaces as two parking spaces for a percentage of total required 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. parking spaces.” Is Staff referring thereto… it says charging spaces but is it really referring to 1 these combined accessible EVSE or just straight EVSE without an ADA space? 2 3 Mr. Gutierrez: I believe it’s just the straight EVSE. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Ok. 6 7 Mr. Gutierrez: No association with accessible. 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright so in a hypothetical situation there if I’ve got a parking lot 10 with 20 spaces, I might convert those to 10 EVSE spaces, and we lose a net 10. So, I was 11 interested… because that’s a possibility I was interested in the sentence just after that that says 12 these jurisdictions allow for up to 10 percent of total required parking spaces. So, I’d like to ask 13 Staff to consider as a part of this language, if we are going to count those as two then should 14 there be some max? Maybe it’s 10 percent, maybe it's more than 10 percent because again 15 we’re going to have more electric vehicles than a lot of other jurisdictions but I’d like Staff to 16 give that some thought. 17 18 Let’s see, in the accessible ADA compliance on Page 6 there is proposed language Staff has 19 provided toward the top of the page and the last sentence says, “this provision applies to minor 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. changes to existing buildings structures” etc. Do you see that language? So, I’m wondering if 1 there’s another place somewhere in the code that will give guidance to the people who read 2 the code as to what a minor change is? Is that flushed out somewhere else or is that going to… 3 what we don’t want I think is to create a lot of debates for our Planning Director when people 4 come in thinking somethings minor that may be… is not historically what we would consider 5 minor. So, if it’s not flushed out somewhere else I’d asked Staff to think about whether it needs 6 a little more clarification here in the language. 7 8 Turning to the bicycle parking. Actually, as I read through this what came to my mind is the 9 Mid-Town Ross Road YMCA where they don’t have any parking spaces that have been 10 converted into bike parking because the bike parking is off the parking lot. It’s actually at the 11 entrances, you walk in right, there’s bike parking to the left and to the right I think coming from 12 both ways. And so, and I think that’s preferable to… where bike parking can be accommodated 13 off the parking lot. That should be the first priority so we preserve parking spaces but in the… 14 and I haven’t read through the whole code and maybe that is covered someplace but if it’s not 15 then I do think that if that’s… I think that should be our intent. And it should be reflected 16 somewhere in our code language that the City’s first priority is to find an off location, off 17 parking lot location and only if there is not one then to look at replacing a parking space with 18 bike parking. In the proposed language which is on Page 11, I didn’t understand the last 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. sentence. “This adjustment is exclusive of the minimum bicycle parking requirement for the 1 site.” Can you help me with that? 2 3 Ms. French: Well, so these would be the extra bike parking spaces beyond the minimum that 4 has already been met. So exclusive meaning exclusive of the ones that they should have 5 provided because they’re required. These are extra bike parking spaces above the required 6 number of bike parking spaces. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Ok and typically will those minimum requirements have been met off 9 the parking lot or not necessarily? 10 11 Mr. Gutierrez: That depends on how that site was configured. It could have been that they 12 allocated a space because there’s a small walkway to a door and those are parking spaces 13 there. Like again the Mid-town Shopping Center or Town and Country, you have parking that is 14 directly in front of business spaces so then there are sites that already have parking, inverted 15 [unintelligible] or lockers there because that makes sense. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Gutierrez: In other situations, it could be again, on the walkway off of the parking lot facility 1 itself. 2 3 Commissioner Hechtman: Ok, thank you and then the last item is on the restriping. And I 4 appreciated the part of the Staff report where you explained how as part of the restriping you 5 can have this unintended consequence of squeezing a drive aisle for example and that 6 constricts onsite circulation which is important. And so, I agree that improvements to onsite 7 circulation should be apart of the calculus of this but what I was concerned about is the way 8 we’ve listed it in the draft language here. It’s a stand-alone item and so it’s… it would be 9 conceivable that a property owner could come in and say I want to restripe solely to, in my 10 view, improve on-site circulation and we’re going to lose parking spaces. And I think that’s an 11 unintended reading of this and so what I would ask Staff to think about is whether that concept 12 of improvement to onsite circulation needs to be tied to at least one of the other factors. 13 You’re restriping to meet a state requirement for example and so it’s an additional reason to 14 provide flexibility rather than its own sole reason. So those my comments, thanks for listening 15 to them. 16 17 Chair Riggs: Thank you so much. Commissioner [note- Vice-Chair] Alcheck. 18 19 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok, I’ll (interrupted) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Riggs: Vice-Chair Alcheck, sorry. 2 3 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah, thank you. I’ll be short because many of the comments I wanted to 4 make have been made. I’ll echo some of them real quick. I do think having a… maybe when we 5 come back to this and definitely review it again, having some spreadsheet or table that gives us 6 an opportunity to compare what not necessarily just our neighbors are doing but any 7 jurisdictions that are maybe being more creative in general. I’m not sure if it just has to be a 8 California City, maybe something in Seattle. I imagine that California Cities are probably the 9 most at the forefront of this but so that’s something that Chair Rigg’s mentioned. 10 11 And then I want to echo a comment that Commissioner Hechtman said which if… I think it 12 would be useful to understand what factors should weigh into the percentages. Not just a 13 minimum or a maximum and particularly is there some data that we can rely on? This is how 14 many cars we anticipate being sold as a percentage of total car being sold which will be electric. 15 That might help us navigate… not… and I know that there’s a state code compliance component 16 to this. So maybe it’s not that we’re raising a minimum but maybe there’s some element we 17 can introduce. An incentive to… I’ll give you an example. I don’t think right now we require 18 single-family homes to install an EV parking spot but we do require that the parking spots be EV 19 compatible. Meaning they have to provide some 220… you know there has to be some 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. component in the breaker box dedicated to the future of electrification of the parking spot. 1 Maybe that’s something we could encourage developers who are building parking to 2 incorporate so they’re not necessarily dedicating more than the 10 spaces or 10 per… whatever 3 the percentage is but they are future-proofing. So that if in fact, the number of electric vehicles 4 rises substantially during the lifetime, which I imagine it will of the development, transitioning 5 to electric support parking spaces wouldn’t be as cumbersome for future property owners. 6 7 I also thought about the location of the bikes. It didn’t occur to me until I saw the picture of the 8 shopping center off Middlefield that you used as the example of dedicating a pre-existing spot 9 to a bicycle rake. And I’m quite familiar with that shopping center’s parking lot, it's one of the 10 more precarious ones. And I too thought about whether it made sense for us to discourage or 11 encourage depending on how you look at it the location of those bike parking facilities and 12 whether it made sense to encourage people to bike through parking lots to get to a dedicated 13 parking area or whether we could encourage their location may be somewhere other than the 14 same drive aisles that cars are often backing into. 15 16 And then the last thing I thought about was the way we approach the parking stall depth 17 question and the bollard. I think I’m using that word right. I’ve seen… so take for example a… 18 not an uncovered parking area but a covered walled-in parking area. Frequently there’s a 19 bollard and there’s a… and there’s overhang and there’s a wall that you approach. And I’ve seen 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. in those instances charges that are essentially wall mounted and they eliminate the concern for 1 or they eliminate the need to have separate posts. I don’t know if those are also bollards but 2 those posts to protect them from a car coming into them. And I wonder if… I guess one of my 3 questions… and I just don’t have the sort of full perspective here but I wondered if whether in 4 anticipating the installation of these electric charging stations we were not taking into account 5 may be other creative solutions which would make that not even an issue in terms of the depth 6 and wouldn’t necessarily cause immediate drive aisle I guess infringement. And so, I wondered 7 if our… would our language be able to accommodate some flexibility in charger layout and 8 design? So that it wouldn’t be too rigid and say well ok if you build an EV spot that spot has to 9 be a little deeper because we anticipate this is the only charger you’re going to use. I mention 10 this because the last time I went to Tokyo I had the most insane experience where a gas pump 11 came from the ceiling. And I thought to myself like there’s not even a pump on my left and 12 right. So, I anticipate that as they continue to retrofit buildings over time that we’ll see more 13 and more unique executions of these chargers. And I just want whatever text we come up with 14 to have the flexibility to accommodate that… those new alternative designs. 15 16 Chair Riggs: Sorry, if we could keep it down in the audience. It’s really distracting up here with 17 all the chatter so if we could keep it down a little that would be great. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok, that’s all my comments. I look forward to seeing this again and I can 1 commit to saying that I probably will also spend some time trying to figure out what is the most 2 cutting-edge planning strategies with respect to this. Are there garages somewhere in Europe 3 where they’re just all-electric or so I think it would be interesting to find out if developers of 4 let’s say luxury residential buildings are they already electrifying every spot. I think it would be 5 curious maybe if we reached out to a few of them just to see what’s happening out there from 6 not just a planning perspective but from a market perspective. Ok, that’s it, thank you. 7 8 Mr. Gutierrez: If I may? We’ve actually encountered the specific situation that you’re referring 9 to with the wall-mounted chargers. Typically, those have a rope around electrical loom that you 10 use and those typically only have one charger per space. Most of the applicants that we 11 encounter who are applying to install those don’t want that particular model because they only 12 get one charger cord per unit. Also, that requires a wall to be there so that isn’t a situation in 13 most of the instances that we’re seeing these being added. If they already have an 14 underground garage and they were to wall mount them we do allow them because they can be 15 mounted above what we call the hood clearance area. So, if they are able to be mounted 5-feet 16 up then they would clear a hood of a vehicle, even an SUV, and then that would be fine. Also, 17 with… in that scenario with the parking structure, there would be support beams at some point 18 at the start of a parking stall. You know just like downstairs in this building. So, at that point, 19 you could actually put the charger behind there and that’s… those are methods that we’ve 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. encouraged applicants already to try because the structural support for the structure already is 1 a bollard and we don’t have a Collison issue and that space is usually much larger than the 2 charger itself. 3 4 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah no I feel like I didn’t want to mention this because I don’t know if it’s 5 true but I feel like I’ve read… and I’m maybe making this up about the… there’s some 6 movement in the industry to create a wireless charging mat that you essentially can ride… I just 7 think that there’s potentially a lot of change that we’ll see in this. And I just wanted to not 8 necessarily tying you just to the wall mount ones but to encourage us to think as creatively as 9 possible about the way we draft it. So that we don’t necessarily have to keep revising it in case 10 these things change dramatically but thank you for responding. 11 12 Chair Riggs: Anybody else? Good so hopefully this is a short item when it comes back to us. So, 13 thank you for the way… you got what you needed? Alright so thank you. 14 15 Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you. 16 Action Items 17 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 18 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 19 20 None. 21 Approval of Minutes 22 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 23 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3. December 11, 2019 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes 1 Chair Riggs: So, we have two more items, first approval of the minutes. Item Three and Item 2 Four. 3 [note – the Commission moved back up to Director’s Report] 4 Chair Riggs: Alright two action items, first approval of minutes. I do not have any comment 5 cards. If you have a comment on Item Three or Four I need that comment card. Any comment 6 cards on Item Three or Four please get them in. I see something coming in, is that Item Three? 7 Ok. 8 9 [note – unknown male speaker]: [unintelligible – spoke off-mic from the audience] 10 11 Chair Riggs: Ok so (interrupted) 12 13 Vice-Chair Alcheck: (off mic) Do you want someone to make a motion to approve the minutes? 14 15 Chair Riggs: We need to see who’s got comments. I believe there may be a comment card in the 16 comment box that our colleague… thank you very much for working with us here. Alright, so I 17 really appreciate you guys submitting this so we’re going to go back to Item One. 18 19 [note – the Commission moved back up to Oral Communication for public comment] 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Alright seeing not comments on Item Three. We have out December 11th draft PTC 1 minutes. Hopefully, you had a chance to review. Do I have a motion to approve? 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’ll move to approve. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Second. 10 11 VOTE 12 13 Chair Riggs: So, a motion to approve, Commissioner Roohparvar, second by Commissioner [note 14 -Vice-Chair] Alcheck. All in favor say aye. 15 16 Chair Riggs: Any abstain? 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman: Abstain. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. MOTION PASSED 6(Lauing, Roohparvar, Alcheck, Riggs, Summa, Templeton)-0-1 (Hechtman 1 abstain) 2 3 Chair Riggs: Ok so approved six with one abstention. 4 5 Commission Action: Motion to approve by Roohparvar, seconded by Alcheck. 6-0-1 with 6 Hechtman abstained. 7 Committee Items 8 Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 9 4. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 10 Chair Riggs: Ok moving on we have administrative item in terms of our Committee structure of 11 electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. I have three comment cards so we will hear from Terri Holzmer 12 followed by Margaret Heath followed by Ms. Winter Dellenbach. 13 14 Mr. Terri Holzmer: Good evening Commissioners. I’d like to read a short letter that has come 15 from Palo Alto citizens that we sent to you this past Monday. I’m positive that you’ve had a 16 chance to read it but I think it’s also important that it be transparent and visible to the entire 17 community; especially those that are watching right now. We the residents of Palo Alto request 18 that all Planning and Transportation Commissioners take into account the following key 19 characteristics when nominating and voting for this year’s Chair and Vice-Chair. Selfless… 1) 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Selfless interest in serving the public good and carrying out the work of the people. Punctual 1 and regular attendance at meetings. Thorough preparation for each agenda item, including 2 knowledge of relevant background. The utmost respect and courtesy toward the public, 3 especially those that come out in the evening. It’s right of participation and the Commissioner’s 4 role to thoroughly vet items that hearing to the Commissioner’s role and on the public’s behalf. 5 Zero tolerance for bullying or disparaging a member of the public from the dais. Respectful 6 interactions with colleagues. A commitment to transparency, including compliance with state-7 required, complete disclosure at the dais of any conflict of and conflict of interest and resultant 8 recusal from participation. Full compliance with disclosure requirements in quasi-judicial 9 hearings including disclosure of contact with any or all parties involved, as well as providing the 10 substance of new and pertinent information from those contacts that are not part of the public 11 record. Respectful interactions with staff in private. For example, when setting agendas as well 12 as during public meetings. Full disclosure of any interactions with staff on personal matters that 13 may overlap with the work of the commission. Managing fair, open, and productive meetings 14 by preserving order and decorum at the dais, curbing behavior that is not in alignment with the 15 highest ethical standards, allowing adequate time for members of the public to speak, 16 permitting each commissioner an opportunity to ask questions before any motions are made, 17 keeping discussions on topic, and moving by encapsulating key ideas and being as clear and 18 brief as possible, and finally seeking areas of common ground when possible. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I urge you to look at these guidelines and consider them. Thank you. 1 2 Chair Riggs: Thank you very much. Sorry, Margaret Heath. 3 4 Ms. Margaret Heath: Good evening. Maggie Heath from College Terrace and I’m an endorser of 5 the community letter that you’ve received. It also listed 53 other residents’ endorsers across 6 neighborhoods in the document that you received from Becky Sanders on Monday. Among 7 them are several who have served as a Council, Board, and/or Commission Member, and I’d like 8 to mention these. Emily Renzel and Joe Hirsch both were Chairs of the Planning Commission 9 before its name and purview changed in 2000. Emily Renzel, as well as another Palo Alto legion 10 Enid Pearson both, served on the City Council. Karen Holman was a two-term Chair on the 11 Planning and Transportation Commission and then Council Member and Mayor. Former City 12 Council Member and Mayor Yuriko Kishimoto, as well as former Council Member Greg Schmid, 13 are also endorsers. Jennifer Hetterly, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner and Chair has 14 endorsed; as has Greer Stone, former Human Relation Commissioner and Chair. 15 16 Since this letter, together with the initial endorsers which were sent to you on Monday, we 17 have received additional endorsements and I’d like to mention a couple of those. Among the 18 endorsers include former Planning and Transportation Commissioner and Vice-Chair Arthur 19 Keller and former Utilities Advisory Commissioner and Chair James Cook. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Thank you to all the residents who have turned up this evening to support us and stayed late 1 and thank you for listening. Thank you, bye-bye. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Thank you very much. Let me see, Winter Dellenbach. 4 5 Ms. Winter Dellenbach: Hi, I’m happy to be here. I just want to say while I know that mob there 6 and I like them a lot. I’m not really with them tonight. I’m speaking for myself kind of about 7 another thing. Expertise and knowledge; expertise and knowledge; expertise and knowledge. 8 That’s the gold standard in Palo Alto, I think we all know that. On City Council, on our 9 Commissions, expertise, and knowledge, that’s what we want. We want it for our leaders of our 10 Commissions and on our City Council. Both expertise and knowledge come with hard work and 11 overtime. I want to say I know something about this. I’m almost 75-years old and I have noticed 12 that that’s how we accumulate this. It takes time and it takes hard work. I also know that it is 13 when new leadership it being elected because I sit in on a lot of City Council meetings, 14 Commission meetings or I watch them at home on TV. There’s a big scramble. Every time you 15 all elect new people or other Commissions do or whatever, you all talk to each other behind the 16 scenes, we always hope the Brown Act isn’t violated but who knows and people line upvotes. 17 It’s kind of like survivor at Skull Island or something sometimes. It makes me very nervous. So, I 18 don’t know what you all have really planned for tonight and what you have done but I like to 19 think that you all are the best and the brightest. I always keep hope alive and I hope beyond 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. hope that you have as your highest priority expertise and knowledge in your leadership votes 1 tonight. No matter what you’ve been talking about, if you have, for Chair and for the Vice-Chair 2 because some have more expertise than knowledge than others. You will all have it, you will all 3 get it over time, and hard work because that’s how it comes. And despite political ambitions 4 and despite alliances, you make with each other to achieve your smaller goals and personal 5 goals. It’s expertise and knowledge that the people of Palo Alto and the City of Palo Alto expect 6 from people on our Commissions. And we expect it from each and every one of you so please 7 do the right thing tonight. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Riggs: Thank you, Ms. Dellenbach. So, if anyone else has any comments now is the time 10 before I close the hearing. Seeing none, I like to do that. Ok, so we’ll bring it back to the 11 Commission. 12 13 Just to outline the process and we had to do a little review or refresher of the By-Laws. What 14 will happen is we’ll elect the Chair and then the Chair will run the election of the Vice-Chair 15 which is what we’ve done traditionally. It’s similar to what Council does so I get to get up and 16 participate then which is great. But typically for both the process has been that we take 17 nominations, we take all the nominations. Typically, what we’ve done in the past is the… 18 generally, the person that’s nominated can except with a simple yes/no and the nominator will 19 speak to their nomination. And that’s typically what we do when we make motions, we speak 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to the motion. After we have all the nominations we’ll go through rounds of voting until a 1 majority is reached and if you watched the election premier that’s how the Council has done it 2 too so. If I mess up, let me know, if I mess up let me know because in theory I understand how 3 this is done but I’ve never run one before. So, with that said I think what I will do and we’ll just 4 do it by I’ll take nomination for the position (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Question. 7 8 Chair Riggs: Questions, ok I got a light so go ahead. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: On process (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: I’m a little confused on Point Number Five if this is really what’s 15 intended. So, I understand that… because I’m not quite sure we handle it this way but we can 16 figure out how we want to handle it. There’s the nomination and then a second and then the 17 nominee says yes, I want to but what this says is that after those nominations have been made 18 and seconded and the nominees have accepted then we’re going to vote immediately. And I 19 don’t recall that we went immediately to a vote because, for example, Commissioner A could 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. make a nomination, Commissioner B could make the second, Commissioner C would say yes 1 and then we’re done so there’s no discussion that way. 2 3 Chair Riggs: I think that (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: This seems to disenfranchise Commissioners that want to ask questions 6 of the nominee or something like that. 7 8 Chair Riggs: I think we… for at least for my tenor on the Commission we have not done that and 9 I don’t think that’s listed in our By-Laws but I think what is consistent is to actually take all the 10 nominations upfront (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: Correct. 13 14 Chair Riggs: Let the nominators speak to their nomination. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: Correct my only question is do we want to stop it after the nominees 17 have both said yes or do we want to be able to ask questions of the nominee? 18 19 Chair Riggs: I don’t… I would have to consult with our… yeah, I’m sorry, have direction. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Sandra Lee, Assistant City Attorney: So, thank you Mr. Chair. So, under the Commission’s 2 rules, the Chair does have discretion to determine the procedures. However, and but the Chair 3 can also submit it to the Commission to decide whether or not his proposed procedure is 4 acceptable to a majority of the Commission. And if the Chair does decide on the procedure and 5 a Member of the Commission would like to appeal that. Then you can also make a motion to 6 appeal that and institute a different process. Is that… ok. 7 8 Chair Riggs: Well, this clearly puts me… you’re putting me on the spot. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: That wasn’t the intent at all I can assure you of that. 11 12 Chair Riggs: I don’t recall that we’ve ever done this before and I would prefer not to set a new 13 precedent of basically putting a nominee on the spot with lots of questions. I don’t know that 14 that’s fair but I would entertain… if you want to make a… if we could want to have… you know 15 vote, do a consensus, show of hands that that’s something that we want to do. I would 16 entertain it but I would just be… say its from my perspective I don’t feel like… I feel like this is 17 setting a different standard but. (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: I don’t have any hidden agenda here, Chair. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Riggs: Yeah. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: I’m just saying that if somebody wanted to ask a question or say I… other 4 than the person who seconding, I’d like to support it for these reasons. They’re not going to be 5 able to give their reasons and we’ll never know. So that’s all I was trying to kind of look at. 6 7 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Summa followed by Commissioner… Commissioner Summa followed 8 by Commissioner [note -Vice-Chair] Alcheck. 9 10 Commissioner Summa: Thank you, Chair. Tonight seems… does seem a little different to me and 11 I remember in the past having a discussion about… publicly about why we may or may not 12 support a particular candidate. I remember speaking to your nomination last year so I think we 13 have typically done that and I think that’s not just for us but it’s also for the public. And I… 14 usually we have… we don’t usually have members of the public here for this here I don’t think 15 but we did do that last year. So… because I think it’s… I think it's nice for people to hear 16 reasoning behind the support we give each other for these leadership positions. 17 18 Chair Riggs: Commissioner [note -Vice-Chair] Alcheck. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Alcheck: I’m prepared to make a nomination. 1 2 Chair Riggs: I’m sorry, Commissioner Becker. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: (off mic) Hechtman. 5 6 Chair Riggs: I’m sorry, we just met. I… and for everybody out there this is so awkward for me. 7 We just met this morning and I’m (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: We’ll get there. 10 11 Chair Riggs: I’m not a table talk person so. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: So really a point of order, since you have the flexibility as the Chair, 14 current Chair to control this I actually had a comment that I thought should proceed the 15 nominations. It's not about a particular nominee and I was wondering if now, as we’re poised 16 for somebody to make a nomination if I could make my point (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Riggs: I would welcome a comment, sure. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, thank you, thank you. So, and actually what… I wanted to 1 address the community letter that was provided and somebody was kind enough to read that 2 into the record tonight and that a number of you I think are here to support. I did receive it and 3 read it and I think it’s terrific. And I want to thank all the people in our community that 4 participated in it and endorsed it and that… and supported its ideals. I do, I support those 5 ideals, and I found myself nodding my head as I… yes as I read through it but as I read through it 6 I did see what I considered to be a significant omission. And so, I just want to put that on the 7 table because I do think it should be on the list but it’s not. And it really relates to characteristic 8 Number Five which says, “zero tolerance for bullying or disparaging a member of the public 9 from the dais” and I agree with that but what’s missing in that statement is this. Zero tolerance 10 for bullying or disparaging a member of the public by another member of the public and zero 11 tolerance for bullying or disparaging a member of the dais… someone on the dais; whether it’s 12 a Commissioner or a member of Staff by a member of the public. In other words, in this room, I 13 think every person has to be respectful of every other person regardless of your role in the 14 process. And I do think that it’s the role of the Chair and the Vice-Chair to ensure that that 15 order is maintained in all of those directions. And so that’s the point I wanted to make and 16 whoever our Chair and Vice-Chair are moving forward I’m confident that they will do that. 17 Thank you. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: And I want to echo that. I really appreciate you saying that because I think… I 1 appreciated the comments as well. And I was thinking of the word civitas and thinking about 2 that we’re all here to respect one another and to hear the public but also to bring out collective 3 expertise to inform how we live. So, thank you for that and thank you for the comments. I think 4 that’s… those are very informative, so any other comments about process? Commissioner 5 Lauing. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: I guess I’m still back on the same issue is I don’t see any downside of 8 being able to support a motion or not. It’s like we do with every other motion. 9 10 Chair Riggs: So, I don’t have a problem with dialoging but I think the point here you speak… you 11 can… I don’t have a problem with doing that. We’ll go through rounds of nominations after you 12 all can speak to and/or questions. I’m going to limit everyone to one question. We need to keep 13 this efficient or one item of dialog but I’ll be responsive to that. I think you’re right, no problem. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 16 17 Chair Riggs: I see no other lights. We’ll… I will entertain nominations for the election of Chair so 18 and we’ll take as many as we need to be nominated. Commissioner [note -Vice-Chair] Alcheck. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. NOMINATION FOR CHAIR 1 2 Vice-Chair Alcheck: First let me just say welcome, probably should have done that in the 3 beginning of the meeting. Your presence is already profoundly impressive and thank you for 4 your comment. 5 6 And I’m going to make a nomination right now. It’s been quite a privilege for me to serve with 7 Commissioner Templeton. I have always been impressed with her intellect and her 8 professionalize. And I like to nominate her and then I’ll speak to my nomination if it gets 9 seconded. 10 11 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Templeton do you accept the nomination to start off with. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 14 15 Chair Riggs: Ok, do we have a second? 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Commissioner Roohparvar: Second. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar seconds. Would you like to speak to the nomination 2 Commissioner [note -Vice-Chair] Alcheck? 3 4 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah, the reason why I’m nominating Commissioner Templeton is because 5 if I could add one thing to this list or I guess if the… my sincere belief is that effective meeting 6 management is the ultimate precursor of the success of this Commission. I think everybody 7 here has great experience and great knowledge and I think we all operate with mange of the 8 values that are articulated tonight. I think it’s a unique quality to be able to effectively manage 9 a group and sometimes it’s not always the individual with the greatest expertise in traffic for 10 example or law or any area that is all… that is the best meeting manager. And so, with that, I 11 want to acknowledge that I believe Commissioner Templeton approaches the important work 12 we do on this Commission with an exceptional level-headed method of operation and a very 13 clear sense of empathy for all who engage in our process. And I think what is most remarkable 14 is that she reminds me so much of the late Edwardo Martinez who served as Chair when I first 15 joined this Commission and I remember his leadership fondly because he inspired all of us on 16 this Commission to be our best selves. Like him, Commissioner Templeton, you are 17 compassionate, you are thoughtful, you are measured in your analysis and commentary, and 18 you make those who come to our meetings feel welcome, heard, and considered. And for all of 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. these reasons, I think you will make an outstanding Chair and I hope my fellow Commissioners 1 will join me in supporting your appointment. 2 3 Chair Riggs: So, Commissioner… can you speak to your second? 4 5 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yes, I’d like to speak to my second. First off, thank you for 6 submitting that letter. I did genuinely spend a lot of time thinking about the points raised in 7 that letter and really thinking about who epitomizes those characteristics and that is 8 Commissioner Templeton. I’ve had the honor and privilege of serving with her. And stepping 9 back what this Commission needs and what one needs of a Chair is somebody who is 10 respectful, you are organized, and who has empathy and Commissioner Templeton embodies 11 all three. I have gotten to know here both on the dais and in informal settings, during dinners, 12 behind the scenes. Never once, never once and I can honestly say this have I ever seen her be 13 disrespectful to a member of the Staff, to a fellow Commissioner Member, to a member of the 14 public. That is not in her character and speaking to the fact that she is extremely organized. I 15 don’t know if people know this but she has over 20-years in experience in organizational 16 processes and running meetings and she knows what she’s doing. And finally, the empathy, 17 that emotional intelligence that she brings to the table and I’ve seen it when she connects and 18 interacts with people who… from the public who come to speak. And it’s just so thoughtful in 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the way that she thinks about and approaches issues. So, for those reasons, I seconded 1 Commissioner Templeton’s nomination and I would be honored to have her as our Chair. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Thank you. We… I have more lights. Commissioner Summa, I have you but I will 4 need to know, I don’t know whether or not we’re taking… you have comments or not but I do… 5 I will entertain other nominations now that we’ve had a… if there are other nominations. So, 6 Commissioner Summa and then Commissioner Lauing. If there are no further… if you would 7 hold your questions if there are no further nominations we can go into the dialog… the 8 requested questions but if there are any other nominations I’ll entertain them now. Ok, 9 Commissioner Summa followed by Commissioner Lauing. 10 11 Commissioner Summa: So, thank you very much and really thank you to the members of the 12 public who came out tonight with a lot of good advice and comments to us. And it’s not always 13 easy to be perfect up here. I will be very honest I have been… this is my fourth year on the 14 Planning Commission. I was planning on throwing my hat in the ring for a lot of reasons. In 15 addition to this body I have served on server other City Commissions and Boards but I am struck 16 by the… some of the comments in the letter seeking areas of common ground when possible. I 17 am struck by the good working relationship I have had with Commissioner Templeton. I’ve sat 18 next to her for the whole year. I was able to help her when she was a new Commissioner and 19 wasn’t sure how everything worked out. I’ve enjoyed getting to know her outside but I don’t 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. think it would be useful, as much as I would like to serve my community by being Chair. There’s 1 always Vice-Chair. I don’t think it would be useful for me to throw my hat in the ring. I am very 2 touched by the reminder that alliances in politics should not prevail when we make these 3 decisions. And our newest Commissioner reminded that bullying and respect should go all ways 4 and directions in this room. And I would like to add that when you have the privilege of serving 5 on a Board or Commission and sit up here in front of the people, you take an oath, you serve 6 your… the Staff and the Council and the people of Palo Alto. You also should extend that same 7 respect outside of this room and that includes to comments made online. So, I will be 8 supporting Commissioner Templeton tonight for Chair. I just wanted to make those comments. 9 10 Chair Riggs: Ok I appreciate those. If we could… if we just keep it to questions for Commissioner 11 Templeton I think that’s what we agreed too, so Commissioner Lauing. 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Similar comment is in order now? [unintelligible] I thought you were 14 changing it up now. 15 16 Chair Riggs: That’s fine, that’s fine just… Commissioner Lauing. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: Well, I think on paper in my view a second-year Commissioner is not a 19 perfect profile for Chair unless they’ve had prior Commission experience. For example, like 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs has in a different City and why is obviously because it’s a very steep learning curve. 1 We’ve got zoning and building complexities, we’ve got key issues in the City and history around 2 them. Not to mention just the good old iconic Palo Alto process. And Carrie [note – 3 Commissioner Templeton] is a second-year Commissioner and I’m supporting her fully for 4 Chair. I think she’s eager to take the reins and lead the charge to make real progress on a lot of 5 multiple issues we face. She wants to get things done which I completely share that attitude. I 6 also appreciate her preparation on issues this year which shows she’s very dedicated and hard 7 working to jump on that learning curve and really come up that learning curve and help us. And 8 I particularly like the… I particularly have confidence in her meeting management and I have 9 zero questions I’m happy to say about any sort of civility. And I hope that she is also mentoring 10 all of us on that and monitoring all of us on that. And in that, I would also like to just start this 11 Commission off this year with a unified vote to select a leader which is Carrie [note -12 Commissioner Templeton] to get us going and let’s go get stuff done for Palo Alto. Fully support 13 her. 14 15 VOTE 16 17 Chair Riggs: Thank you Chair… Commissioner. I want to call you Chair Lauing. Thank you. Any 18 other comments… questions? We said questions but we’ve… well, I’ll entertain additional 19 comments as well because I think that’s [unintelligible]. Any other questions or comments? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. With that said I think we’re ready for a vote so all in favor of the election of Commissioner 1 Templeton as our 2020 Chair. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Alright, so the motions carries 2 seven to nothing. Thank you very much and let’s switch seats. 3 4 MOTION PASSED 7(Hechtman, Summa, Templeton, Riggs, Alcheck, Roohparvar, Lauing) -0 5 6 Chair Templeton: Well thank you all. I am so touched and a little emotional right now but I so 7 appreciate the sense… the feeling that we’re kicking it off as Commissioner Lauing said in a 8 sense of goodwill and sharing the spirit that the community has put forward as well. I can safely 9 say that every one of us shares the point of view that we are here to interact peacefully and 10 move forward with making Palo Alto even better than it already is. So, thank you very much for 11 that. 12 13 Alright now on to business. Any nominations for Vice-Chair? Commissioner Lauing. 14 15 NOMINATION #1 FOR VICE-CHAIR 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: Ok I would like to nominate Doria Summa for Vice-Chair. 18 19 Chair Templeton: And do you accept? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Summa: I do. 2 3 Chair Templeton: Any second? 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Second? We need a second in order to (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Templeton: Do you second? 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: We need a second in order to debate it or discuss it. 10 11 Vice-Chair Alcheck: We need a second. 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Need a second to the nomination. 14 15 Chair Riggs: Are you asking me? 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: No, I’m asking if there is a second. 18 19 Chair Riggs: Ok. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Templeton: And I believe you can second it. The motion (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Is… somebody… oh, he put his light on. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Am I not lighting up? 6 7 Chair Templeton: Ok, yes Commissioner Hechtman. 8 9 SECOND 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, sorry, so I will second for at least so we can have discussion 12 and questions and comments. 13 14 Commissioner Summa: Thank you. 15 16 Chair Templeton: Alright, great, and do we have… do we back up our statements or take all 17 nominations first? 18 19 [note – many Commissioners started talking at once off mic] 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Templeton: Alright so any other nominations? 2 3 NOMINATION #2 FOR VICE-CHAIR 4 5 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I’ll nominate at this time… just for clarification purposes, you can also 6 second your own nomination in case you were worried. You can also make your own 7 nomination. 8 9 At this time, I’d like to nomination Commissioner Roohparvar. 10 11 Chair Templeton: Any second? 12 13 Commissioner Roohparvar: [unintelligible – off mic] second? 14 15 Chair Templeton: Any second? 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’ll second myself. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Templeton: Ok. Alright, we’ve got two nominations. Commissioner Lauing do you want to 2 speak to your nomination? 3 4 Commission Riggs: I’m sorry I just can’t hear very well. If… down there if the mics are on. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: [unintelligible – crosstalk] 7 8 Chair Riggs: If the mics are… if multiple mics are on it’s actually hard to hear like over here if 9 you’re over there. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: I hadn’t started yet so. I just wanted to spend a couple of bullet points 12 for everyone to understand at least my view on this Commission of what the Vice-Chair does. In 13 the public meetings, the responsibilities are very minor and as it normally goes the Vice-Chair 14 would only take the gavel probably once a year in the absence of the Chair. Outside of the 15 meeting, I think the role is significant. Obviously, there’s a pre-meeting and that’s not just an 16 hour every 2-weeks in City Hall up here talking with the Planning Department. The person has 17 to be up to speed in detail on the Packet by that Tuesday. Often when I was Chair on this 18 Commission there was a pre-meeting for the pre-meeting with the Vice-Chair so that we were 19 really prepped and often there was a post-meeting where we synced up to make sure that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. managing the meeting would be quite efficient. There are meetings with the Chair, there are 1 meetings with the Mayor, there’s interface with Staff outside of meetings, there’s retreat 2 planning, and there can be assignments from the Chair depending on what she wants to 3 delegate. So just kind of get that in perspective. 4 5 So why Doria [note – Commissioner Summa]? We’ve seen her perform for 3-years at I think an 6 extortionary level on PTC and I would submit that that’s only the tip of the iceberg because 7 that’s what we see. She’s really spent 20-years actively involved in the City of Palo Alto working 8 in City involved issues and I call her an advocational zoning expert because she just really knows 9 this stuff inside and out. Been president of her Neighborhood Association, a member of the 10 very difficult Comp Plan Advisory Committee that was a predecessor to us finally voting on that, 11 and takes on other tasks in addition to her PTC now such as the NVCAP; the Ventura working 12 group. So, City work is really her passion, I think it’s her main thing in life, and she’ll invest any 13 amount of time necessary, you know 24-hour… 24/7 in the role. I presume she sees her 14 husband occasionally. So, I’m in recruiting and so I always try to look at candidates and say 15 what’s going to predict a successor? Every single meeting I’ve been in with her, which is all the 16 ones you’ve been in with her, there’s evidence of just exhaustive detailed preparation and 17 evidence that she’s gone to other sources to get even more information to both form her 18 opinion as well as share with colleagues so that we can make better decisions. Her questions 19 are very good and prepared in advance, her positions are well-argued at the meetings, clearly 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. articulated in a nice normal and civil way, she’s an enthusiastic champion of thorough public 1 input on issues like this and like everything, a real champion of the resident, actively engaged in 2 every debate and I say that specifically because she’s only missed one meeting in 3-years so 3 completely committed. Always very civil listens to call colleagues before deciding how to vote 4 and her mind is changed sometimes by that. And the last thing I just want to mention in that 5 regard is that she has very positive interactions with Staff. 6 7 A couple comments I want to make apart from… I wrote this not thinking of another candidate 8 in this regard, I just want to point that out. So, these are not candidates… on the merits of 9 either of the candidates… comments on the merits of either of the candidates. I think that 10 Carrie, now the Chair, needs a partner with lots of experience to work on the condition and the 11 City process and so on. I think this will be better for PTC and I think it’s going to build 12 confidence in our total leadership team within the community which is really important. I… as 13 you know from my last year's comments, I personally don’t feel that the election of the Chair 14 and the Vice-Chair should be politically based because managing the Commission’s business 15 really has nothing to do with voting on issues and doesn’t influence it. But others in our 16 community disagree with that promise so I think that having Doria [note – Commissioner 17 Summa] and Carrie [note – Chair Templeton] together is another benefit to the community of 18 showing balance in political perspective perhaps just as… as was just done on the Council just a 19 couple weeks ago. So, you pick up that balance as well and then 2-years ago Doria [note – 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa] stood for Vice-Chair, she was tied in a vote with Susan Monk, rather 1 than leave that meeting in a stalemate, unprovoked Doria [note - Commissioner Summa] 2 graciously postponed her stint as Vice [note – Vice-Chair] and allowed Commissioner Monk to 3 take the role. This is just what Council Member Cormack did graciously in the Vice-Mayor 4 selection a couple weeks ago with the clear promise that she would have a turn in the future. 5 So, I submit for all the reasons and particularly for the experience level that we get, now is the 6 future for Doria [note – Commissioner Summa] and the last year of her term. So, I think she’s a 7 great partner for our new Chair, they’ve worked well together in the past year, and Carrie 8 [note- Chair Templeton] will benefit enormously from the decades of experience and her work 9 ethic and at her counsel. 10 11 Chair Templeton: Thank you Commissioner Lauing. Commissioner Hechtman, do you want to 12 speak to your second? 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman: So, as I indicated at the time of the second, not realizing that a 15 nominee could self-second, I wanted to… I wanted a dialog and I wanted to hear from the 16 nominees not knowing whether or not there would be more than one. 17 18 But now I know there are two and so… and I’m looking at the community letter Item Number 19 Three, thorough preparation for each agenda item including knowledge of relative background. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And I will be candid that when I found out that this item was on our agenda tonight, my first 1 meeting, and that if there were a contest if there were more than one nominee for either 2 position I was going to be in a difficult spot because I don’t have the knowledge of the relative 3 background. I don’t have the background and experience of working with either of these two 4 nominees. And so, while I seconded this and I think it’s important that we hear from both 5 nominees. I want to say up front that my intention is to abstain because I don’t feel that I have 6 sufficient knowledge of either nominee to choose between them. 7 8 I appreciate the positive remarks from Ed [note – Commissioner Lauing] and I’m expecting to 9 hear from Mike [note – Vice-Chair Alcheck] in regard to his nominee and I expect that to be 10 equally persuasive. So, I think it will be a tough decision but I’m counting on four of my six 11 fellow Commissioners to choose one or the other. 12 13 Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner [note – Vice-Chair] Alcheck, would you like to speak 14 to your nomination? 15 16 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I would, thank you. Where do I begin? I was thrilled when I heard that 17 Commissioner Roohparvar was appointed to this Commission. When I watched her interview, I 18 was struck by the profound expertise she had in the land use planning. For those of you 19 unfamiliar I’m a land-use attorney and in law school at the King Hall at Davis, I was a TA in 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. California Land Use Planning. And when I applied to law firms there was one… there’s only one 1 firm when it comes to land use law in the United States and that’s the firm, Miller Starr Regalia. 2 And in fact, any practicing land use attorney likely, maybe less now because of the digital age, 3 will have a set of treatises behind their desk that they rely on profoundly when dealing with 4 land use for municipal issues. And all of them have the authorship Miller and Starr, the 5 founders of Miller Starr Regalia. I mention this because not only did I not… I didn’t earn an offer 6 of employment from Miller Starr Regalia despite trying very hard and interviewing with them. 7 But regardless, in my professional experience my interactions with that firm and my experience 8 with their publication… with their founder’s publication was remarkable expertise. And it may 9 come as some surprise for those of you that don’t know that Commissioner Roohparvar not 10 only did get an offer from Miller and Starr, she may be one of the youngest partners or if not 11 the youngest women to make partner at Miller Starr and Regalia. And I have to tell you that for 12 an attorney in land use in the area of land use to make partner in such a prestigious law firm 13 suggests that she was a star. She was a star engaging with municipal employees and she was a 14 star engaging with communities and their constituents and she was a star in helping clients 15 achieve positive results in their what are always contentious land use issues. 16 17 And so, I didn’t actually know you at all when you were appointed but it was really impressed. I 18 think when the Council… I think it was… I might be wrong. I think you were unanimously 19 appointed by the Council. I think you got every vote when you were appointed which is also 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. unique and I think the reason that’s the case is because there has been a realization I think 1 among our Council that expertise in the area of land use is helpful. I think the issues are getting 2 more complex and the polarization in our community is getting greater. And having individuals 3 who sort of approach these issues from an arm’s length, from an antipolitical perspective, who 4 are familiar with not just the nature of the code that we consistently grapple with but also with 5 how it’s often interrupted after we make our decisions. I think that’s a big part of why you… 6 why the Council sought your perspective in these issues. 7 8 I think that, with Commissioner Hechtman, I may have now served with 18 Commissioners in 9 the 8 or so years I’ve been on this Commission. The overwhelming majority of them never got 10 to have a leadership position on this Commission. I… it's uncomfortable to have to pick 11 between two candidates and I think it’s uncomfortable for a Chair, for example, to have to pick 12 between two Vice-Chair candidates. And I think that regardless of how this vote goes I think… I 13 don’t think it should be treated as a personal vote of confidence or no confidence. I think that 14 the… that these are difficult and sort of tough decisions but one does not necessarily mean that 15 there’s ill will. My point about the fact that the overwhelming majority of Commissioners I’ve 16 served with never held a leadership position is just that all the points of view on this 17 Commission are equally weighted and the role is well suited to individuals who are both 18 trustworthy and strong meeting managers. And also, I think, especially in interacting with Staff 19 and behind the scenes, individuals that can help encourage the direction of the discussion in 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. anticipation of tough meetings in a way that’s most responsive to some of the important 1 elements of these decisions that we make. And so, I am equally excited that another individual 2 with tremendous experience grappling with the… with code issues has joined this Commission. 3 We use to have an architect, sometimes that’s really valuable. I think we could probably benefit 4 from someone with greater exposure to development but the point is, is that the combination 5 of your organizational management skills, your compassion, and your empathy in partnership 6 with someone who has such tremendous and exceptional experience with many of the legal 7 issues I think would be profound. And I say that with all due respect to you Commissioner 8 Summa. And so, I strongly support your appointment to this position and encourage all of you 9 to support Commissioner Roohparvar for the Vice-Chair as well. 10 11 Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Roohparvar, do you want to speak to you second 12 and then Commissioner Riggs? 13 14 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yes. I would be honored to have… to be elected Vice-Chair and have 15 an opportunity to take on greater responsibility and work with Commissioner [note – Chair] 16 Templeton. Speaking… thank you so much, Commissioner [note – Vice-Chair] Alcheck for your 17 vote of confidence in me. I do have 12-years of experience in this realm as well as not only 18 having appeared before… serving on the Commission in Palo Alto but I’ve appeared before 19 Planning Commissions and City Councils all across California and nationally in my practice 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. outside of my appearance here. But setting aside that expertise what I vow and what I bring to 1 the table that I think would be valuable is my ability to reach across the aisle and empathy. And 2 this is why I was able to get the City Council votes and why I have had good relationships with 3 Staff because I do think that this position should transcend politics. And It’s not about getting 4 up here and arguing your point and making sure you win. It’s about making sure that everybody 5 is heard and has a fair chance and making sure that there is civility and decorum that’s always 6 maintained. So, for those reasons, I nominated myself as Vice-Chair and I am up to the job and I 7 can do it. 8 9 Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Riggs. 10 11 Commissioner Riggs: Well, I really appreciated Commissioner Lauing’s general description of 12 your service and I guess I want to echo that. I guess I have a question though because I… 13 Commissioner Summa, I really appreciate your efforts in your preparation but one thing is I 14 really struggle with in supporting you is that last year in our retreat when you chose not to 15 participate. It really… you know I had set up this event, try to build us as a team to help us 16 figure out how to work together more, and so I guess why I’m struggling with being able to 17 support your experience is that I’m not exactly sure how you would… do you recover from that 18 jester? I just don’t… I mean I want to hear how you will lead differently than that. So, I mean I 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. guess if you could speak to that I’d really, really appreciate it because it’s weighed on me for a 1 while. 2 3 Commissioner Summa: Well you could have reached out at any time to ask me and to be 4 honest I did participate in the retreat. I stayed for the whole meeting and some of the events 5 that you planned I felt were somewhat frivolous and irrelevant to our mission and I wanted to 6 discuss how we could work together better. And in fact, the Vice-Chair apologized to me after 7 that meeting because he knew some of the little exercises we were going to do made me 8 uncomfortable. So, you know, it occurs to me that we could have talked… spoken about this a 9 year ago. A simple invitation to coffee would have been meaningful to me. 10 11 Chair Templeton: Doria [note – Commissioner Summa] did you want to say anything about your 12 nomination? 13 14 Commissioner Summa: Thank you Commissioner Lauing, that was a little over the top. I can 15 assure everyone in the room I do not think about zoning 24/7. That’s just not true. I also think 16 that I have lived in this community for a very long time and worked very hard and I think I will 17 be an excellent Vice-Chair. I think I have the time to do it, I am not employed outside of the 18 home as they say and my various pursuits with the City. So, I think I’m going to be able to assist 19 you better in your role and anyone who has a job. I’m sure that anybody… anyone of us here 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. can do an excellent job as Vice-Chair. It’s just a matter of who’s going to do it this year so I 1 would like that to be me. I hope some of you besides Ed [note – Commissioner Lauing] will. And 2 yeah, I don’t want to spend to much time on it. I do think its… the decorum is very important 3 and satisfying our responsibility to Staff and the public. And I just want to irritate something I 4 said earlier and for me, that doesn’t stop in this room. Not up here or in this room or I take that 5 out into the world with me. I don’t tweet things, I don’t Instagram, I don’t write Facebook 6 posts, I don’t do things like that, and I just wanted to make that clear. I think I would be 7 excellent and I think I’ll have more time to do it. To help you really because I do think it’s a 8 pretty big job actually and I think you won’t miss a single meeting because I don’t think you do 9 miss meetings but. So, I don’t think it’s not for me about holding the gavel and sitting in your 10 seat. It’s about actually working with you and helping you which we have done very well this 11 year. So, thank you very much. 12 13 Chair Templeton: Any other comments? I will be participating in this vote and I echo the 14 comments about how lucky we are to have two amazing nominees. I have learned a lot working 15 with Doria [note – Commissioner Summa] and I have also learned a lot working with… sorry 16 with Commissioner Summa and I’ve learned a lot working with Commissioner Roohparvar. So, I 17 think there are some additional considerations about the dynamic and the pairing that I… my 18 personal preference I think it would work better with Commissioner Roohparvar so I will be 19 supporting her nomination. Alright, so we’re going to vote in the order of nomination so… well, 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. we have… do we… when it’s two people do we vote one or the other do we vote up and down 1 for each candidate? 2 3 Commissioner Riggs: (off mic) Up and down for both candidates. 4 5 Ms. Lee: Each candidate. 6 7 VOTE 8 9 Chair Templeton: Great, thank you, so let’s vote for Commissioner Summa for Vice-Chair. Thank 10 you. Opposed? Oh, you don’t do opposed? 11 12 Vice-Chair Alcheck: No, it’s just for. 13 14 COMMISSIONER SUMMA FOR VICE-CHAIR DID NOT PASS WITH A VOTE OF 2(Lauing, Summa) -15 4(Riggs, Templeton, Alcheck, Roohparvar)-1 (Hechtman abstain) 16 17 Chair Templeton: Ok then for Commissioner Roohparvar? Any abstentions? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. COMMISSIONER ROOHPARVAR FOR VICE-CHAIR PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4(Roohparvar, 1 Alcheck, Templeton)- 2(Lauing, Summa)- 2(Hechtman and Riggs abstain) 2 3 Chair Templeton: Ok well thank you for being willing to serve both of you and congratulations 4 Vice-Chair Roohparvar. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Do we have to have four? I thoughts that what it said. 7 8 Ms. Lee: Commissioner under… no, no. 9 10 Chair Templeton: That’s an excellent question. 11 12 Ms. Lee: Under the procedural rules Commissioners who abstain are not disqualified vote with 13 the majority and the majority on that vote was the three. So, it’s essentially your votes go with 14 the three who voted for Commissioner Roohparvar. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: Thanks for the clarification. 17 18 Chair Templeton: Thank you. Alright, any other business or is that the last item? Alright, then 19 the meeting is adjourned at 8:14. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commission Action: Templeton elected Chair. Moved by Alcheck, seconded by Roohparvar. 7-0 2 unanimous. 3 Commission Action: Roohparvar elected Vice-Chair. Moved by Alcheck, seconded by 4 Roohparvar. 5-2 (Alcheck, Roohparvar, Templeton in favor. Summa and Lauing against. Riggs 5 and Hechtman abstained, which counts as a Yes vote per City Attorney) 6 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 7 8 Adjournment 9 8:14 pm 10 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Vice-Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Commissioner Bart Hechtman 6 Commissioner Ed Lauing 7 Chair William Riggs 8 Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar 9 Commissioner Doria Summa 10 Commissioner Carolyn Templeton 11 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 12 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 13 14 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 15 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 16 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 17 18 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 19 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 20 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 21 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 22 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 23 24 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 25 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 26 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 27 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 28 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 29 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 30 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 31 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 32 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 33