Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-09 Planning & transportation commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, August 09, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. 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. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 575 Los Trancos Road [21PLN‐00196] Request for Major Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single‐family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and Associated Site Improvements, Including a Swimming Pool, on a 5.38‐acre Site. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.LEGISLATIVE: 2901‐2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Review of Demonstration Structures Following the July 12, 2023 PTC Hearing and Recommendation on Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and Create a New PC Zone for 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence. Environmental Analysis: Categorically Exempt.      7:40 PM – 9:40 PM 4.LEGISLATIVE: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitate the Installation of Electrification Equipment for Residential Development      9:40 PM – 10:40 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of July 12, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  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 AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, August 09, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 575 Los Trancos Road [21PLN‐00196] Request for Major Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single‐family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and Associated Site Improvements, Including a Swimming Pool, on a 5.38‐acre Site. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.LEGISLATIVE: 2901‐2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Review of Demonstration Structures Following the July 12, 2023 PTC Hearing and Recommendation on Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and Create a New PC Zone for 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence. Environmental Analysis: Categorically Exempt.      7:40 PM – 9:40 PM 4.LEGISLATIVE: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitate the Installation of Electrification Equipment for Residential Development      9:40 PM – 10:40 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of July 12, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  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 AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, August 09, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 575 Los Trancos Road [21PLN‐00196] Request forMajor Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single‐familyresidence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and Associated Site Improvements,Including a Swimming Pool, on a 5.38‐acre Site. Environmental Assessment: A MitigatedNegative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. Zoning District: OS(Open Space). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM3.LEGISLATIVE: 2901‐2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Review ofDemonstration Structures Following the July 12, 2023 PTC Hearing and Recommendationon Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and Create a New PC Zonefor 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐FamilyResidence. Environmental Analysis: Categorically Exempt.      7:40 PM – 9:40 PM4.LEGISLATIVE: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed Amendments to PaloAlto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals andSafety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitate the Installation of Electrification Equipment forResidential Development      9:40 PM – 10:40 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of July 12, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  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 AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, August 09, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 575 Los Trancos Road [21PLN‐00196] Request forMajor Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single‐familyresidence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and Associated Site Improvements,Including a Swimming Pool, on a 5.38‐acre Site. Environmental Assessment: A MitigatedNegative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. Zoning District: OS(Open Space). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM3.LEGISLATIVE: 2901‐2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Review ofDemonstration Structures Following the July 12, 2023 PTC Hearing and Recommendationon Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and Create a New PC Zonefor 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐FamilyResidence. Environmental Analysis: Categorically Exempt.      7:40 PM – 9:40 PM4.LEGISLATIVE: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed Amendments to PaloAlto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals andSafety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitate the Installation of Electrification Equipment forResidential Development      9:40 PM – 10:40 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of July 12,2023COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  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. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 9, 2023 Report #: 2307-1788 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 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 •Upcoming PTC Agenda Items Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the 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 quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/cityofpaloalto/boardsandcommissions/planni ng-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC MEETINGS August 30: Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 Updates – State law implementation ordinance and other amendments to Title 18 including PAMC Chapters 18.30(F) Automobile Dealership Combining District and 18.54 (minor changes in bicycle parking regulations). September 13 and September 27 (Tentative Dates): •Implementation of Housing Element Programs 1.1 and 1.2 •Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 Meeting Schedule and Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Planning & Transportation Commission 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 1/25/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/22/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/29/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/12/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled Bryna Chang 4/26/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bart Hechtman 5/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Joint Session w/ Council 5/10/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/31/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/14/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bart Hechtman 6/28/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bryna Chang 7/12/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bart Hechtman 7/26/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular George Lu 8/09/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/30/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/13/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/27/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/11/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/25/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/29/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/13/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/27/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2023 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Giselle Roohparvar Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Doria Summa Bryna Chang Bryna Chang Keith Reckdahl Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman July August September October November December Cari Templeton Allen Akin Bart Hechtman George Lu Doria Summa Keith Reckdahl Bryna Chang Cari Templeton Allen Akin Bart Hechtman George Lu Doria Summa Item 1 Attachment A PTC 2023 Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 7 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 9, 2023 Report #: 2306-1722 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 575 Los Trancos Road [21PLN-00196] Request for Major Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new 7,110 sf single-family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and Associated Site Improvements, Including a Swimming Pool, on a 5.38-acre Site. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1.Consider the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project is a request for a new single-family house, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and pool in the OS zoning district. Due to its location, a Site & Design Review permit is required. This project was previously reviewed by the PTC and Council, Council requested revisions to the plans and sent it back to PTC for review. Changes to the plans include 1) increasing the distance between the proposed house and the creek, 2) increasing safety for potential nearby wildlife, 3) reducing nighttime lighting, and 4) addressing inconsistencies between the arborist report and the plan set. The IS-MND has also been revised in response to public comments from the Draft IS-MND Circulation Period which occurred between August 17, 2022 and September 16, 2022. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7 Background Project Information Owner:Innovative Homes, LLC Architect:Leonard Ng, LNAI Architecture Representative:N/A Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:575 Los Trancos Road Neighborhood:Foothills Lot Dimensions & Area:5.38 acres (234,352 sf), irregularly shaped lot over 1,300 ft along road frontage, depth varies from 40 ft to approximately 250 ft Housing Inventory Site:No Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes, 38 protected oak trees on the property. 1 proposed for removal. Historic Resource(s):No Existing Improvement(s):Vacant Existing Land Use(s):None Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: OS (Single Family Residential) West: City of Portola Valley (residential) East: OS (Open Space, Single Family Residential) South: OS (Open Space, Single Family Residential) Special Setbacks:20ft Stream Corridor Slope Stability Protection Area Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Streamside Open Space (SOS) Zoning Designation:Open Space (OS) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:January 23, 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWqZPdoWLcE&t=615s PTC:August 31, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXaan0US- AY&list=PLJ0x6PDuVXlMSp07GZ4lxf0LYnO_apJxu&index=19 HRB:None ARB:None Project Description The proposed project consists of a new, two-story, 7,110 sf main house (including a 734 sf garage), and an 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A portion of the site is sloped and contains a creek, and the site is an undeveloped 5.38-acre lot in the Open Space zoning district. The project also includes improving and extending the existing driveway and fire access road, a new swimming pool, and landscape improvements. Three covered garage spaces are provided, and the auto court provides additional space for tandem parking. Project Plans are located in Attachment E. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: •Site and Design Review: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design review is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and design review applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment C. •Note: the ADU is not subject to Site and Design review. Under state law, when an application for an ADUs is submitted concurrently with an application for a primary dwelling unit that is subject to discretionary review, action on the ADU may be delayed until the City acts on the primary unit, but the ADU must still be processed ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7 Analysis1 The following changes have been made to the project per PTC and Council guidance: Comment Plan Change Evaluate a project design that provides for approximately 50-foot setback from the top of bank The walls of the house have been moved to be at least 50 ft from top of bank, though the roof overhangs up to 3 ft in a couple minor areas. In order to accomplish this, the overall house sized was reduced from 7,245 sf to 7,110 sf. Additionally, the portion allocated to the second floor was increased from 1,215 sf to 2,388 sf. The pool remains in its proposed location, varying approximately 28-45 ft from top of bank. Effective bird-safe glazing treatment of all glass surfaces achieving the American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor rating of 15. The creek-facing facade has been reduced to include only a single small window. Other non-egress windows on the second story have decorative wood slat screens which will decrease the likelihood of bird strikes. Minimize nighttime lighting along the riparian corridor and allow only minimal lighting in all other locations. Lighting should not interfere with wildlife movement through the landscape, and all outdoor lighting should be limited to Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 Kelvin or less, and extinguished at 11:00 PM. Windows facing the creek have been reduced. Lighting fixtures have been moved away from windows to more interior locations in the rooms. Windows will also have shades. The Condition of Approval #8 has been updated to include this fact, as well as the 2700 Kelvin limit and 11:00 pm shut- off time. A light shield wall has been added to the driveway to prevent light from car headlights from reaching the creek. Eliminate fencing that could impede wildlife movement along the creek. No fencing is proposed for the majority of the property. An automatic safety cover will be used on the pool, and will meet the requirements of the Swimming Pool Safety 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7 Pool should be covered and fenced in a way that ensures that small animals, such as amphibians and reptiles cannot enter the swimming pool. Act. An approximately 55 foot-long wall will block headlights from shining towards the creek, but otherwise no fences are proposed. Update the Arborist Report, Plan Set, and IS- MND for consistency regarding number of trees preserved and removed on site Documents have been updated accordingly. 82 trees exist on the property, though some are located a significant distance from the project area. 37 of these trees are protected species to remain. 1 protected tree is dead and proposed for removal. Address the public comments received on the IS-MND Response to comments is included as Attachment E. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, the changes decreased the footprint of the building and decreased its potential impact on local wildlife and is therefore more consistent with the application findings than the original design. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, an Draft IS-MND was prepared and circulated from August 17, 2022 until September 16, 2022. Three comment letters were received and a Response to Comments, as well as the Final IS-MND has been prepared. The Final IS-MND included updates based on changes to the project made after circulation, comments received, and to clarify information. Corrections and additional text are shown as track changes in the text of the Final IS-MND. In no case did the project revisions, any of the public comments or the changes made to the IS- MND result in or identify new significant impacts or new, avoidable significant effects compared to the impacts identified in the Draft IS-MND. Because none of the revisions to the IS-MND are “substantial” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b) and the information added merely clarifies and amplifies the information previously provided in the analysis, recirculation of the IS-MND is not required. 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 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7 July 28, 2023, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 26, 2023, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no new comments were received. Prior comments, including comment letters received during IS-MND Circulation are included in Attachment E. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Attachments A. Location Map B. Draft RLUA C. Zoning Comparison Table D. Correspondence E. Applicant’s Project Description F. Project Plans / Environmental Documents G. Environmental Response to Comments Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Amy French, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     182-46-012 182-38-030 182-36-022 LOS TRANCOS ROAD TIERRA ARBOLES N C O S R O A D 601 601 575 575 622 610 805 805 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) abc Address Label (AP) Current Features City Jurisdictional Limits (PL): Districts 0' 151' Attachment A Location Map 575 Los Trancos Road CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto efoley2, 2022-08-23 14:25:39 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A Location Map     Packet Pg. 15     1 7 6 ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 575 Los Trancos Road 21PLN-00196 Table 1a: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (OS DISTRICT) OS Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth Area: 10 acres Width: No standard Depth: No standard Area: 5.38 acres Width: more than 1300 feet Depth: varies, 40-250 feet No change Front Yard 30 feet N/A 88 feet 10 inches minimum Street Side Yard 30 feet N/A N/A Rear Yard 30 feet, and 20 feet from creek top of bank N/A Varies, 49 feet from top of bank, minimum Interior Side Yard 30 feet N/A Right: approx. 250 ft Left: approx. 154 ft Max. Building Height 25 feet N/A 22 feet Maximum Impervious Coverage 4% (9,374 sf)N/A 7,313 sf (5,617 sf buildings, 1,696 hardscape) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 4% (9,374 sf) N/A 8,005 sf (7,110 main house, 895 sf ADU) Table 1b: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Single Family Residential Uses (Tandem Parking Allowed) Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 4 spaces, of which one must be covered N/A 3 covered spaces, 1 uncovered space Item 2 Attachment B Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 16     Page 1 Attachment C APPROVAL NO. XX-XXXX RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 575 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE & DESIGN [FILE NO. 21PLN-00196] On [DATE], the City Council approved certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Approval of the Site and Design to Allow a new 7,110 sf single-family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated site improvements, including a swimming pool, on a 5.38-acre site located at 575 Los Trancos Road, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On July 13, 2021, Leonard Ng (LNAI Architecture) on behalf of Innovative Homes, LLC applied for a Site and Design application to allow a new 7,245 sf single-family residence with a new 895 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated site improvements, including a swimming pool. B. Staff has determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable OS development standards. C. The City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND), see Section 2. Environmental Review D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the project design and the IS/MND on August 31, 2022, and recommended approval. E. On January 23, 2022, the City Council reviewed the project design and the IS/MND. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to return the project to the Commission and recommended several design changes F. Following staff review of the revised project, the Commission reviewed the project design and the Final IS/MND on August 9, 2023, and recommended approval. G. On [DATE], the City Council reviewed the project design and the IS/MND. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the project subject to the conditions set forth in Section 4 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the City Council on [date]. The document (State Clearinghouse No. 2022080380) concluded that the proposed project(s) would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The ISMND is available for review on the City’s website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 17     Page 2 Planning/Projects/575-Los-Trancos. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Site and Design Objectives as required in Chapter 18.30.060(G) of the PAMC. A. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed use is a single-family house and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the Open Space (OS) zoning district, on a property adjacent to other single-family uses. The proposed construction will meet all city requirements for noise, parking, etc. The proposed use is compatible with nearby existing uses. B. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The proposed uses, a single family residence and ADU, are permitted uses in the OS zoning district, and will not affect the desirability of adjacent areas. C. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The OS zoning district includes regulations to ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed design will meet these regulations including: •Landscaping. Maintaining existing vegetation and land formations to the maximum extent possible. The arborist report surveyed 82 trees in the project vicinity. 5 trees (including 1 protected Coast Live Oak) were identified as dead and will be removed. 10 replacement trees will be planted on site. All other trees in the project vicinity will have tree protection fencing during construction. •Building location. The proposed development is in a relatively flat area away from adjacent hills or slopes. The house is not expected to be visible from public roadways and is shielded by many mature trees. •Privacy. The proposed house and ADU will not have views to other residences which would create a privacy impact. •Architectural materials. Proposed materials fit in the natural landscape, through earth-toned colors and wood and plaster siding. D. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This property is located in the Streamside Open Space designation. The intention of this designation, in this location is to protect Los Trancos Creek. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, no direct impacts to the creek would occur as a result of this project. Indirect impacts including runoff and erosion Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 18     Page 3 will be addressed through mitigation measures (see Mitigation Measure BIO-3). While this designation does not explicitly allow housing, single-family houses and accessory dwelling units have regularly been built there. SECTION 4. Open Space Review Criteria. The following criteria shall be considered in the Site and Design review of all development of land in the OS district, as outlined in the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The proposed structures are located in a naturally low, flat portion of the property. The development will be hidden from view of the street by both elevation and mature trees. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. The new home and Accessory Dwelling Unit are not located near a hilltop and will not extend above the nearest ridgeline. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The proposed structure will not impact privacy, as it is located as a lower elevation than neighboring properties. Any potential views from the second story are also shielded by the existing trees, and the large distances customary to the Open Space district. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The proposed development is proposed for a small section of the overall 5.38 acre site. One driveway/access road will provide access to the two dwelling units. 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The building and related patios and landscaping are isolated to the flat portion of the site. The project proposes to maintain all of the existing protected trees, preserving the natural appearance of the site. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. All existing trees are proposed to remain, three dead trees have already been removed for safety reasons. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. This project has minimized grading, the majority of the grading is associated with installing a Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 19     Page 4 swimming pool. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. The design of the home and site landscaping have been designed to minimize the need for cut and fill. The entire driveway is designed to be DG and permeable, with impervious areas limited primarily to the building and patios off the building. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. The proposed materials include: horizontal wood siding and slat screens with warm, earth-gray smooth-finished cement plaster, a solid dark gray flat roof, and dark wood toned windows and doors. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The majority of the on site landscaping is existing. Additional planting in the patio areas will use plant materials will be selected for water conservation and low-maintenance characteristics and for fire-resistive properties where adjacent to the home. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. Exterior lighting shall be low-intensity and will be shielded from view as to not be directly visible from the street and surrounding properties. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). The proposed access road is in the existing location, which follows the natural topography, and the proposed decomposed granite material is consistent with a rural character. 13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations. N/A, the project is within Palo Alto city limits. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "575 Los Trancos Road, Palo Alto, California, 94304, Private Residence” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on October 5, 2021, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 20     Page 5 a. Geotechnical Report shall be updated to reflect the updated site plan 4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 7. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 8. LIGHT AND GLARE. Exterior lighting shall be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the night glare. Skylights shall not use white glass. a. To reduce interference with wildlife, outdoor lighting shall be limited to Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 Kelvin or less b. No outdoor lighting shall be on after 11pm, except to the minimum required for safety. 9. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees. 10. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 11. ARBORIST FOLLOW UP. A follow-up arborist and/or landscape report shall be required five years after the final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project. Any subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any trees that die with trees of the same size and species stated on the approved planning and building permit plans. Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 21     Page 6 12. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for all trees and shrubs proposed to be maintained as identified in the Arborist Report. 13. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. a. Where the existing fence is located off the subject property and/or where the existing fence is failing, a new Code compliant fence shall be constructed. 14. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $81,826.00 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 15. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 16. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner at the number below to schedule this inspection. 17. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration, by emailing the Current Planning Support Staff (Alicia Spotwood - Alicia.Spotwood@CityofPaloAlto.org). If a timely extension is not received, or the project has already received an extension and the applicant still wishes to pursue this project, they must first file for a new Planning application and pay the associated fees. This new application will be reviewed for conformance with the regulations in place at that time. 18. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 22     Page 7 applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. BUILDING DIVISION 19. This project is located West of 280 and shall comply with Wildland Urban Interface requirements per 2019 CA Residential Code. 20. This project is subjected to all electrification per PAMC. 21. Please contact the Building Department for building permit submittal requirements. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION 22. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available on our website: Application: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public- works/engineering-services/webpages/forms-and-permits/grading-permit-application.pdf 23. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/grading-drainage-residential-guidelines.pdf 24. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form shall be completed and submitted with the building permit submittal. The worksheet and instructions are available on our website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/impervious-area-worksheet-for-land-developments- 2021.pdf 25. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS CONDITIONS: The City's full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/pw-conditions-sheet-alternative-update-8.7.18.pdf 26. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/rwq_stormwater_plansheet_final_bw.pdf This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan: • Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 23     Page 8 • Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. • Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. • Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces 27. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace portions of the existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property as required. Contact the Public Works Inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work in the public right-of-way. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. Include a scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive obtained from the Public Works Inspector in the building plan set. WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION 28. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 29. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 24     Page 9 __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment C Draft RLUA     Packet Pg. 25     LNAI Architecture | WWW.LNAI.COM | 650.678.4965 March 10, 2023 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 575 Los Trancos Road - New Residence Dear Emily, Amy, Jonathan, Planning Commission & Council, Thank you so much for kindly giving us the opportunity to resubmit our updated design based on the Council’s feedback to us from the 1/23 City Council meeting. Enclosed please find our revised and updated plans, where we’ve worked hard to completely redesign the home per the Council’s input and to keep much farther away from the top of bank along the west side of the site. Bank Setback & Project/Site Areas Following the specific recommendations from the Council, we’ve extensively redesigned the northern half of the home to have a much smaller footprint now, and the home has now been pulled in significantly to achieve the approx. 50’ setback from top of bank (grade break) as requested by the Council. When considering that the actual creek edge is an additional +/- 20’ away from the top of bank, the closest point of the home is now approx. 65-70’ away from the creek itself, which seems to be seasonal during periods of heavy rains and a dry creek for most of the year. In addition, all paving proposed along the driveway, entry court and entry walkway are permeable, and both the overall size of the home and amount of impervious has been reduced significantly from the original design (per Council’s recommendation of better utilizing the 2nd floor of the home). For the swimming pool, we’ve followed Council’s recommendation to remove any fencing around this area and have added a safety cover over the entire pool which will help protect animals in the area. We’ve further eliminated and minimized non-permeable areas around the pool, and the pool edge sits approx. 35’ on average away from the top of bank (grade break), and approx. 50-60’ away from the creek itself, which approximately coincides with the property/city boundary line (separating Palo Alto from Portola Valley). Nighttime Lighting Beyond pulling the west side of the home much farther inward, we’ve also worked to carefully design the home to utilize almost entirely blank walls along the west elevation facing the creek (with just 2 much needed smaller openings to let in light and allow egress for the interiors). Additionally, at the entry auto court where there will likely be incidental light and glare from cars and headlights, along with safety lighting for home entry and egress, we’ve designed an open-slat light shield & vertical screen along the west edge of the entry auto court, which will help tremendously to shield, deflect and minimize light spill towards the creek. Item 2 Attachment D Applicant's Project Description     Packet Pg. 26     LNAI Architecture | WWW.LNAI.COM | 650.678.4965 Bird Safety The vertical-slat light screen at the entry court is also part of our larger strategy for overall improved bird- safe design of the home, where we’ve extensively integrated open wood slat screens in front of many windows and glazed areas to help with general bird safety-- well beyond what all the similar adjacent homes are currently providing. This, coupled with more subtle strategies of roof overhangs, trellises, and use of articulated building geometry, should go a long way in providing an added layer of bird-safety and protection for the project. Deferential to the overall surroundings, our redesigned home aims to preserve the natural and beautiful context all around and is carefully situated in a natural clearing to minimize impact and disturbance, both to the mature trees on site to the east and to the seasonal creek to the west. Expressed as a series of smaller volumes and low, flat terraced roofs to minimize height and bulk, the home is designed to be minimally visible from the public ways, feathered in with the existing trees and topography. We continue to envision a soft-spoken but carefully crafted home nestled into the landscape and greenery, in keeping with the beautiful and natural setting along Los Trancos. Sincerely, Leonard Ng RA, LEED AP LNAI | Architecture Principal LN@LNAI.COM Item 2 Attachment D Applicant's Project Description     Packet Pg. 27     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15073, this document was circulated for a 30-day circulation period beginning August 17, 2022 and ending on September 16, 2022. A Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration is now available. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “575 Los Trancos” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events-Directory/Planning-and-Development-Services/575-Los- Trancos Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the PTC hearing. Item 2 Attachment E Project Plans and CEQA     Packet Pg. 28     4878-2378-1205.v4 March 9, 2023 Jodie Gerhardt Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, California 94301 Emily Foley Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Environmental Review of 575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Dear Ms. Gerhardt and Ms. Foley: The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (“Sierra Club”) submits this letter to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department requesting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Los Trancos Residential Project (“Project”) be revised and recirculated for public comment consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21000 et seq., and its implementing regulations, the “CEQA Guidelines,” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000–15387. I. The Project The Project is the development of a 7,245-square-foot single-family residence, a 734- square-foot attached garage, an 895-square-foot accessory dwelling unit, a swimming pool, access roads, and other amenities in the flat, western portion of a 5.38-acre parcel of undeveloped open space (the “Site”) in the City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”). The Site is dominated by oak woodland, riparian woodland, and a meadow o f non-native grasses. Los Trancos Creek runs through the site. (MND, p. 4.) The Creek is designated critical habitat for steelhead trout under the Endangered Species Act. (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) The Project is located between open space areas in Palo Alto (Foothills Park), and Portola Valley (Hawthorns property of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District), and its development has the potential to impact the creek and its riparian corridor, and disrupt wildlife movement through a key wildlife corridor. On September 19, 2022, Sierra Club commented on the Project’s potential to impact biological resources due to its encroachment on Los Trancos Creek, its lack of bird-safe glazing treatment on windows and the presence of unrestricted nighttime lighting. S ierra Club emphasized the need for further design modifications and mitigations. Sierra Club brought its concerns to the Palo Alto City Council (“Council”) on January 23, 2023. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 29     Jodie Gerhardt Emily Foley March 9, 2023 Page 2 4878-2378-1205.v4 II. Palo Alto City Council Appropriately Declined to Approve the Project. At the January 23, 2023 meeting, the Council considered the proposed Project and evaluated the MND, reaching the conclusion that based on the evidence before it, it could not reasonably conclude that the Project’s adverse environmental effects had been sufficiently mitigated. On that basis, the Council remanded the Project to the Planning and Development Department to evaluate further design modifications to meet the following objectives: (a) Evaluate a Project design that provides for approximately a 50-foot setback from the top of the bank; (b) Evaluate effective bird-safe glazing treatment of all glass surfaces achieving the American Birds Conservancy Threat Factor rating of 15; (c) Eliminate fencing that could impede wildlife movement along the creek; (d) Minimize nighttime light ing along the riparian corridor and allow only minimal lighting in all other locations. Lighting should not interfere with wildlife movement through the landscape, and all outdoor lighting should be limited to a Correlated Color Temperature of 2700K or less and extinguished at 11 pm; and (e) Pool should be covered and fenced in a way that ensures that small animals, such as amphibians and reptiles cannot enter the swimming pool. The Council also requested that staff return to Council with a plan and timeline and amend the Zoning Code Comprehensive Plan Policy N.3.3 and Program N.3.3.1. Sierra Club supports the Counsel’s action remanding the MND for further consideration for the reasons explained below. III. CEQA Requires That the MND Must Be Revised and Recirculated for Public Comment. In light of the Council’s action, Sierra Club requests that the MND be revised to address the design changes, and be recirculated for public comment prior to reconsideration by the Planning and Development Department and Council. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088.5, 15073.5; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 447.) Where an MND is “substantially revised” after public notice, but prior to adoption, the lead agency is required to recirculate it for public review. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5(a).) CEQA Guidelines clarify that a “substantial revision” means: (1) a new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) the lead agency determines that “the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 30     Jodie Gerhardt Emily Foley March 9, 2023 Page 3 4878-2378-1205.v4 measures or revisions must be required.” (Id. at § 15073.5 (b)(1)-(2).) Courts have held that recirculation is generally required when the addition of new information would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on substantial adverse project impacts. (Id.; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) The Sierra Club raised legitimate concerns that the Project’s mitigation measures will not reduce the Project’s impacts to biological resources reliant on the Los Trancos Creek riparian corridor to below the level of significance. The Council found that the MND as presented on January 23, 2023, could not be approved, without further modifications. The Council’s deferral of approval of the MND underscored the Sierra club’s concerns that the Project, without additional design modifications, may adversely impact biological resources. Because design modificat ions are necessary to avoid adverse effects on biological resources, the requirement for recirculation of this MND is met. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5 (b)(1)-(2).) This MND must be “substantially revised” because “new measures or revisions” are required to eliminate adverse impacts to biological resources. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5 (b)(1)-(2).) The purpose of recirculation —to give the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the new data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it—is also compelling given public concern regarding the Project. (See Spring Valley Lake Ass'n v City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal. App.4th 91, 108.) As lead agency, the Planning and Development Department must revise and recirculate the MND in order to ensure that additional measures taken by the Planning Department will be sufficient to avoid Project impacts to the Creek. A. The 20-Foot Creek Setback is Inadequate To Avoid Significant Impacts. At the Site, Los Trancos Creek exists in a natural state. (MND, p. 4 [“undeveloped… dominated by oak woodland, riparian woodland].”]) Riparian zones, like Los Trancos Creek, contain both aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species and unusually high species diversity. Riparian zones are also important migratory corridors. A continuous, wide buffer for a riparian ecosystem is essential to protect water quality, reduce erosion, and provide migratory and wildlife corridors and a wide riparian ecosystem is also important to provide shading and buffer fish spawning and nursery areas. The Project includes only a 20-foot setback from Los Trancos Creek in reliance on Palo Alto’s outdated Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (“SCPO”). (See Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.40.140.) Compliance with SCPO, however, does not ensure that direct and indirect impacts to biological resources will be avoided and in fact further design modifications are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Project to below a level of significance. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 31     Jodie Gerhardt Emily Foley March 9, 2023 Page 4 4878-2378-1205.v4 The MND asserts that no direct impacts to aquatic habitat would occur (MND, p. 29), however, it acknowledges the likelihood of indirect impacts from runoff or erosion which could impact water quality and significantly impact steelhead designated critical habitat. (Id.) It seeks to mitigate them through imposition of Bio-3, which prevents ground disturbance within 20-feet of the Creek and requires Best Management Practices be developed for grading and construction. (MND, pg. 30.) In order to minimize the likelihood of these impacts, a wider riparian buffer is needed. First, reliance on SCPO’s 20-foot riparian setback is outdated and based on recommendations which some regulatory agencies have discarded in favor of more recent scientific studies showing that effective buffer distances are between 50 and 100 feet. (See Sierra Club Comment Letter, pg. 3 [citing San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (“SFRWQCB”) “Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area”].) The SFRWQCB Report cites several studies showing the importance of adequate riparian corridor building setbacks.1 The SFRWQCB regulates construction near streams, and imposes significant buffers, especially in open space areas like this Project site. (See Sierra Club Comment Letter, pg. 3.) Similarly, other agencies recognize the importance of imposing buffers from waterways. Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Habitat Agency require buffers of 150 feet from waterways in locations with waterways in a predominantly natural state similar to this Project siting. (See Santa Clara County General Plan Policy R-RC 37.) Its General P lan states, “[l]ands near creeks, streams, and freshwater marshes shall be considered to be in a protected buffer area consisting of…150 feet from the top bank on both sides where the creek or stream is predominantly in its natural state” as it is here to protect creeks. Nearby, Stanford University’s Community Plan Policy RC-7, addresses buffer zones along creeks, and contains a cross- reference affirming the policy of Santa Clara County General Plan R-RC 37. Finally, according to the MND, the Project will excavate approximately 280 cubic yards of soil (80 cubic yards for the house and 200 cubic yards for the pool), which will “be dispersed evenly throughout the site and would not be exported." (MND, p. 8.) Yet, the MND fails to identify the precise plan for this excavated and redeposited soil, such as where the excavated soil will be dispersed, whether it will be deposited close to the Creek, and how much buffer area from the Creek will be undisturbed by the soil. In addition, the MND does not analyze the impact to biological resources of depositing excavated soil on natural areas, including the Creek and existing plants and animals – nor does it analyze whether placing this dispersion of soil will be likely to increase erosion and sedimentation into the Creek. Without 1 See “Buffer Distances Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary, but most of the scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose.” (See Sierra Club Letter, p. 3 [citing Jones & Stokes 2002].) Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 32     Jodie Gerhardt Emily Foley March 9, 2023 Page 5 4878-2378-1205.v4 this information, the public cannot meaningfully evaluate the adverse impacts to biological resources. B. The Project Should Utilize an Updated Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. Palo Alto’s SCPO is outdated, and overdue for revision. Back in 2017, over five years ago, the City of Palo Alto updated its General Plan Policy and recommended that the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance should be strengthened. As a result, compliance with this Ordinance alone does not ensure the Project will adequately protect biological resources. On January 23, 2023, the Cit y Council directed the Planning Department to address the lengthy delay and propose a timetable for its revision. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N3.3 Program N3.3.1 seeks to update this ordinance, expressing a desire for a 150-ft buffer in locations like the Project site, which is west of Foothill Expressway: Program N3.3.1--Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore 150 feet as the desired stream setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway. This 150-foot setback would prohibit the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaped areas within 150 feet of the top of a creek bank. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 30 feet along the creek bank Since the City Council ordered the Planning Depar tment to present a timetable for the revision of the SCPO, this Project should adhere to the revised Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, or at the very last, comply with the setbacks in surrounding communities. C. The MND is Unclear Whether the Project Meets the Minimum 20-Foot Setback Requirement. Finally, the MND is unclear whether the Project as presently configured even meets the substandard 20-foot setback required under the current Ordinance because the MND is unclear how and from what points the measurements were obtained. SCPO specifies development at “20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater.” This confusion should be addressed and clarified in a revised MND so the public can better understand the potential impacts to the Creek. D. Bird Safety is Also Threatened by the Project and Can Easily be Protected. The 20-foot setback also means that outdoor lighting cannot achieve the ambition of Program N3.3.3 which states: Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 33     Jodie Gerhardt Emily Foley March 9, 2023 Page 6 4878-2378-1205.v4 For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor. A wider setback should help achieve this goal. Bird collisions with glazed surfaces are especially frequent in riparian corridors, and many jurisdictions have regulations in place to reduce and mitigate this hazard within 300-ft of riparian corridors and/or open space. The American Bird Conservancy advises that the following elements are especially critical near habitat areas such as water bodies and open space: (1) minimizing the use of glass; (2) placing glass behind screening; (3) using glass with inherent properties that reduce collisions, such as fritting or using bird safety glazing treatments on glass surfaces. Palo Alto requires bird friendly design for commercial buildings, but not for homes. Bird collisions, however, occur primarily (99%) at homes and low rise buildings. The proposed project is likely to contribute to cumulative impact on birds and should be required to apply bird safety measures. IV. Conclusion Sierra Club respectfully requests that the Planning and Development Department of the City of Palo Alto substantially revise the MND for the Proposed Project and recirculate it for public comment, consistent with CEQA and its implementing guidelines. Very truly yours, JAMIE JEFFERSON Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 34     To: Mayor Kou and Palo Alto City Council January 22, 2023 Re:575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Dear Mayor Kou and Council Members, The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS)and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLPC)are environmental organizations that work to protect natural resources and promote the enjoyment of nature.We provided comments on the draft IS/MND for the 575 Los Trancos Project,and we remain concerned after reading the responses to our comments.We maintain that a “fair argument ”exists that the Project will significantly impact the environment.(League for Protection of Oakland’s Historic Resources v.City of Oakland (1997)52 Cal.App.4th 896,904.)A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.”(Protect Niles v.City of Fremont (2018)25 Cal.App5th 1129,1138-1139.This low threshold for the preparation of an EIR,and a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review ” is met here. (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332.) The city has discretion over the project and should require that the project be re-designed at a minimum of 55 feet from the top of the bank of Los Trancos creek (in line with the neighboring home)or a wider setback,ideally 150 feet.If this wider buffer/setback is not feasible,the city must prepare an EIR to fully analyze and mitigate the impacts and to consider alternatives to the proposed size of the project and its location on the parcel. Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Policy N3.3 and program N3.3.1 seek a range of setbacks from creeks, where a 150 foot setback is cited as appropriate for new development west of Foothill Expressway.The program notes that single-family residential development can be exempt from this larger setback but an ordinance that specifies setback width and conditions for a waiver of the setbacks has yet to be developed.A 20 foot setback from top-of-bank,however,seems very contradictory to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to protect Palo Alto's waterways and riparian ecosystems. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use definitions include the definition of Streamside Open Space.This designation is intended to preserve and enhance corridors of riparian vegetation along streams.Hiking,biking and riding trails may be developed in the streamside open space.The corridor Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 35     will generally vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the creek.As we argue below,the proposed Project does not preserve or enhance the Los Trancos Creek Corridor.With a parcel larger than 5 acres,a project can be placed further from the creek that would be consistent with the intent of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to protect the City ’s riparian corridors. Palo Alto Zoning Code Section 18.40.140,Stream Corridor Protection,requires a 20 foot distance between the top of the creek bank and structures (as well as decks,swimming pools,spas,hot tubs and parking lots) or a 2:1 setback from the toe of the bank, whichever is greater. To protect water quality and riparian habitat,including trees,the City of San Jose defines the riparian corridor at the top of the bank or the dripline of the riparian vegetation,whichever is greater.With the exception of downtown areas,this policy requires a setback of 35 feet to 100 feet from the Riparian Corridor (depending on the order of the creek). The proposed development includes elements that are set 20 feet from the top of the bank.However, several Project elements are likely to require encroachment into this 20 foot setback for construction and future maintenance,and parts of the home is are located within/under the dripline of the riparian canopy (see discussion below).This is despite the statement in Appendix A Biological Resources Constraints Analysis pages 9-10: “Project plans appear to avoid impacts to Los Trancos Creek,however the proposed project may result in indirect impacts to the creek and direct or indirect impacts to riparian habitat if project activities occur within the dripline of the riparian canopy. “ The parcel is a Local Responsibility Area (LRA)Fire Protection Zone,which is governed by Palo Alto Muni Code’s Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)regulations.(Some foothills parcels are State Responsibility Area (SRA),which have slightly different fire-protection rules.)Section 15.04.430 Muni Code requires that WUI parcels: “Shall at all times maintain an effective defensible space by removing and clearing away flammable vegetation and combustible growth from areas within 30 feet of such buildings or structures.” Mitigation BIO-3,Best Management Practices for Protection of Steelhead and Aquatic Habitat,requires (emphasis added): ●No vegetation removal,ground disturbance or construction shall occur within the creek or the 20 foot creek setback zone,which shall be demarcated with high visibility orange construction fencing to ensure avoidance of impacts to the aquatic habitat. A 20 foot setback is an inadequate buffer to reduce or avoid impacts from runoff or erosion on the aquatic habitat and the critically endangered steelhead. The parcel is 5.38 acres,with a width of more than 1300 feet,and the depth is up to 250 feet.The parcel should allow ample space for a development that provides an adequate buffer from the creek. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 36     The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board provides directions for effective riparian buffers: “Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary,but most of the scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose (Jones &Stokes 2002).Although any buffer distance from the top of bank is helpful for maintaining channel stability,a minimum 33-foot riparian buffer is required for contributing to a significant reduction in sediment levels (Corely et.al.1999,Peterson et.al.1992,as cited in Jones and Stokes 2002).”-- “Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area”,San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, page 17,1 The IS/MND acknowledges that direct disturbance and indirect impacts from runoff or erosion could impact water quality;therefore,the project has the potential to impact steelhead designated critical habitat and the impact is potentially significant.The IS/MND provides a meager 20 foot setback and no information on Los Trancos creek geo-morphological processes,ground water subflows on the project site and erosion processes on site.The project must prepare a full Environmental Impact Report to study,assess and disclose potential erosion and bank failure risks and provide adequate buffers and BMPs for protection of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) and aquatic habitats. There is an inherent conflict between Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and the required PAMC 15.04.200 Defensible Space. The parcel is a Local Responsibility Area (LRA)Fire Protection Zone,which is governed by Palo Alto Municipal Code’s Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)regulations.Section 15.04.430 requires that WUI parcels “Shall at all times maintain an effective defensible space by removing and clearing away flammable vegetation and combustible growth from areas within 30 feet (9144 mm)of such buildings or structures.” The Defensible Space requirements allows no flammable vegetation to be located within 30 feet of the structures. The IS/MND proposes that vegetation that is green and healthy is not considered flammable,and therefore the riparian vegetation within 30 feet of the building footprint is expected to remain as-is with maintenance to remove any dead vegetation as needed. However,as seasons change or vegetation dies,leaves and branches drop,dead annual grasses and tall weedy species dried in the summer will be removed by the homeowners to maintain defensible space. Maintaining a 30 foot defensible space is not plausible without,over time,significantly and unavoidably impacting the sensitive riparian habitat,impacting water quality and the species that depend on the riparian ecosystem. 1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/publications_forms/documents/bufferreport1204.pdf Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 37     Dead and decaying material is in fact directly or indirectly required habitat for many species,including the special status species that could be found on the project (including:Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides niger),California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus),California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii),western pond turtle (Emys marmorata),San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia),and the Dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens)).These species use dead and decaying materials to find or build shelter and find food.This is likely the reason why BIO-3 directs “No vegetation removal,ground disturbance or construction shall occur within the creek or the 20-foot creek setback zone.”2 3 4 To ensure that Bio-3 and and the Defensible Space requirements are consistent,a minimum buffer of 50 feet.should be required.This should allow vegetation to be removed in the 30 foot space,and allow the 20 foot riparian buffer to comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and function as intended.. Mitigation BIO-3,Best Management Practices for Protection of Steelhead and Aquatic Habitat also directs (emphasis added): ●Best Management Practices (BMPs)shall be developed and implemented during all grading and construction activities to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the creek and to prevent the spill of contaminants in or around the creek. The IS/MND defers development of BMPs to the future,hence the words “Shall be developed”.CEQA does not allow deferred mitigations in a Mitigated Negative Declaration!The reason for this is that in the absence of specific,site-specific information and criteria for the protection of the environmental resources that could be impacted,it is not possible to find that future mitigation measures will indeed reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level and in this case -prevent erosion and sedimentation to a level that protects Steelhead and Aquatic Habitat.So while deferred mitigation may be permissible if the mitigation measure is based on adequate studies and commits an agency to a realistic performance standard or criterion, this bar is not met in BIO-3. The IS/MND includes some specific practices to be included in the future BMPs,including practices for preventing and addressing leaks and spills.Sediment and erosion control measures,however,are vague and provide no realistic performance standard or criterion criteria.The IS/MND provides no information on erosion,sedimentation and incision processes in Los Trancos Creek at the project site,and provides no evidence that the vague BMPs aimed to prevent erosion during construction suffice to provide adequate protection,or evidence that the 20 foot buffer suffices to protect the creek from bank failure due to the development of this project. 4 “These rodents are known for building stick houses that reach up to five feet in height and eight feet in diameter.”, Dusky-Footed Woodrat, The World Wildlife Federation, https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Mammals/Dusky-Footed-Woodrat 3 “They also use grassy areas near water sources to regulate their body temperature, find cover, forage, mate and hibernate.” (Annual forbs and grasses are predominant in California and are dead in summer and fall.), San Francisco Garter Snake, US. Fish and Wildlife Service, https://www.fws.gov/species/san-francisco-garter-snake-thamnophis-sirtalis-tetrataenia 2 “Found under rocks near streams, in talus, under damp logs, and other objects.”, Santa Cruz Black Salamander,Myers and Maslin, 1948, https://californiaherps.com/salamanders/pages/a.niger.html Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 38     There is an inherent conflict between Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and the directions of the Geotechnical Report. Page 4 of the Geotechnical Engineering Study states that the site contains “loose to very dense sand with variable percentages of clay and gravel”.The development’s large impervious area will deposit a large amount of runoff near the creek,which could cause the site’s loose soil to erode into the creek.The IS/MND has not studied or mitigated this potential harm to Los Trancos Creek.Moreover,additional work within the setback is mandated on Page 14 of the Geotechnical Engineering Study.The study recommends that the project “direct surface runoff away from site improvements at a minimum 5 percent grade for a minimum distance of 10 feet.”Again -this work is likely to involve additional grading within the Riparian area. The project ’s Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix C of the IS/MND)discusses the site preparation on page 8: Due to the loose surficial soil,a program of over-excavation and backfilling is deemed necessary. The upper loose soil within the area of the proposed improvements should be (over-excavated to 2 1⁄2 feet bgs.The lateral extent of the over-excavation should extend at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed residence. To be built as designed,the Project will excavate at least 15 feet from the top of the bank,with construction activity being performed even closer.This is inside the Riparian dripline,which means that they likely will be disturbing the roots of the Riparian canopy. The Biotechnical Report did not consider subsurface flow and the impact of over-excavation and backfilling on subsurface flows has not been analyzed or mitigated.Riparian trees depend on subsurface flow, yet the IS/MND provides no discussion of the impacts to the riparian ecosystem. Impact to riparian tree #30 The Project includes a building wall to be constructed at 11 feet from oak tree #30,under the canopy and well within the drip line of this riparian tree (see Figure 5 on draft IS/MND p.7).In Appendix B, Arborists Report Tree #30 is described as a Coast live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)and recommends that this tree should be pruned and cabled.The arborist report provides “A building wall is located at 11 feet from oak tree #30.Hand excavation under the Project Arborist supervision is recommended when working within 10 times the tree’s diameter.Encountered roots must be cleanly cut using a hand saw or loppers... “ The Stream Corridor Protection Code Section 18.40.140,(c) provides,All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by the director of planning and development services. To retain Tree #30,not only should excavation under the dripline be prohibited, but an adequate and intact root protection zone should be provided. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 39     Based on scientific references5,the roots of a tree stretch beyond its drip line.To thrive,Live Oak trees require a buffer of their dripline +⅓of the radius from the trunk of the tree to the dripline.For tree #30, this means 21.5 feet from the trunk of the tree.As proposed,the project is likely to cause the death of this riparian tree. Deferred Mitigation In Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v.City of Agoura Hills (February 24,2020)2020 Cal.App.LEXIS 222,in a detailed decision,the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court ’s judgment and concluded that a proposed mixed-use development project in Los Angeles County presented potentially significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR,not an MND.The trial court found there was substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts on cultural resources,sensitive plant species,oak trees,and aesthetic resources and the proposed mitigation measures were inadequate to reduce impacts to a less than significant level6. Palo Alto’s 575 Los Trancos IS/MND suffers similar inadequacies as did the City of Agoura Hills MND.The City made no effort to study potential erosion,and instead deferred mitigations (the development Best Management Practices for Protection of Steelhead and Aquatic Habitat) to the future. With no studies of the geomorphology and erosion processes of Los Trancos Creek and how these may be exacerbated due to impacts of this project,no studies of the the project site hydrology (especially subsurface flow)and how the over-excavation and backfilling that are required due to the site’s upper loose soil could impact the flora and fauna of the riparian ecosystem,and no criteria for development of BMPs or for ongoing monitoring,the 575 Los Trancos Road IS/MND fails to comply with CEQA.The mitigations provided are simply insufficient to avoid or reduce impacts to the creek,riparian ecosystem, trees and wildlife.Mitigation measure BIO 3 failed to explain how the future BMP would mitigate potentially significant effects on Biological Resources and protect of Steelhead and Aquatic Habitat Furthermore,the IS/MND failed to analyze whether a viable buffer from the creek can be provided on this 5.38 acre parcel,or to specify performance criteria evaluating the feasibility of avoidance as an alternative to excavation within the dripline of riparian trees,and lighting and activities in close proximity to the creek.There is no indication that it is impractical or infeasible for the City to articulate specific performance criteria for evaluating and monitoring the efficacy of the BMPs. Lighting Night time lighting disrupts normal animal behaviors,circadian rhythms,and threatens the health of organisms. Section 18.40.140 of the Palo Alto Municipal code requires, “Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream”. 6 Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665 5 On the Maximum Extent of Tree Roots. E.L. Stone and P.J Kalisz, Forest Ecology and Management, 46 59-102, 1991, and Understanding Trees, p. 44, 202, Robert Kourik Metamorphic press, 2015 ISBN 978-0-9615848-6-3 Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 40     In addition,in the City’s Guidelines Within Streamside Review Area ("Streamside review area"means all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank,except those properties separated from the stream by a public street.”), the guidelines include, “(a) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized” The project proposes accommodations of lighting concerns on street traffic and side neighbors but the proposed mitigations of shining lights downward with such a minimal setback from a creek that hosts special status species are inadequate to prevent disruption to steelhead7 and other aquatic,terrestrial and avian species that depend on the riparian corridor. The staff report includes three mitigations:(1)Automatic blackout shades (2)Automatic vacancy sensors and (3)Motion sensors for exterior lighting.There are no guarantees that these mitigations will continue to be maintained or used.It is almost guaranteed that the light will interfere with wildlife living or moving in or along the creek buffer, as these may actually trigger motion sensitive lighting. A more effective mitigation would be to simply move the house further away from the Riparian corridor In addition,require all outdoor lighting to be dimmable and in the yellowish range (2700 Kelvin or less) to reduce light pollution and the attraction of migratory birds and insects. Bird Safe Design The entire project is located less than 300 feet from the lush riparian corridor of Los Trancos Creek,a place where birds should be safe from collision with glass.Yet the buildings seem to include transparent, see-through glass elements that are known to be extremely hazardous to birds in flight. Homes in similar locations in Cupertino are required to provide bird safety glazing treatment on 90%of their facades.Palo Alto should do the same in Open Space zoning locations.For this project,the City should require: 7 Artificial light at night has an impact on fish behavior, altering their patterns of feeding, migrating, and predator avoidance. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/western-fisheries-research-center/news/shedding-some-light-issue-investigating-hw Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 41     ●Elimination of transparent, see-through and other hazardous architectural elements. ●Effective bird-safe glazing treatment to 90% of all glass surfaces. Please require glazing that achieves an American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor rating of no more than 15.A product database that offers rated glazing solutions is available online8. ●Prohibit UV glazing treatments, angled glass and overhangs from being considered bird-safety glazing treatments,as these have been proven ineffective,especially in proximity to habitat areas.. We appreciate your attention to our concerns, Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. Environmental Advocate Santa Clara VAlley Audubon Society Mike Ferreira, Executive Committee Member Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 8 https://sfplanning.org/standards-bird-safe-buildings?page=2506 Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 42     September 19, 2022 City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org and jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: 21PLN-00196, 575 Los Trancos Road (APN 18246012) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Foley, On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the proposed residential development at 575 Los Trancos Road in the City of Palo Alto. As the owner of an adjacent parcel (APNs 079-080-050, -080, and -090), Midpen appreciates the opportunity to comment on this development and the time extension to submit our agency’s comments to September 19th at 5 pm. Comprised of over 65,000 acres of acquired and protected open space on the San Francisco Peninsula, Midpen is one of the largest regional open space districts in California. Our mission is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. While much of Midpen’s open space lands are along the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains, Midpen owns and manages Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Preserve), including the Hawthorns Area, which is located in the Town of Portola Valley and is located within a ¼ mile to the project site. Based on the project’s proximity to the Hawthorns Area, we would like to share specific concerns regarding Biological Resources (BIO) that should be considered as part of the environmental analysis for the ISMND as well as for the design and approval of the project. Biological Resources Riparian Habitat Based on the project plans, it appears the development is adhering to the City’s Stream Corridor Ordinance’s minimum creek setback of 20-ft from Los Trancos Creek. To improve the Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 43     clarity of the project plans and environmental review and to show the proposed structure’s proximity to the creek, please provide a figure that includes the proposed building’s footprint as shown on Figure 2 with the creek and property lines as shown on Figure 5. According to the ISMND, “No vegetation removal, ground disturbance or construction shall occur within the creek or the 20-foot creek setback zone.” Los Trancos Creek supports critical habitat for steelhead, central California coast (CCC) distinct population segment (steelhead) (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) and other aquatic species, where building the structure within close proximity to the creek could result in significant impacts to the aquatic species. In addition, the Project may need to modify riparian vegetation that are critical to supporting these aquatic species in order to maintain adequate defensible space for the newly constructed structures (which is usually requested to be 30-100 feet surrounding each structure). As such, the homeowner would need to encroach upon the creek setback area to remove additional vegetation to provide adequate defensible space in the future. This long-term management action would result in the need to remove/trim riparian vegetation. Additional permitting approval would be needed from regulatory agencies who may not be supportive of or approve vegetation modification for these purposes to ensure adequate protection of the creek and associated riparian vegetation. These actions would result in additional impacts on the riparian corridor, steelhead critical habitat and other aquatic species, which the ISMND has not fully analyzed and addressed in the BIO mitigation measures. In addition, please confirm that the City of Palo Alto Fire Department has reviewed the project plans to ensure that adequate defensible space can be provided for the new home and accessory structure located with only a 20-foot setback from the creek without impacting the riparian vegetation. Wildlife Species and Habitat The proposed swimming pool’s placement in close proximity to the creek could result in the entrapment of semiaquatic species such as California Giant Salamander, Santa Cruz Black Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, California Red Legged Frog (CRLF), and San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) that may travel across the landscape. These potential additional impacts of entrapment and drowning which could result in the taking of these species should be analyzed and addressed in the BIO mitigation measures with consideration to include wildlife barriers and/or escape ramps installed to prevent entrapment. The proposed Project is located in mountain lion habitat and wildlife corridor. The footprint of the new structure appears to be at least a 300-foot long (or greater) north to south barrier to wildlife passage parallel to Los Trancos Creek. This Project could cause wildlife such as deer and mountain lion to circumnavigate the structure in order to travel between open space areas located to the east and west of the proposed project resulting in additional fragmentation of the local habitat. The potential impacts to wildlife movement and fragmentation should be analyzed and addressed in the BIO mitigation measures. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 44     Phytophthora / Sudden Oak Death The area surrounding the proposed project has been heavily impacted by Phytophthora-caused plant diseases, including Sudden Oak Death (SOD), which was detected within close proximity to the project site in 2019 1. SOD has been responsible for the death of over one million oak and tanoak trees in California alone. Mortality rates are greater than 50 percent in some areas and continue to increase. Due to the known presence of SOD within the vicinity of the Preserve and the project site, attention is needed to protect the genetic integrity of native oak trees and reduce the potential risk of spreading SOD and related Phytophthora pathogens. Should the project move forward, Midpen requests that the City incorporate appropriate protocols as part of the Conditions of Approval for the Resource Management Permit to minimize the spread of Phytophthora spp., including disinfecting tools and removing soil from heavy equipment before entering and when leaving the project site. At a minimum, replacement trees should be noninvasive (according to the California Invasive Plant Council), native and ideally native oaks. For replacement oak trees, Midpen requests that the project applicant use acorns sourced from within the watershed rather than nursery stock. Trees grown in nurseries have been known to carry Phytophthora spp. and spread the pathogen where planted. Notably, current research suggests that larger healthy trees in SOD infested areas may carry a genetic resistance to the pathogen. Midpen would be pleased to issue a free permit for acorn collection at Windy Hill, Thornewood, or Teague Hill Open Space Open Space Preserves. For additional resources, please see the four attached best management practice documents for conducting vegetation work in areas with potential Phytophthora infection. Midpen did not receive project notification for review of the ISMND, such that we request Jane Mark, Planning Manager (jmark@openspace.org), be added to the City’s future notifications for 575 Los Trancos Road project and other development projects located within the vicinity of the Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this development and the time extension of the public comment period to September 19th at 5 pm. Should you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (650) 625-6563 or via email. 1 Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting (2019). Botanical Resources Survey Report: Hawthorns Property, Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 45     Sincerely, Jane F. Mark, AICP Planning Manager Attachment 1: Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Contamination Attachment 2: Midpen Phytophthora Sterilization Guidelines Attachment 3: Sudden Oak Death Precautions and Acorn Planting Protocols Attachment 4: Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Pathogens in Restoration Nurseries CC: Ana Ruiz, General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 46     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 1 of 7 Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Contamination in Restoration Projects These guidelines aim to avoid contamination of restoration sites with exotic pathogenic Phytophthora species or other plant pathogens during planting and related activities. Contents Definitions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………… 1 I. Guidelines for General Construction ……………..……………………………………………….…………………. 2 II. Guidelines for Planting at Field Sites ………………………………………………………………….……………… 2 Appendix A. Procedures for sanitizing tools, surfaces, and footwear…………………………………..………………… 5 B. Clean water specifications ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Definitions: • Holding facility or nursery: A facility where nursery stock is maintained for a short to extended period of time prior to planting. Plant maintenance activities may include irrigation, fertilization or light pruning, as necessary. Nurseries involved in most other activities, including propagation or repotting are considered production nurseries. • Job site: The job site includes areas for planting, soil stockpiling, parking, and access roads within and leading to the site. • Nursery stock: All types of nursery grown plants. • Planting area: Area being planted for habitat restoration, erosion control, or other purposes. • Planting site: An individual planting basin or other spot, typically no larger than one square yard, where an individual plant or several grouped plants will be installed. • Sanitize: Clean and treat with a sanitizing agent or via a lethal heat exposure to kill plant pathogens present as external contamination. • Sanitizing agent: Materials such as bleach (sodium hypochlorite solutions), alcohol, quaternary ammonium compounds, and peroxides that can directly kill exposed propagules of Phytophthora or other plant pathogens when used properly. Most sanitizing agents can also kill a wide variety of bacteria and deactivate many viruses. Note that most materials referred to as fungicides are applied to plants to suppress disease but may not kill the pathogens and are not sanitizing agents. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 47     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 2 of 7 I. Construction projects In an effort to minimize the spread of plant pathogens the exterior and interior of all equipment and tools must be clean and free of debris, soil and mud (including tires, treads, wheel wells and undercarriage) prior to arrival at a new job site. General guidance – suggested standard operating procedures: a. Vehicles need to stay on established roads unless infeasible. b. In general, vehicles and equipment need to be maintained clean – interior and exterior free of mud, debris and soil especially during the wet season. c. In general, work shoes need to be kept clean- inspect shoe soles and knock mud, debris and soil off treads before moving to a new job site. d. To minimize the potential for spreading potentially contaminated soil and time required for decontamination, if possible, avoid vehicle traffic and field work when soils are wet enough to stick readily to shoes, tools, equipment and tires. II. Planting at Field Sites Overview: Three general routes for the spread of Phytophthora and other soilborne plant pathogens are addressed in these guidelines. These routes are (1) contamination of planting material, including clean nursery stock, and other materials installed at the site, (2) inadvertent introduction of pathogens to a job site from other outside sources (e.g., via contaminated equipment), and (3) potential movement of undetected contamination within the planting area. These guidelines assume that all nursery stock was originally grown under phytosanitary conditions and tested as remaining free from disease in the nursery (refer to nursery guidelines). These guidelines address how to protect the planting area from subsequent contamination during the delivery, storage onsite, and installation of planting stock and materials. 1. Prevent contamination of clean nursery stock or other clean plant materials Planting stock shall be protected from potential contamination from the point that it leaves the production nursery or collection site until planting. Note that nursery stock has a high risk of infection by Phytophthora species if exposed to these pathogens. Excluding these pathogens provides the only viable option for maintaining outplanted nursery stock free of Phytophthora. 1.1. Maintaining nursery stock in a holding facility When holding stock for an extended period (after delivery from production nursery and before planting), the following practices need to be followed to prevent contamination of the nursery stock with Phytophthora. 1.1.1. Delivered nursery plants that will be held before planting shall be transferred to cleaned and sanitized raised benches and maintained as described in “Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Pathogens for holding (non-production) nurseries at restoration sites, Section 3.” Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 48     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 3 of 7 1.2. Handling and transporting nursery plants at the job site 1.2.1. Nursery plants shall be transported on or in vehicles or equipment that have been cleaned before loading the stock. Truck beds, racks, or other surfaces need to be swept, blown with compressed air and/or power washed as needed so they are visibly free of soil and plant detritus. More information on sanitizing surfaces are described in the Appendix. 1.2.2. Keep plants in sanitized vehicles or on sanitized carts, trailers, etc. until delivered to their planting sites. (More information may be found in sections 1.3.3. and 1.3.4.) 1.2.3 At the job site, plants shall be handled to prevent contamination until delivered to each planting site. Nursery stock shall not be placed on the soil or other potentially contaminated surfaces until they are placed at their specific planting sites. 1.2.4 If it is necessary to offload plants at the job site, plants may be placed on clean waterproof plastic tarps or other clean, sanitized surfaces. If tarps are used for holding plants, one surface needs to be dedicated for contact with nursery stock and will be cleaned and sanitized to maintain phytosanitary conditions. 1.3. Other planting site inputs 1.3.1 Washing, soaking, or irrigation of plant material shall be conducted using clean water sources as specified in the Appendix below. Untreated surface waters should not be used for these purposes. 1.3.2. On-site or off-site collection of plant materials, including seed and cuttings for direct planting, shall be conducted in a phytosanitary manner (see guidelines for collection practices at www.calphytos.org). 1.3.3. Prior to delivery to the planting areas, mulch, compost, soil amendments, inoculants, and other organic products need to be examined and determined to be low-risk for pathogen introduction. Acceptable materials are those that are free of contamination by plant pathogens based on their composition or manufacturing conditions, or that have been exposed to an effective heat treatment to eliminate pathogens. Such materials must be handled and stored in a manner that prevents contamination. At the job site, delivered materials shall be handled to prevent contamination until delivered to each planting site in the same manner specified for nursery stock in section 1.2 above. 1.3.4. All other materials to be installed at the site shall be of new or sanitized material that has not been stored in contact with soil, untreated surface waters, or other potentially contaminated materials. This includes irrigation supplies (such as pipe, fittings, valves, drip line, emitters, etc.), erosion control fabrics, fencing, stakes, posts, and other planting site inputs. 2. Cleaning and sanitation required before entering planting area to prevent introducing contamination from other locations Phytophthora contamination can be present in agricultural and landscaped areas, in commercial nursery stock, and in some infested native or restored habitat areas. Contamination can be spread via soil, plant material and debris, and water from infested areas. Arriving at the site with clean vehicles, equipment, tools, footwear, and clothing helps prevent unintentional contamination of the planting site from outside sources. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 49     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 4 of 7 2.1. Vehicles, equipment, and tools 2.1.1. Equipment, vehicles and large tools must be free of soil and debris on tires, wheel wells, vehicle undercarriages, and other surfaces before arriving at the planting area. A high pressure washer and/or compressed air may be used to ensure that soil and debris are completely removed. Vehicles that only travel and park on paved roads do not require external cleaning. 2.1.2. The interior of equipment (cabs, etc.) should be free of mud, soil, gravel and other potentially contaminated material. Interiors should be vacuumed, washed, and/or treated with sanitizing agents as needed to eliminate pathogen propagules that could be transferred to the planting area. 2.1.3. Small tools and other small equipment (including hoses, quick couplers, hose nozzles, and irrigation wands) need to be washed to be free of soil or other contamination and sanitized (see Appendix). 2.1.4. Hoses shall be new or previously used only for clean water sources (see Appendix). 2.2. Footwear and clothing 2.2.1. Soles and uppers of footwear need to be visibly free of debris and soil before arriving at the planting area. (See the Appendix for more details.) 2.2.2. At the start of work at each new job site, worker clothing shall be free of all mud, soil or detritus. If clothing is not freshly laundered, all debris and adhered soil should be removed by brushing with a stiff brush. 2.2.3. Gloves and non-porous knee pads must be new (if disposable) or laundered/sanitized at the start of each work day, and/or clean coveralls must be worn. Non-disposable gloves should be made of or coated with material, such as nitrile, that can be sanitized. 3. Prevent potential spread of contamination within planting areas Phytophthora can also be spread within plantings areas if some portions of the site are contaminated. However, it is not possible to identify every portion of a planting area that may contain Phytophthora. Because Phytophthora contamination is not visible, working practices should minimize the movement of soil within the planting area to reduce the likelihood of pathogen spread. Note that areas with higher risk of Phytophthora infestation include areas adjacent to planted landscaping, areas previously planted with Phytophthora-infected stock, areas with existing or recently removed woody vegetation, disturbed wetlands, and areas directly along watercourses. Areas with low risk of contamination typically include upland sites with only grassy vegetation or sites where surface soils have been removed. 3.1. Worker training and site access 3.1.1. Before entering the job site, field workers need to receive training that includes information on Phytophthora pathogens and how to prevent the spread of these and other soilborne organisms by following approved phytosanitary procedures. Workers should also be informed about any site-specific phytosanitary practices before work commences. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 50     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 5 of 7 3.1.2. Do not bring more vehicles into the planting area than necessary and keep vehicles on surfaced or graveled roads whenever possible to minimize potential for soil movement. 3.1.3. Travel off roads or on unsurfaced roads should be avoided when soil and road surfaces are wet enough that soil will stick to vehicle tires and undercarriages. 3.1.4. To allow for adequate decontamination of equipment, tools, gloves, and shoes, avoid planting under overly wet conditions or when soil is saturated. 3.2. Minimize unnecessary movement of soil and plant material within the planting area, especially from higher to lower risk areas 3.2.1 Brush off soil from tools and gloves when moving between successive planting sites to prevent repeated collection and deposition of soil across multiple sites. 3.2.2. Avoid contaminating clothing with soil during planting operations. Brush off soil accumulations before moving from one planting site to the next. Use nonporous knee pads that are cleaned between planting sites if kneeling is necessary. 3.2.3 When possible, plant nursery stock from a given block in the same local area rather than spreading it widely. If a problem is associated with a given block of plants, it will be easier to detect and deal with it if the plants are spatially grouped. 3.2.4. Phase work to minimize movement between areas with high and low risk of contamination. Where possible, complete work in low risk areas before moving to higher risk areas. Alternatively, assign personnel to working in either high or low risk areas exclusively to reduce the need for decontamination. 3.2.5. Clean soil and plant debris from large equipment and sanitize hand tools, buckets, gloves, and footwear when moving from higher risk to lower risk areas or when moving between widely separated portions of the planting area. 3.2.6. All non-plant materials to be installed at the site (irrigation equipment, erosion control fabric, fencing, etc.) shall be handled to prevent movement of soil within the site, especially movement from higher risk to lower risk areas. Materials should be kept free of soil contamination by maintaining them in clean vehicles or carts, trailers, etc., or stockpiling in elevated dry areas on clean tarps until used. 4. Clean water specifications Objective: use only uncontaminated, appropriately-treated water for irrigation. 4.1.1. Water used for irrigating plants needs to be uncontaminated. See Appendix for specifications. Appendix A. Procedures for sanitizing tools, surfaces, and footwear Surfaces and tools should be clean and sanitized before use. Tools and working surfaces (e.g., plant carts) should be smooth and nonporous to facilitate cleaning and sanitation. Wood handles on tools should be sealed with a waterproof coating to make them easier to sanitize. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 51     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 6 of 7 Before sanitizing items, remove all soil and organic material (roots, sap, etc.) from their surfaces. If necessary, use a detergent solution and brush to scrub off surface contaminants. The sanitizing agent may also be used as a cleaning solution. Screwdrivers or similar implements may be needed to clean soil out of crevices or shoe treads. Brushes and other implements used to help remove soil must be visibly clean and sanitized after use. After surface soil and contamination are removed, treat the surface with one of the following sanitizing agents, allowing the appropriate contact time before rinsing. If surfaces are clean and dry, wet surfaces thoroughly and allow for the appropriate contact time listed. If the sanitizer has been used to help clean the surface, use fresh sanitizer to rinse off any dirty solution and then allow the required contact time. If treated surfaces are wetted with water, the sanitizing solution will become diluted. Apply enough sanitizer to completely displace the water film and then allow the required contact time. Sanitizing agents may be applied with spray bottles to thoroughly wet the surface. Observe all appropriate safety precautions to prevent contact with eyes or skin when using these solutions. - 70-90% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol - spray to thoroughly wet the surface and allow to air dry before use - freshly diluted bleach solution (0.525% sodium hypochlorite, Table 1) for a minimum of 1 minute (due to corrosivity, not advised for steel or other materials damaged by bleach) - quaternary ammonium disinfectant - use according to manufacturer recommendations, making sure that the label indicates that the product is suitable for your use situation and has activity against Phytophthora when used as directed. Solution should be freshly made or tested to ensure target concentration. Table 1. Dilutions of commonly available bleach products needed to obtain approximately 0.525% sodium hypochlorite concentrations (5000 ppm available chlorine). Percent sodium hypochlorite in bleach Parts bleach Parts water Diluted bleach percent sodium hypochlorite 5.25% 1 9 0.525% 6.0% 1 10.4 0.526% 8.25% 1 14.6 0.529% 8.3% 1 14.8 0.525% For example, adding 100 ml of 5.25% bleach to 900 ml of water will make 1000 ml of 0.525% NaOCl solution. If using 8.3% bleach, add 100 ml of bleach to 1480 ml of water to make 1580 ml of 0.525% NaOCl. B. Clean water specifications Surface waters, including untreated water from streams or ponds and nursery runoff, can be sources of Phytophthora contamination. Only uncontaminated water or water that has been effectively treated to remove or kill Phytophthora should be used for rinsing or irrigating plant material. 5.1. Water used for irrigation shall be from treated municipal water supplies or wells and delivered through intact pipes with backflow prevention devices. Tertiary-treated municipal recycled water is acceptable. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 52     Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats October 2016 7 of 7 5.2. If well water is used, wellheads shall be protected from contamination by surface water sources. 5.3 Untreated surface waters and recycled nursery runoff shall not be used, and plants shall not be held where potential contamination from such sources is possible via splash, runoff, or inundation. 5.4. Irrigation equipment must be kept free of contamination that could be transferred to irrigation water or plants. All hoses, wands, and nozzles, and hand irrigation equipment must either be new or sanitized before use. Drip irrigation and other sprinkler parts should be new or sanitized. Hose ends, wands, or nozzles that become contaminated with soil or mud during use should be cleaned and sanitized before being used further. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 53     Guidelines for Minimizing Phytophthora Contamination at Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Preserves The goal of these guidelines is to minimize the contamination of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) preserves with Phytophthora, a soil pathogen that kills plants. Once a site is contaminated, this soil pathogen can spread farther into wildland areas and can be difficult to eradicate. Prevention is the lowest cost and easiest method to manage contamination. The best way to prevent the spread of this disease is to not move soil from one location to another by cleaning tools, equipment, and footwear. Part of the District’s mission is to protect and restore the natural environment. Within the last few years, planted restoration sites have unintentionally exposed preserves to soil pathogens brought in by nursery plants that were later found to be contaminated. Testing of former restoration sites on District preserves is now underway to determine which sites are contaminated and the necessary remedial actions. Who should use these guidelines? These guidelines are intended for use by field staff and Natural Resource (NR) staff who pose the highest chance of spreading soil Phytophthora via equipment and footwear. Several methods are provided on how and when to decontaminate tools and equipment depending on the site conditions (contaminated versus clean site) and staff activities (planting, other). Guidelines for contractors, consultants, volunteers and preserve visitors are under development. Consult NR staff (Amanda Mills, amills@openspace.org or x558, or Coty Sifuentes-Winter, csifuentes@openspace.org or x560) on which guidelines are best for your project. When to use these guidelines? Use these guidelines for any activity that contacts soil, water or plants on a known Phytophthora- contaminated site, on a formerly planted site, on a site with rare plants, or when preparing or planting a new restoration site. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 54     Table of Contents 1. Overview ...................................................................................3 1.1 What is Phytophthora? ................................................................... 3 1.2 General Steps: ................................................................................. 3 1.3 Proper Disinfectants ....................................................................... 4 2. Cleaning at the Field Office .........................................................5 2.1 Remove Soil from Equipment and Footwear .................................. 5 2.2 Disinfect Tools With Bleach ............................................................ 5 2.3 Disinfect Wheeled Equipment/ Vehicles ......................................... 6 3. Cleaning at Field Site .................................................................6 3.1 Cleaning at Start of Field Day .......................................................... 7 3.2 Cleaning at End of Field Day ........................................................... 8 4. FAQ ............................................................................................8 5. Sources ......................................................................................9 6. Future Methods .........................................................................9 Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 55     1. Overview Remember to Arrive Clean and Leave Clean. The best way to prevent the spread of Phytophthora is to leave soil at its original location in the field. Equipment and footwear should be clean and sanitized before entering a site, especially for planting events where extra precautionary steps will be taken. Before leaving a site, especially at contaminated sites, it’s crucial to clean and sanitize footwear and equipment. Definitions: Clean - remove soil and organic debris from tools and footwear Sanitize - Use disinfecting agent such as alcohol or chlorine bleach. Phytosanitary- control of plant pests and diseases especially in agricultural crops 1.1 What is Phytophthora? 1.1.1 Phytophthora (Fie-tof-thora) is a group of water molds that infect plants. There are many species, mostly notably P. ramorm (Sudden Oak Death), P. infestans (potato blight/ Irish potato famine) and P. tentaculata (nursery root rot). 1.1.2 Symptoms are similar to drought, making diagnosis difficult without testing. 1.1.3 Symptoms include leaf spots, branch die-back, cankers, trunk bleeding and death of whole plant. 1.1.4 Hosts include many native and nursery plants including oaks, bay laurel, madrones, sticky monkeyflower. 1.1.5 Brought to California through imported camellia and rhododendron nursery plants. 1.1.6 Mainly spreads from contaminated nursery stock, pots and soil. Can spread by foot traffic from contaminated footwear. 1.2 General Steps: 1.2.1 What - Items to be cleaned: Anything that comes into contact with soil, water or plants. This includes tools (shovels, hand trowels, hori-horis, rakes, tree cages, plant protection tubes etc.), footwear, equipment, wheeled equipment and vehicles. 1.2.2 When - Prior to the project day, field staff will be notified what items need to be cleaned and by which method. In general, tools and equipment should be cleaned at the field office before bringing them to the field site, and soil should be removed from footwear beforehand and more thoroughly cleaned at the entrance to the field site. 1.2.3 Transportation - Cleaned equipment should be transported in a truckbed from which all soil has been washed out, or cleaned equipment can be wrapped in a clean tarp before placed in a dirty truck. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 56     1.3 Proper Disinfectants All recommended disinfectants are considered pesticides. Personal protective equipment required by the State of California for anyone using disinfectants is eye protection with wrap- around and brow protection and 14 mil chemical resistant gloves. You can use smaller mil gloves if handling chemicals for 15 minutes or less. 1.3.1 The disinfectants listed in Table 1 are recommended by standard phytosanitary guidelines. 1.3.2 Other disinfecting agents or methods, such as Lysol or heat treatments, must be reviewed and approved by NR staff before use. 1.3.3 Disinfectants are most effective when surfaces are clean of soil and user follows label instructions. Disinfecting Agent Active ingredient Contact time Product shelf life Proper Disposal Health Risk Personal Protective Equipment Granular Chlorine Bleach (Leslies Chlor Brite, EZ Chlor) Sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate 2 min Long if undiluted Neutralizer (Vita-D- Chlor) High Eyewear, gloves; do not inhale Liquid Bleach (Clorox)* Sodium chloride 2 min 3-5 months TBD High Eyewear, gloves; do not inhale Rubbing Alcohol Ethanol or Isopropyl Alcohol 1 min Long TBD Med Eyewear, gloves; flammable Quaternary ammonium compounds (Quat 128 or Physan 20) Dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 10 min Long if undiluted TBD Med Eyewear, gloves; toxic to fish Table 1: List of approved disinfecting agents. Always follow chemical label instructions. *Liquid bleaches are generally not recommended as a disinfectant because they lose potency in storage. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 57     2. Cleaning at the Field Office Clean equipment, tools and footwear at the field office before arriving to the project site. This is the easiest way to prevent soil contamination. For those occasions where equipment and footwear must be cleaned at a field site, see Cleaning at Field Site (page 7). 2.1 Remove Soil from Equipment and Footwear 2.1.1 At the field office, scrape, brush, and wash off any soil or organic material. Take care to remove soil trapped in treads or cracks. 2.1.2 Pathogens can survive inside soil clods even after soaking because disinfectants may not completely penetrate large or clayey masses. Therefore, it is important to remove large clods of soil before soaking or otherwise treating with disinfectants. 2.2 Disinfect Tools With Bleach Several disinfecting agents are available for treating Phytophthoras (Table 1). When many tools need treatment, use granular chlorine bleach at the field office. Spraying with rubbing alcohol is more appropriate for spot treatment at remote field locations. NEVER MIX DIFFERENT DISINFECTING AGENTS. ALWAYS FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTIONS. FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT WHEN USING DISINFECTING AGENTS. List of Equipment for Disinfecting Tools:  Disinfectant – most frequently, we expect to be using granular chlorine bleach such as EZ Chlor or Leslie’s Chlor Brite when cleaning multiple tools at the field office. Carefully follow the directions below when using any [?] of the bleach disinfectants.  Vita-D-Chlor (chlorine neutralizer) - This neutralizing product is only required if you used chlorine bleach as a disinfectant.  Waterproof container - A large [minimum size?] plastic trashcan or waterproof pop-up garden trimming container in which to mix the water-based disinfectant and soak the tools.  Hard bristled scrub brushes and paint scrapers - Grill brushes with scrapper attachment are handy tools to loosen soil from both flat surfaces and narrow cracks.  Personal Protective Equipment Close-toed shoes, apron or coveralls, protective eyewear, 14 mil chemical resistant gloves (not leather or cloth).  Clean water source - should not be cloudy or with a lot of organic material in it. Pressure washers or nozzles are helpful to remove soil quickly and get into small cracks. 2.2.1 Before using the disinfectant, remove soil as described in above section. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 58     2.2.2 Fill waterproof container with 10 gallons of water. Use label instructions to add the right amount of disinfecting agent. For granular bleach, use one teaspoon in 10 gallons to get the desired 0.525% dilution. 2.2.3 Dunk tools in solution for required soaking time (see Table 1). For granular bleach, this is 2-minutes. Just getting tools wet does not mean they will be disinfected. Think of it as chemical cooking. 2.2.4 If you used chlorine bleach as a disinfectant, it needs to be neutralized after soaking. This ‘rinse cycle” will deactivate the bleach so it does not corrode metal and so that it is safer to dispose of the soak water. Equipment sprayed with alcohol does not require this neutralization step. 2.2.5 In addition to tools, remember to disinfect the sanitation kit, gloves, tarps, or other miscellaneous items that have come into contact with soil. 2.2.6 Let tools dry. The hose lay is great for drying tarps. 2.3 Disinfect Wheeled Equipment/ Vehicles Anything with wheels, including wheel barrels, ATV’s, motorized carts that will be used at the field site needs to be cleaned and this is best done at the field office before the project. Vehicles that stay at the staging area do not have to be cleaned and sanitized. However, it is good phytosanitary practice to remove soil from wheels every time you leave a site. 2.3.1 Scrub down tires either by hand scrubbing or using a pressure spray wash. 2.3.2 Sanitize using disinfecting spray such as bleach (must be made weekly) or rubbing alcohol. 3. Cleaning at Field Site Remember to Arrive Clean and Leave Clean. If equipment was cleaned and treated with a disinfectant at the field office and delivered in a clean truck, then on-site cleaning of equipment will only be required when leaving at the end of a work day. We recommend that everyone be encouraged to thoroughly clean their footwear of soil before arrival at the site, and then footwear be treated with alcohol upon arrival. Volunteers may not always be aware of this recommendation and may arrive with boots that need to be cleaned of foreign soil at the field site. Scraping all soil off equipment and footwear is required before leaving site, and sanitation of all footwear is usually recommended when leaving a site, especially for known contaminated sites. Rubbing alcohol is usually the preferred disinfectant in the field. Bleach products can be used in the field, but it is harder to mix and dispose of them properly in the field. See details below. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 59     3.1 Cleaning at Start of Field Day Tools: Portable sanitation kits include the following items in a bin: 2 tarps, boot brush with scraper, 2 spray bottles of 70% isopropyl alcohol, 2 long-handled brushes, 2 paint scrapers, and instructions. On muddy days, also bring a basin and 2 jugs of water. Alcohol 70% Ethyl alcohol (Ethanol) or 90% Isopropyl alcohol is fine. Called rubbing alcohol at drug stores. Spray bottle - we take the nozzles from chemical resistant spray bottles and screw them directly into the rubbing alcohol bottle. Sometimes the stem needs to be trimmed. This allows you to have a spray bottle that is properly labeled with rubbing alcohol information and precautions. 3.1.1 Any equipment or footwear not cleaned and sanitized at the field office must be cleaned and sanitized before entering the site. Off-site soil should be considered contaminated. 3.1.2 Using the items in the portable sanitation kit, set up a staging area where equipment and footwear will be cleaned and sanitized. A paved parking lot or surface near the entrance to the work site is preferred. 3.1.3 Lay out 2 tarps, one labeled ‘dirty’ and one labeled ‘clean’. Remove any off-site soil from footwear and equipment onto the ‘dirty’ tarp. Try not to use water. If water is used, DO NOT dump potentially contaminated water onto on-site soil. Water can be dumped onto non-permeable pavement such as a road or parking lot in a low traffic area. This will UV-sterilize the dirty water (24 hr daylight cycle) as long as no clumps exist. Potentially contaminated soil in the ‘dirty’ tarp should be bagged in a trash bag and thrown away. DO NOT dispose of off-site soil at the new site. 3.1.4 Use the ‘clean’ tarp to sanitize soil-free footwear and equipment. Standing on the tarp, spray cleaned footwear and tools with 70% isopropyl alcohol, thoroughly wetting the surface. If the surface of your footwear or tools is already wet, spray extra alcohol to displace the water and allow the alcohol to soak the surface. Spray the footwear from the top down to avoid contamination. 3.1.5 Allow alcohol to evaporate (approx. 1 min) before starting work. You can stand on the tarp until your shoes are dry. 3.1.6 Footbath Alternative - we are investigating sanitizing mats where sanitizing only requires stepping on the mat. Gemplers.com, sanistride.com, and nelsonjameson.com sell both sponge mats and footbath mats for disinfecting shoes. Either chlorine bleach or non- evaporating disinfectants are used in these footbaths and the solution is changed weekly or as needed. Chemical strips are available to test if disinfectants are still effective. Caution should be taken if footbaths and solutions are transported to avoid spills. 3.1.7 Bleach alternative in the field. We are currently recommending that the bleach alternative be used at the field office and alcohol be used in the field. Bleach may be a better alternative in the field under some circumstances (large amounts of tools that must be disinfected in field), but will require special processes for safety and to properly dispose of the chlorine treatment water. Consult with the NR Department to determine best methods under these conditions. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 60     3.2 Cleaning at End of Field Day Tools: Portable sanitation kits include the following items in a bin: 2 tarps, boot brush withscraper, 2 spray bottles of 70% isopropyl alcohol, 2 long-handled brushes, 2 paint scrapers, and instructions. On muddy days, also bring a basin & 2 jugs of water. 3.2.1 Sanitation of equipment and shoes is important for known or suspected contaminated sites. More leniency can be given for ‘clean’ sites. 3.2.2 Remove all soil and organic material from footwear and equipment. Leave soil onsite. Use the boot scraper, paint scraper and a stiff brush to remove any soil and plant material on both the top and bottom of footwear and from tools including the digging ends and handles. Make sure to clean out crevices. On muddy days, fill the basin with water to assist in rinsing off excess soil once the majority of debris has been removed. 3.2.3 Water helps in removing dried clods of soil. This water can be dumped on-site only if the soil originates from on-site. 3.2.4 Standing on the ‘clean’ tarp, spray cleaned footwear and tools with 70% isopropyl alcohol, thoroughly wetting the surface and allowing it to dry (approx. 1 min). If the surface of your footwear or tools is already wet, spray extra alcohol to displace the water and allow the alcohol to soak the surface. 3.2.5 Before leaving the site, shake soil off the scrapers, brushes and tarp. 3.2.6 At the field office, thoroughly clean the portable sanitation kit by washing out, spraying with alcohol and drying the container and all contents before storage. The portable sanitation kit must be clean before moving to a new site. 4. FAQ Q. What do we do with left over soil? A. Depends on the soil. Soil from off-site should be disposed of in a trash bag and thrown away-- there’s no knowing if off-site soil is contaminated or not. On site soil can be disposed of on-site back where it came from. Q. What do we do with dirty water? A. Pouring on pavement or another non-porous surface should disperse the contaminated soil enough to UV (sun) sterilize the water. If using bleach, use neutralizer and the water can be considered clean and safe enough to pour out anywhere. Don’t pollute! Other disinfectants need proper disposal that isn’t safe for dumping on the ground. Contact Natural Resources Department (Amanda Mills/Coty Sifuentes-Winter) or EH&S for safe disposal procedures. Q. How do we use the tarps? A. Two tarps, two purposes. Dirty tarp: use as a containment area to clean off soil clogs, especially offsite soil, for later disposal. Clean tarp: provides users a clean surface to sterilize (with alcohol or other sanitation liquid) shoes and equipment not cleaned at the Field offices. Q. When will we need to sanitize or use the kits? Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 61     A. 1. Contaminated sites (list TBD) 2. Planting events-NR staff lead 3. When NR Staff recommend sanitation. Most of these will be NR staff lead, otherwise a leading crew member will advise on Phytosanitary BMP. Q. Can we use hot water to sterilize? A. Hot water can be used only if equipment bathes in 120-125° water for 30 minutes in order to be effective at killing both surface contaminants and internal infections. Q. What about large equipment and Ranger lead projects? A. TBD. Field staff will be trained on phytosanitary measures. For field crew lead projects, a crew member should be in charge of facilitating phytosanitary compliance. Q. Why does this take so much time? A. It’s best to prevent rather than respond to contamination by Phytophthora. Once a natural area has been exposed to this soil disease, it can slowly spread and kill other plants. It is very difficult and expensive to kill all the pathogens in the soil of a natural area. 5. Sources CalPhytos.org. “Guidelines to minimize Phytophthora Pathogens in Restoration Nurseries”. Suddenoakdeath.org. http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Restoration.Nsy_.Guidelines.final_.092216.pdf Kurowki, Chet. “Control Pathogen Spread through use of Disinfectants”. Calseed.org. http://www.calseed.org/documents/Disinfectants%2004-22-14a.pdf Cornell University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee “Cleaning and sanitizing equipment used in the transport of animals.” https://ras.research.cornell.edu/care/documents/ACUPs/ACUP532.pdf http://agriculture.mo.gov/animals/pdf/animalag_guide4.pdf 6. Future Methods Let us know how these guidelines worked for your project! We may adjust guidelines based on feedback. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 62     Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sudden Oak Death Precautions and Acorn Planting Protocol 1. Sudden Oak Death (SOD) Precautions a. Prior to the start of construction work, the Construction Superintendent shall inform construction personnel that they are working in a potential SOD-infested area, the implications of the disease, and the need to prevent further disease spread. Non-English speaking personnel shall be provided the appropriate written or verbal translations. b. To the extent practical, avoid locating equipment and material near host plants and trees, especially if showing disease symptoms. c. Route equipment away from host plants and trees, especially if showing disease symptoms. d. Any cutting or chipping of on-site plant material shall be restricted to the project area and the debris shall remain in the project area. e. After completing any cutting or chipping of on-site plant material, ensure that the equipment is free from host debris by first removing any visible plant material that clings to the equipment and follow with the cutting or chipping of non-host material. f. Before any equipment or vehicles leave the preserve, the contractor shall inspect the equipment and vehicles for host plant debris (leaves, twigs, and branches). Host plant debris must be removed from equipment and vehicles prior to their departure. g. If conditions at the work site are muddy due to dust suppression activities or summer rains, remove or wash off accumulations of soil, mud, and organic debris from shoes, boots, vehicles, and heavy equipment prior to exiting the preserve. If an equipment power wash station is used, its location must first be approved by the District Representative. 2. Acorn Planting Protocols a. Prior to planting, the contractor will remove debris within a 2-3 foot diameter of the planting basin and hollow out a planting hole fist deep and wide in loose soil. Place 3 seeds on their side in the hole, cover with soil to grade and firmly pat down. Contractor shall install Tubex Shrubshelters (2.5’ height) centered on the planted seeds. Contractor shall insure that each installed Tubex Scrubshelter is in good condition and securely attached to wooden stakes with the bottom edge covered by soil. Contractor shall install a mulch layer or certified weed free stray 3 to 5-inches deep in an area of 3-foot diameter around each tree shelter. Contractor will provide and water each basin with one (1) gallon of water. b. After the first Spring, keep only the most vigorous seedling in each basin. If space is an issue, plant trees closer together. c. At year 5, thin trees to 2:1 ratio. d. At year 10, thin trees to 1:1 ratio. Midpen will gladly issue a free permit to collect acorns for use from either Coal Creek or Los Trancos Open Space Preserves to a qualified contractor. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 63     Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Pathogens in Restoration Nurseries 6 2. Clean planting materials Objective: Start with propagative material that is free from infection or external contamination by Phytophthora species as well as other possible pathogens. Suggested practices: 2.1. To avoid introducing Phytophthora into seed collection areas, make sure your equipment, vehicle, and footwear are clean. Clean and sanitize your footwear and tools between locations. 2.2. Where possible, collect seeds and cuttings as high above the ground as possible, preferably at least 3 ft above the soil surface. 2.3. Whenever possible, seed/fruit should not be collected directly from the ground. Seed can be knocked onto clean tarps placed on the ground or collected using seed traps. If seed is otherwise unavailable, exceptions may be considered based on the following criteria: 1). Vegetation is robustly healthy, the site is not known to be and not likely to be contaminated; 2). Seed has recently dropped on dry ground or leaf litter. Seeds that may be contaminated with soil via water splashed from the soil should be appropriately treated before storage or use (see section 9. Sanitizing materials and treatments). Ground-collected seed will be kept separate from other collected material during seed processing and planting and should be prioritized for testing throughout propagation. 2.4. Seeds, cuttings, and other plant propagules should not be collected from the vicinity of past restoration plantings or other areas where Phytophthora infestations are known, suspected, or likely. In the unusual situations where this is not possible (e.g., for rare populations), seed or tip cuttings may be collected if collected at a distance of 1 m or more above the ground. Material propagated from such sources should be kept segregated from plant material propagated from pathogen-free areas. 2.5. Protocols for seed collection from species that are low growing (with height stature less than 1 m above the ground) should minimize the risk of potential Phytophthora contamination. In general, seed that matures after the rainy season has ended has a low risk of being contaminated if collected before fall rains begin. 2.6. Collect seeds, cuttings, or other propagules only from plants and fruit that appear healthy. Do not collect or store seeds or other propagules with apparent disease symptoms such as decay, atypical discoloration, or fungal fruiting bodies. 2.7. If possible, avoid collecting seeds or other propagules during wet or muddy conditions to minimize potential for contaminating propagules or spreading contaminated soil. 2.8. Collect propagules with clean hands/gloves and equipment (pruning shears, etc.) and place them in new bags/envelopes and new or clean containers. Sanitize gloves, hands, and tools immediately if they come in contact with soil. Sanitize cutting tools frequently. 2.9. Conduct all processing of seeds or cuttings in a clean work area with clean equipment and clean hands or gloves. Discard or sanitize any seed or propagule that is dropped on the ground or comes in contact with contaminated surfaces or materials. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 64     Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Pathogens in Restoration Nurseries 7 2.10. Clean seed as soon as possible after collection to remove any debris before storage or stratification. Inspect stored seeds or other propagules regularly and discard materials that develop symptoms in storage. 2.11. Where compatible with seed storage and germination requirements, treat seed using heat or appropriate disinfecting chemicals to eliminate seed-borne pathogens or external contamination. Seed treatment may be omitted for species where it is impractical or the risk of seed-borne or contaminating pathogens is negligible. 2.12. Do not bring potentially infected or contaminated plant material into clean production areas of the nursery. Properly collected seed and tip cuttings (described above) will normally be free of Phytophthora. 2.13. Plant propagules that have been in contact with the soil (divisions, tubers, rhizomes, bulbs, etc.) have an elevated risk of being infected or contaminated with Phytophthora or other soilborne pathogens. Plant stock originating from such propagules should be segregated from planting material started from cleaner sources, such as seed or cuttings and from other vegetatively propagated material from different localities. The goal is to avoid introducing pathogens, including pathogens that may be endemic to a given site, to new areas or native plant populations via plants that become infected in the nursery. 2.14. Plant propagules from the soil (divisions, tubers, rhizomes, bulbs, etc.) should be thoroughly cleaned to remove soil and inspected. Discard propagules that show evidence of decay. Surface contamination can be removed with treatments such as diluted bleach dips, but surface treatments will not eliminate internal infections. Internal infections can only be eliminated by heat treatments, but not all plant propagules will tolerate temperatures needed to kill Phytophthora infections. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 65     September 19, 2022 Emily Foley, Emily.Foley@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie Gerhardt, Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Planning and Development Services Department City of Palo Alto Re:575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Dear Ms. Foley and Ms. Gerhardt, The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS)and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLPC)are environmental organizations that work to protect natural resources and promote the enjoyment of nature.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for the 575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project. Project description The project site is an undeveloped open space,dominated by oak woodland,riparian woodland,and a meadow of non-native grasses.The proposed project includes the construction of a 7,245-square-foot single family residence,a 734-square-foot attached garage,an 895-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU), a swimming pool, access roads, and amenities in the flat, western portion of a 5.38-acre parcel. Our concerns SCVAS and SCLPC only learned of this project after it was recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission on August 31.After reviewing the IS/MND and the staff report,we conclude that the project has the potential to impose significant,unavoidable and permanent impacts on the environment.In this letter,we provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project as proposed,will cause significant and unavoidable impacts,especially but not exclusively to biological resources. Los Trancos Creek is one of the few remaining salmonid streams in the Peninsula and the South Bay.As acknowledged in the Biological Report and the IS/MND,it is designated Critical Habitat for steelhead trout.The creek and its riparian corridor also provide a wildlife connectivity linkage to most of our common and rare wildlife species,including mountain lions.The property is located between important open space areas in Palo Alto (Foothills Park)and Portola Valley (Hawthorns property of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space).Development here has the potential to impact fish and to disrupt movement through a key wildlife riparian ecosystem and wildlife corridor.We maintain that a “fair argument”exists Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 66     September 19, 2022 Page 2 that the Project will significantly impact the environment (League for Protection of Oakland’s Historic Resources v.City of Oakland (1997)52 Cal.App.4th 896,904.).A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment ”(Protect Niles v.City of Fremont (2018)25 Cal.App5th 1129,1138-1139.). This low threshold for the preparation of an EIR,and a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review ” is met here (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332.). The city has discretion over the project and should require that the project be re-designed at a minimum of 55 feet from the top of the bank of Los Trancos creek (in line with the neighboring home)or a wider setback,ideally 150 feet.If this wider buffer/setback is not feasible,the city must prepare an EIR to fully analyze and mitigate the impacts and to consider alternatives to the proposed size of the project and its location on the parcel.Alternatives for a smaller footprint,or potentially loss of a few trees,are likely to reduce the impacts on the riparian ecosystem of Los Trancos Creek and must be considered.Given California’s prolonged drought and regional aridification,a project with no swimming pool should also be considered to allow more space for relocation of the home further from the creek and for saving water. 1.Mapping of the project The maps that are provided in the IS/MND are not detailed enough for the public to discern the location on the parcel where the development is proposed or how the delineation of 20 feet from top-of-the-bank was determined.Therefore,the public,regulators,and decision makers lack the ability to fully evaluate the project ’s impacts or to make fully informed decisions. Please recirculate the CEQA document and provide a map that clearly delineates the project elements, including structures,roads,and amenities,on the property.Please show the 20-foot setback from the top-of-the-bank.Please include Los Trancos Creek and public amenities such as roads and trails,and provide the map as an overlay on a satellite photo of the property.This should help ascertain that the project ’s slope stability protection area extends to a point “20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical)landward from the toe of bank,whichever is greater ”(Palo Alto Stream Protection Ordinance).1 A map of the areas to be excavated (following the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study) should be provided. A clear zoning map for this location is needed,to show the designation of this parcel and that of land surrounding it. 2.Biological resources The Biological resources section of the IS/MND does not adequately describe the species that may be affected by the project.Chapter 14 of the Stanford Community Plan 2018 General Use Permit Biological report provides a better picture of the many species in the San Francisquito/Los Trancos watershed 1 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-80331 Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 67     September 19, 2022 Page 3 (Section 3.1.1).2 All the species mentioned in this report,and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts, should be considered comprehensively in a CEQA document for this project. 3.Wider riparian buffers are needed The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area”report3 establishes,“The riparian zone is an ecotone,or transition zone, between aquatic and terrestrial habitats.Because riparian zones contain both aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species they have unusually high species diversity.Riparian zones are also important migratory corridors.A continuous buffer provides migratory and wildlife corridors,which are of particular value in protecting amphibians and waterfowl populations,as well as fish spawning and nursery areas.According to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,California has lost 90 percent or more of its wetlands,which includes riparian communities.This is despite the fact that according to government biologists,riparian communities in the Western states,such as California,provide habitat for up to 80 percent of western wildlife species.” Clearly,riparian ecosystems and buffers are critically important to animal movement,as well as to maintaining water quality in streams.The science is well established and is the reason why agencies regulate construction near streams,and why many agencies impose significant buffers,especially in open space areas.The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area”report states,“Riparian zones perform many ecological functions important to enhancing water quality,water quantity,biodiversity,habitat connectivity,and flood capacity.The stream channel itself conveys runoff,supports aquatic plants and animals,provides groundwater recharge, and supplies water to trees and plants that typically thrive in the riparian zone.” The report cites several studies that show the importance of adequate riparian corridor building setbacks.“Buffer Distances Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary,but most of the scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose (Jones &Stokes 2002).Although any buffer distance from the top of the bank is helpful for maintaining channel stability,a minimum 33-foot riparian buffer is required for contributing to a significant reduction in sediment levels.”The “buffer distances in the region vary greatly,and it is likely that many were not chosen based upon specific buffer thresholds designed to satisfy water quality considerations.A scientifically based approach can help quantify buffer-induced benefits to water quality,thereby allowing the Board to more easily quantify TMDL reduction amounts when communicating with the region cities.” Reducing total maximum daily loads (TMDL)is critical for salmonid bearing streams including Los Trancos Creek.This is why Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Habitat Agency,based on extensive research, require a buffer of 150 feet from waterways in locations and situations similar to this project siting.The Santa Clara County General Plan Policy R-RC 37 states,“Lands near creeks,streams,and freshwater marshes shall be considered to be in a protected buffer area consisting of…150 feet from the top bank on both sides where the creek or stream is predominantly in its natural state”to protect creeks and 3 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/publications_forms/documents/bufferreport1204.pdf 2 https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SU_2018GUP_App_Tab14_Biological.pdf Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 68     September 19, 2022 Page 4 riparian areas from “adverse impacts of adjacent development,including impacts upon habitat,from sedimentation,biochemical,thermal and aesthetic impacts.”To avoid significant unmitigable impacts, Stanford’s Community Plan Policy RC-7,which addresses buffer zones along creeks,contains a cross reference to Santa Clara County General Plan policy R-RC 37. Palo Alto’s outdated Stream Protection Ordinance requires a minimal setback of 20 feet,which is why the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N3.3 Program N3.3.1 seeks to update this ordinance,expressing a desire for a 150-ft buffer in locations west of Foothill Expressway: Program N3.3.1 Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore 150 feet as the desired stream setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway.This 150-foot setback would prohibit the siting of buildings and other structures,impervious surfaces,outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaped areas within 150 feet of the top of a creek bank.Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian,equestrian and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment.Within the setback area,provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 30 feet along the creek bank. The update to the Stream Protection Ordinance should establish:Design recommendations for development or redevelopment of sites within the setback, consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and significant net improvements in the condition of the creek.Conditions under which single-family property and existing development are exempt from the 150-foot setback.Appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures for undeveloped parcels. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is clear.It seeks to create adequate,protective setbacks and design recommendations along creeks west of Foothills Expressway.While a 150-foot setback is cited as appropriate for new development west of Foothill Expressway,the program notes that single-family residential development can be exempt from this larger setback.Although the program states that narrower setbacks can be allowed,it does not state that minimal setbacks of 20 feet is ever appropriate or recommended.We maintain that "can be"is not the same as "shall be”and is not determinative. Instead,"can be"indicates discretion,and a 20-foot setback is inappropriate in this location,and will cause significant,unavoidable and permanent harm to Los Trancos creek and the San Francisquito creek watershed. Staff proposes that the property is “relatively narrow”(page 6 of the Staff Report,PTC)stating,“the widest part of the house (measured between the creek and the street),the property is approximately 226 ft wide”and “The first 90 feet (approximately)measured from the street property line is dedicated to tree protection.An 150 ft creek setback would render this property undevelopable or result in a need to remove existing mature protected trees.”We do not see 226 feet or even 136 feet (226-90=136)as too narrow to accommodate a home.The City has the discretion and should require a smaller footprint of the development,a change in the design to allow wider setback,or allow the removal of a few trees to safeguard the integrity of the creek’s riparian corridor. Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 69     September 19, 2022 Page 5 In addition,this property is zoned Streamside Open Space (SOS).Palo Alto’s zoning code provides,“This designation is intended to preserve and enhance corridors of riparian vegetation along streams.Hiking, biking and riding trails may be developed in the streamside open space.The corridor will generally vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the creek.”The Staff Report says,“This designation does not discuss residential use,in the way that the Open Space/Controlled Development (OS/CD designation)designation does.The OS/CD designation allows 1-2 dwelling units per acre.”4 The SOS designation seems to allow no residential development.The proposed development is not consistent with preserving and enhancing corridors of riparian vegetation along streams as intended by the SOS designation. Lastly,The Palo Alto Stream Protection ordinance specifies development at,“20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical)landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater ”.The Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix C)states that the house is located “80 feet from Los Trancos creek”and bases its recommendations on that measurement.Is the creek channel or the center line of the creek at a distance of 60 feet away from the top of the bank?If the creek channel is located 60 feet away from the top of the bank,then the setback required by the Palo Alto Stream Protection ordinance is 120 feet. 4.Consultation with NOAA Fisheries and CDFW is needed 4.1. Steelhead and other fish Los Trancos Creek runs along the project site.Since water is available most of the year,the creek is home to Los Trancos Creek is home to fish such as California roach,Sacramento sucker,threespine stickleback, prickly sculpin and rainbow trout (resident). The creek is designated Critical Habitat for steelhead trout. “Critical habitat ”is defined as the specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a federally listed species,and that may require special management consideration or protection.Critical habitat is determined using the best available scientific information about the physical and biological needs of the species.These needs,which are referred to as “primary constituent elements,”include space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;food,water,light,air,minerals,or other nutritional or physiological needs;cover or shelter;sites for breeding,reproduction,and rearing of offspring;and habitat that is protected from disturbance or is representative of the historical geographic and ecological distribution of a species. The IS/MND proposed that a 20-foot creek setback suffices to protect the species from disturbance yet state,“implementation of the proposed project may result in direct or indirect impacts to steelhead at all life stages.” The Biological Assessment states,“The results and conclusions presented herein represent our best professional judgment but do not represent determinations of the NMFS and CDFW as these agencies 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org /files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2022/ptc-08.31.2022-575-los-trancos.pdf Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 70     September 19, 2022 Page 6 have ultimate jurisdiction over the steelhead through administration and enforcement of the FESA and CESA, respectively.” Palo Alto should require consultation with NMFS and CDFW and ensure that all the requirements for steelhead habitat are not impacted significantly.In addition to direct impacts due to the diminutive buffer of 20 feet,impacts of access roads,parking,and light should be addressed and mitigated.For example,outdoor lighting (especially lighting with correlated color temperature of over 2400 Kelvin),can impact local aquatic insects directly and through the reduction of insects and food availability to the fish.5 Components from tire dust can kill salmon fry.6 4.2. Mountain Lion The mountain lion has recently been designated as a state candidate for listing under the threatened and endangered species list.7 The Central Coast North population of mountain lions contains the project area.Connectivity is crucial for expanding genetic diversity in this population,and a great amount of effort is invested in restoring movement corridors for this species.Creek corridors are important for migration in this species,especially as migration routes are threatened by development and climate change.8 Studies of nocturnal patterns of movement suggest mountain lions tend to avoid areas with human disturbance including residential developments that introduce noise and activities as well as light at night. 4.3. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat This species is endemic to the San Francisco Bay area and is listed as a Species of Special Concern in California.The proposed mitigation –dismantling and translocation of middens –has not been shown to be effective at protecting the woodrats.9 There is no evidence that woodrats use dismantled relocated middens and the survival of translocated woodrats is unknown.Please review and propose effective mitigation measures. Please use the mitigations offered in the Stanford Community Plan. 5.The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan The project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.As discussed above,the diminutive setback requirements of the project do not provide sufficient protection to Los Trancos Creek,and,thus, the project is inconsistent with: ●Goal N-3:Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas and elements of community design. 9 http://wildlifeprofessional.org /western/tws_abstract_detail.php?abstractID=2424&k=I/a/NHKlFi8qQ 8 https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/12/assessing-riverside-corridors-the-escape-routes-for-animals- under-climate-change-in-the-northwest/ 7 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Mountain-Lion#562331240-are-mountains-lions-listed-as-a- threatened-or-endangered-species 6 https://www.science.org/content/article/common-tire-chemical-implicated-mysterious-deaths-risk-salmon 5 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12053 Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 71     September 19, 2022 Page 7 ●Policy N-3.4:Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat for fish,birds,plants and other wildlife,and carefully monitor and preserve these corridors. ●Policy N-3.1:All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats,connectivity,community design,and flood control,and need different conservation and enhancement strategies. Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto,including natural creek segments in the city’s open space and rural areas,primarily west of Foothill Expressway;creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural characteristics;and creek segments that have been channelized.Pursue opportunities to enhance riparian setbacks along urban and rural creeks as properties are improved or redeveloped. In addition, it is likely to have a significant, unavoidable impact on wildlife movement. ●Policy N-1.5:Preserve and protect the Bay,marshlands,salt ponds,sloughs,creeks,and other natural water or wetland areas as open space,functioning habitats,and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor,consistent with the Baylands Master Plan,as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference ●Policy N-1.6:Preserve and protect the foothills and hillside areas,recognizing their unique value as natural ecosystems and interconnected wildlife corridors. The project is located in an area that is important to wildlife connectivity between open spaces areas, including Palo Alto’s Foothills Park and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Hawthorns Open Space.Los Trancos Creek,its tributaries and its function in the San Francisquito creek watershed,require special attention to wildlife connectivity.The IS/MND does not discuss,analyze or substantiate its finding of no significant impact. Due to the diminutive setback from Los Trancos Creek,we believe that the introduction of human activity during the day and lighting (including outdoor lighting)at night have the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of every native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species that occur in the region,and potentially impede the use of native fish and bat nursery sites.The 20-foot setback also means that outdoor lighting cannot achieve the ambition of Program N3.3.3:For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by “Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor.”A wider setback should help achieve this goal. 6.Bird friendly design Bird populations are declining in North America.10 While there are multiple drivers to this decline, collision with glass is considered one of the primary causes of migratory bird mortality.In North 10 https://www.science.org /content/article/three-billion-north-american-birds-have-vanished-1970-%20surveys- show Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 72     September 19, 2022 Page 8 America,it is estimated that hundreds of millions of birds die each year as a result of striking glass walls, doors and windows.11 This is a cumulative,significant impact.Bird collisions with glazed surfaces are especially critical in riparian corridors,and many jurisdictions have regulations in place to reduce and mitigate this hazard within 300-ft of riparian corridors and/or open space.12 The American Bird Conservancy (ABC)website is a great resource to learn about the devastating impacts of bird collisions and to find solutions to incorporate into architectural designs.Recently,ABC updated their website with new recommendations for Bird Friendly Building Design13 and a clarifying document that establishes what qualifies as Bird Friendly Glass.ABC provides primary elements of bird safe building design.These elements are especially critical near habitat areas such as water bodies and open space. ●Minimize use of glass ●Placing glass behind screening ●Using glass with inherent properties that reduce collisions, such as fritting. In addition, ABC provides a Products and Solutions Database14 to evaluate bird safety glazing treatments. Palo Alto requires bird friendly design for commercial buildings,but not for homes.Bird collisions, however,occur primarily (99%)at homes and low rise buildings.15 The proposed project is likely to contribute to cumulative impact on birds and should be required to apply bird safety measures. 7.Fire risks The house is located in a fire-prone area.Most wildfires are caused by human activities.16 Combined with climate change and housing growth in the wildland-urban interface,fires have become larger and more destructive.We believe that analysis provided in the IS/MND is insufficient,and additional additional analysis and mitigations are needed to ensure that the environment is safe during construction and habituation of the proposed residence. Insurance Commissioner of California Ricardo Lara’s report last year17 called for policies that would stop construction in hazardous areas.Insurers are dropping policies in wildfire areas18 shifting the burden to 18 https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2020/12/04/592788.htm 17 http://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/180-climate-change/upload/Draft-Climate-Insurance- Recommendations.pdf 16 https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2020/09/22/humans-ignite-almost-every-wildfire-threatens-homes 15 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259562592_Bird-building_collisions_in_the_United_States_ Estimates_of_annual_mortality_and_species_vulnerability 14 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/ 13 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/model-ordinance/and https://abcbirds.org /glass collisions/resources/ 12 https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning /non-residential-mixed- use-development/bird-safe-and-dark-sky 11 https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/116/1/8/5153098 and https://bioone.org/journals/the-condor/volume-116/issue-1/CONDOR-13-090.1/Birdbuilding-collisions-in-the-Unit ed-States--Estimates-of-annual/10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1.full Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 73     September 19, 2022 Page 9 taxpayers via the state through court orders.19 New housing built in the path of wildfires increases liability for the state.The City should evaluate the concern that new residences in this area will increase the risk of wildfire in the Palo Alto foothills area. According to the IS/MND,the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the project site near Portola Valley (Cal Fire 2022).This is not a significant distance away from the hazard severity zone given wind driven fires in California20 and in the western United States,where climate change has doubled the amount of land damaged by wildfires between 1985 and 2015.21 NASA’s report,“The Effects of Climate Change,”states,"The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires,longer periods of drought in some regions,and an increase in the duration and intensity of tropical storms."Indeed,it is expected that the amount of properties burned in CA will grow according to a study by the First Street Foundation when "about 40%of the state have at least “moderate”risk of burning in a wildfire some time in the next 30 years”.22 Thank you for granting us an extension for commenting,and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. Respectfully, Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Gladwyn D’Souza Conservation Committee Chair Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 22 https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article261495002.html 21 https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ 20 https://firesafemarin.org/prepare-yourself/red-flag-warnings/diablo-winds/ 19 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/california-s-insurer-of- last-resort-faces-fire-coverage-challenges-after-ruling-65646785 Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 74     From Steve Henry 805 Los Trancos Rd Palo Alto, CA 94028 To Emily Foley, AICP Planner City of Palo Alto Development and Planning Services Emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org Date August 25, 2022 RE Proposed new home 575 Los Trancos Rd Palo alto John and Dee Ann Suppes have met with me regarding the design of their proposed new home adjacent to us. We reviewed there plans and feel the home will blend in well to environment and landscape. They also took care to provide additional screening separating our homes. We support their new home project and welcome them to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Steve Henry Item 2 Attachment F Public Comments     Packet Pg. 75     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 8 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 9, 2023 Report #: 2307-1751 TITLE LEGISLATIVE: 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Review of Demonstration Structures Following the July 12, 2023 PTC Hearing and Recommendation on Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and Create a New PC Zone for 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single-Story, Single-Family Residence. Environmental Analysis: Categorically Exempt. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the PTC conduct a public hearing to: (1) Review the demonstration markings and structures that have been temporarily installed on site per the drawing in Attachment C, (2) Review and recommend to Council adoption of the attached draft Planned Community (PC) ordinances and accompanying development plan exhibits for: (a) PC2343 amendment ordinance (Attachment A) for the existing 12-unit apartment building at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road to remove the parcel at 702 Ellsworth Place, expand the width of Ellsworth Place roadway onto the property at 2901-2905 Middlefield, provide one on-site delivery truck space to serve Ellsworth Place frontage properties and four on- site, uncovered parking spaces, and relocate appurtenances to enable the Ellsworth Place roadway widening; (b) 702 Ellsworth Place PC ordinance (Attachment B), an alternative to the applicant’s requested R-1 Zoning, to enable the removal of the apartment’s guest parking lot previously required with PC 2343 and the development of a single-family residence shown in the development plan which indicates specific minimum setbacks, the expansion of the width of Ellsworth Place roadway, and restrictions on the front yard fence height and landscaping. BACKGROUND Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 76     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 8 This report transmits two draft ordinances. The PTC recently received draft excerpt minutes of the July 12, 2023 second PTC review of the applicants’ requested project as described in the June 28, 2023 staff report. The PTC, applicants, and the public had the benefit of the excerpt verbatim minutes (Attachments D and E) from both PTC meetings. The motion contained within the attached July 12th verbatim minutes, which the PTC voted on, represents staffs attempt to capture the PTC’s intent; however, upon review, staff found that the motion required some minor clarifications to implement, which are noted in the background section of this report. The applicant provided a revised development plan for 702 Ellsworth Place (Attachment H) and a letter of description (Attachment I) and responses to the July 12, 2023 motion. The video of July 12, 2023 PTC meeting is viewable at the below link1. July 12, 2023 PTC Recap On July 12, the PTC received additional public testimony from new and prior speakers on the item. The PTC had received the transcript of the June 28th meeting on July 10th, and several letters on July 12, 2023, prior to the meeting. The PTC chairperson enabled a 10-minute break for members to review the letters. The video of the July 12 PTC meeting is viewable here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka6nQ7yqE8I. The video of the June 28 PTC meeting is viewable here https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-6282023/. The PTC’s motion and 3-2 vote was to direct an installation on the site as a trial for the community to fully understand the sight distance triangles shown in the traffic report, and to recommend that Council consider two Planned Communities: (1) the PC 2343 at 2901-2015 Middlefield Road for the 12-unit apartment complex, modified to remove 702 Ellsworth and show four uncovered onsite tenant parking spaces and a temporary delivery space, and 3’6” wide asphalt up to the guywire of the utility pole on the property to extend the width of the Ellsworth Place roadway onto the property and place restrictions within the sight distance triangle; (2) a separate PC ordinance and development plan for the proposed single-family home on 702 Ellsworth Place, with specifications as to setbacks, extension of the width of the Ellsworth Place roadway as indicated on the development plan, and restrictions on fences and vegetation within the sight distance triangle. In addition, the PTC directed that the PC ordinance for 702 Ellsworth return to the PTC after the demonstration period. The sight distance triangles image below, from the applicant’s transportation report, was used as a guide for marking these traffic-safety triangles on site. The plan for installation was 1 Video of July 12, 2023 PTC meeting https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-7122023/ Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 77     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 8 provided to staff July 18th and staff requested that the installation be in place by July 26, two weeks before the target PTC date. The fence, roadway widenings, and flare markings were installed July 26. However, the installed fence needed adjustment to match the plan, and further adjustment to remove a curve, and sight triangles were marked on August 3. Staff received comments about the installations, and request for a hearing postponement. Clearing of Existing Vegetation Staff contacted Valley Water to request that they remove vegetation that previously blocked visibility. The representative from Valley Water on July 19th thanked staff for bringing the issue to their attention, noted they removed the vegetation outside their gate that had blocked line of sight from Ellsworth Place, and stated that Valley Water will maintain the vegetation in its now trimmed condition moving forward. The below photograph taken July 19 shows the removed vegetation had previously grown over the sidewalk. The overgrown vegetation had created a stain on the sidewalk easily seen in the photograph. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 78     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 8 Staff requested that Mr. Handa clear and trim vegetation on the City’s right of way in the planter strip and the area between the sidewalk and his property line; planting areas in front of his property within the Middlefield Road right of way are his responsibility to maintain. PC 1810 During the meeting, references were made to PC 1810, which preceded PC 2343, claiming that the prior PC required widening of Ellsworth Place. Some viewed street widening as an incomplete PC implementation item from PC 1810. However, staff noted that the PC 1810 condition was not to ‘widen’ a private street, but to ‘modify’ the ‘driveway to Middlefield Road,’ as stated in Section 2 of that ordinance: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 79     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 8 ANALYSIS Clarification of PTC Motion July 12, 2023 The language of the motion voted upon during the July 12, 2023 PTC meeting is at times vague and inconsistent, as staff was attempting to capture several amendments. Staff's attempt to resolve these issues is noted below in italicized text, along with how the motion is captured in the draft ordinances. If the PTC believes staff erred in its interpretation of the motion, it may provide additional direction. The PTC’s July 12 motion was to ‘amend PC-2343 to remove 702 Ellsworth from PC-2343' and: 1. Require the following for PC-2343: a) Width of Ellsworth Place easement be widened to 26 ft (in the distances that are currently proposed as 24’) Note: One additional foot on each property was suggested, but not specified in the motion. The PC ordinances cite dimensions based on an additional foot on each property. b) New width of the easement (for the first 100 ft) be granted to all the neighbors on Ellsworth Note: ‘for the first 100 feet’ should have been struck after additional specificity was added that item (a) applies: ‘in the distances currently proposed as 24’. The PC ordinances cite dimensions consistent with the PTC’s motion item (a) and require recordation of an easement to benefit Ellsworth properties. c) curb cut at Middlefield be widened to 30 ft at street flare e) 4 additional parking spaces be provided at 2901 Middlefield Note: The PTC did not specify the locations of these spaces; the development plan reflects the updated configuration shown on July 12, 2023. f) temporary loading zone for delivery vehicles be provided at 2901 Middlefield Note: The PTC did not specify the location of the loading zone; the development plan reflects the updated configuration shown on July 12, 2023. g) garbage pick-up and enclosure for 2901 Middlefield be moved from Ellsworth to Sutter Note: This facility was already moved toward Sutter Avenue in March 2023; the ordinance provides that the enclosure be ‘maintained near Sutter Avenue, not Ellsworth Pl.’ 2. Create a new PC for 702 Ellsworth and come back to PTC after trial of above Note: The word ‘above’ should have been ‘below,’ as the ‘trial’ refers to the demonstration on- site of the sight distance triangles and temporary indication of structures and road widenings. The trial items are partially noted in (d) below Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 80     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 8 a) Width of Ellsworth Pl easement be widened to 26 ft (in the distances that are currently proposed as 24’) b) New width of the easement for the first 100 ft be granted to all the neighbors on Ellsworth Note: See above. c) curb cut at Middlefield be widened to 30 ft at street flare d) sight triangle not to be obstructed by plants, fences or other objects taller than 1 ft; reintroduce fence at 3ft as temporary for people to experience Note: Though not specified in the motion, the PTC also asked to mark, and the applicant has marked, sight distance triangles and extent of the new pavement at 26’. In addition, this sight triangle requirement was likely intended to apply to 2901 Middlefield as well and the draft ordinances reflect this. e) 24 ft special setback be observed for Middlefield, creek setback be observed according to stability requirements Note: The special setback for the 2901-2905 Middlefield Road property is 25 feet whereas the special setback for the 702 Ellsworth Place property is 24 feet per the City’s special setback maps. f) Setback from Ellsworth be determined on based on safety by discretion of Director and standard 6’ setback from 706 Ellsworth Note: The spoken motion included ‘706’, which was omitted in staff’s written translation. This property abuts 702 Ellsworth’s rear property line. A detached garage is typically allowed within the rear setback in these circumstances. The PTC did not object to the detached garage location, and it was unclear whether the 6’ setback specified was intended to require relocation of the garage. The draft ordinance does not require relocation of the garage. On-Site Evaluation of Sight Distance Triangles, Road Width, and Structure installations Attachment C is a plan showing the markings and structures the applicant installed July 26, 2023, and the sight distance triangles which were not installed until August 3rd. Photographs of the July 26th installations and markings of July 26 are provided (Attachments J and K). Photos of the sight distance triangle markings installed August 3rd will be emailed to the PTC on the evening of August 3, 2023. PC Ordinance for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road Planned Community Attachment A PC Ordinance has been amended since July 12th to reflect the PTC’s motion. Please note that the applicant does not support the PTC’s recommendation to increase the proposed expansion of Ellsworth Place beyond the 24’ already offered. PC Ordinance for 702 Ellsworth Place (Alternative to R1 zone per PTC direction July 12) Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 81     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 8 Attachment B is the Draft PC Ordinance for 702 Ellsworth Place for the PTC’s consideration. Please note that the applicant does not support the PTC’s recommendation for a PC instead of the proposed R-1 zoning. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The June 28 PTC report noted prior community engagement. Additional engagement at the project site occurred on July 3, 2023, and during the PTC hearing of July 12, 2023. The PTC webpage includes links to the correspondence received after the June 28th hearing and on or prior to the July 12th hearing. The links are provided in the footnotes2 below. Additional comments received after July 12th and after the installation on July 26th are provided as Attachment L. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The two attached draft Planned Community ordinances refer to several CE QA exemptions for the project(s). A discussion of the additional analysis is provided in Attachment G. For the PC at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road (Attachment A), the CEQA exemptions cited are the existing facilities exemption (15301) and the common-sense exemption (15061(b)(3)). For the PC at 702 Ellsworth Place (Attachment B) as a separate PC, staff proposes using the common-sense exemption as well as new small structure exemption (15303), which was noted in the PC ordinance the PTC reviewed on June 28 and July 12. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The June 28, 2023 PTC staff report transmitted the applicant’s request and staff’s recommendation for R-1 zoning on 702 Ellsworth Place; the applicant and staff had suggested deed restrictions were an option to maintain the additional roadway width and other conditions on the property at 702 Ellsworth Place. The five-member commission also considered an alternative that retained a single PC on both properties; however, the applicant objected to this approach. Therefore, the PTC recommended a separate PC approach. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: PC Ordinance for 2901-2905 Middlefield Road & Exhibit A (Development Plan) Attachment B: PC Ordinance for 702 Ellsworth Place & Exhibit B (Development Plan) Attachment C: Drawing of trial installations for community review 2 Link to correspondence from applicants and the community Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 82     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 8 Attachment D: Draft Excerpt Minutes for (this item) July 12, 2023 Attachment E: Draft Excerpt Minutes for (this item) June 28, 2023 Attachment F: Link to Development Plans (Middlefield) Attachment G: CEQA Analysis Information Attachment H: Development Plan for 702 Ellsworth Place Attachment I: Applicant Letter July 26, 2023 Attachment J: Applicants’ photos of installations of July 26, 2023 Attachment K: Staff’s photos of installations of July 26, 2023 Attachment L: Additional correspondence AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 83     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 ORDINANCE NO. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Rezone the Property at 2901 Middlefield Rd. from Planned Community Ordinance 2343 (PC-2343) to Planned Community Ordinance XXXX (PC-XXXX. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On _____, Dewey Land Company LLC (“Dewey”) and Handa Developer’s Group/RRP (“Handa”) applied to amend Planned Community (“PC”) Ordinance 2343 to apply solely to the property at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, APN 127-35-194, (“Middlefield Parcel”) and rezone the property at 702 Ellsworth Place, APN 127-35-152, (“Ellsworth Parcel”) from Planned Community to Single Family Residential (R-1). (b) The City Council at its March 13, 2023 study session considered the prescreening application and indicated the project applicants should proceed with a formal PC rezoning application to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommendation. (c) On June 28, 2023, July 12, 2023, and August 9, 2023 the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) held a series of public hearings to consider the application. The PTC recommended that PC-2343 be amended to remove the Ellsworth Parcel and to establish two new PC ordinances to govern the Middlefield Parcel and Ellsworth Parcel, respectively. (d) The rezoning recommended by the PTC would reduce the area of the Planned Community PC 2343 from 26,386 sf to 19,893 square feet to encompass 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, a 12-unit apartment building currently owned by Dewey, and amend the development plan for the PC to: (i) restripe the tenant parking facility to assign four uncovered parking spaces to meet current code requirements for tenant parking spaces, (ii) provide a truck delivery space, (iii) maintain trash enclosure and pickup from Sutter Avenue, (iv) the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, and (v) add a 3’6”-wide swath of paving alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the location of an existing utility pole guy-wire to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. Item 3 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance 2901-2905 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 84     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 (e) The PTC recommended concurrent adoption of a companion ordinance (Ordinance No. XXXX) to designate the remaining 6,493 square foot parcel currently owned by Handa at 702 Ellsworth as PC, for the purpose of constructing a single-story, single-family residence. The PTC recommended the following conditions: (i) the development plan shall include a 2’6”-wide swath of pavement alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the proposed walkway to the single-family residence to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place, (ii) the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, (iii) the 25-foot special setback from Middlefield Road shall be observed, (iv) the setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis, (v) and a 6-foot setback shall apply to the rear property line, except with respect to a detached garage. (f) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed public hearings on June 28, July 12, and August 9, 2023, made the findings set forth below and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended. (g) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds: (i) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; the City's conventional zoning district RM20 would not permit the existing 12 unit structure on the proposed 0.46 acre site (ii) Amendment to the existing Planned Community PC2343 will provide public benefits expected to result from the Project, including an expanded public access easement over the first 35 feet of Ellsworth Place, and the construction of an additional dwelling unit. (iii) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project, as a whole, one with reasonable public benefit. (iv) The existing use and improvements are generally remaining unchanged and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. (v) The use permitted and the site development regulations are consistent with the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and are, on balance consistent with the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a Item 3 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance 2901-2905 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 85     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-1.2 Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Policy L-1.3 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-1.4 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. Policy L-1.5 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. Policy L-1.6 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of houses from the street. The use and improvements on the site are remaining unchanged from existing conditions, which are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended to rezone the certain property known as 2901-2905 Middlefield Road from PC-2343 to "PC-XXXX.” The subject property and revised zoning designation is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Development Plan Those certain plans entitled PROPOSED PC AMENDMENT TO PC 2343, DATED 1967, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property. SECTION 4. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses within the PC boundary shall be limited to a 12-unit apartment building: The existing apartment building shall remain on the 2901- 2905 Middlefield site within the PC boundary. Covered and uncovered parking for the tenants shall be provided in accordance with Section 5(b) of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. (i) Any exterior changes to the apartment building or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, Item 3 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance 2901-2905 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 86     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 Architectural Review approval under Section 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Parking and Loading Requirements. One covered parking space shall be provided for each of the 12 residential apartments. In addition, four uncovered spaces and a truck delivery space shall be provided on the 2901-2905 Middlefield property, accessible from Ellsworth Place, as shown on the Development Plan. (c) Trash Enclosures and Pickup. Trash enclosures and pickup shall be maintained with access from Sutter Avenue, and not from Ellsworth Place. (d) Development Schedule. The parking lot striping on 2901-2905 Middlefield Road shall be immediately implemented upon the effective date of this ordinance. Construction of the improvements to Ellsworth Place shall be completed within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this ordinance. (e) Minor Variations in Project. Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) for architectural review. “Minor” changes do not include changes in land use. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that minor changes to the parking configuration at 2901- 2905 Middlefield Road and construction of a single-family home pursuant to Ordinance No. XXXX will not result in a significant impact on the environment. The City Council finds that this ordinance is additional categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it requires only a minor change to an existing facility. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Item 3 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance 2901-2905 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 87     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Manager ___________________________ Asst. City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 3 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance 2901-2905 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 88     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 ORDINANCE NO. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Rezone the Property at 702 Ellsworth Place from Planned Community Ordinance 2343 (PC-2343) to Planned Community Ordinance XXXX (PC-XXXX). The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On _____, Dewey Land Company LLC (“Dewey”) and Handa Developer’s Group/RRP (“Handa”) applied to amend Planned Community (“PC”) Ordinance 2343 to apply solely to the property at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, APN 127-35-194, (“Middlefield Parcel”) and rezone the property at 702 Ellsworth Place, APN 127-35-152, (“Ellsworth Parcel”) from Planned Community to Single Family Residential (R-1). (b) The City Council at its March 13, 2023 study session considered the prescreening application and indicated the project applicants should proceed with a formal PC rezoning application to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommendation. (c) On June 28, 2023, July 12, 2023, and August 9, 2023 the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) held a series of public hearings to consider the application. The PTC recommended that PC-2343 be amended to remove the Ellsworth Parcel and to establish two new PC ordinances to govern the Middlefield Parcel and Ellsworth Parcel, respectively. (d) The rezoning recommended by the PTC would remove the 6,493 square foot parcel currently owned by Handa at 702 Ellsworth from PC-2343 and redesignate it as a separate PC, for the purpose of constructing a single-story, single-family residence. The PTC recommended the following conditions: (i) the development plan shall include a 2’6”-wide swath of pavement alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the proposed walkway to the single-family residence to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place, (ii) the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, (iii) the 25-foot special setback from Middlefield Road shall be observed, (iv) the setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis, Item 3 Attachment B 702 Ellsworth Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 89     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 (v) and a 6-foot setback shall apply to the rear property line, except with respect to a detached garage. (e) The PTC recommended concurrent adoption of a companion ordinance (Ordinance No. XXXX) to reduce the area of the Planned Community PC 2343 from 26,386 sf to 19,893 square feet to encompass 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, a 12-unit apartment building currently owned by Dewey, and amend the development plan for the PC to: (i) restripe the tenant parking facility to assign four uncovered parking spaces to meet current code requirements for tenant parking spaces, (ii) provide a truck delivery space, (iii) maintain trash enclosure and pickup from Sutter Avenue, (iv) the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, and (v) and add a 3’6”-wide swath of paving alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the location of an existing utility pole guy-wire to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. (f) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed public hearings on June 28, July 12, and August 9, 2023, made the findings set forth below and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended. (g) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds: (i) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; the City's conventional zoning district RM20 would not permit the existing 12 unit structure on the proposed 0.46 acre site (ii) Amendment to the existing Planned Community PC2343 will provide public benefits expected to result from the Project, including an expanded public access easement over the first 35 feet of Ellsworth Place, and the construction of an additional dwelling unit. (iii) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project, as a whole, one with reasonable public benefit. (iv) The proposed single-family residence is compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, which are typically single- family residences and one 12-unit apartment complex. (v) The use permitted and the site development regulations are consistent with the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and are, on balance consistent with the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its Item 3 Attachment B 702 Ellsworth Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 90     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-1.2 Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Policy L-1.3 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-1.4 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. Policy L-1.5 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. Policy L-1.6 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of houses from the street. The use and improvements on the site are remaining unchanged from existing conditions, which are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended to rezone the certain property known as 702 Ellsworth Place from PC-2343 to “PC- XXXX.” The subject property and revised zoning designation is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Development Plan Those certain plans entitled _____________, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property. SECTION 4. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses within the PC boundary shall be limited to a single-family residence. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. (i) Any exterior changes to the single-family residence or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if Item 3 Attachment B 702 Ellsworth Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 91     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 eligible, Architectural Review approval under Section 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (ii) The development plan shall include a 2’6”-wide swath of pavement alongside Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line and extending to the proposed walkway to the single-family residence to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place, (iii) The 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road shall not be obstructed by plants, fences, or other objects taller than 1 foot, (iv) The 24-foot special setback from Middlefield Road shall be observed, (v) The setback from the creek shall be determined by a slope stability analysis, (vi) A 6-foot setback shall apply to the rear property line, except with respect to a detached garage (b) Development Schedule. Construction of the improvements to Ellsworth Place shall be completed within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this ordinance. Construction of other improvements shall be completed within twenty-four (24) months of the effective date of this ordinance. (c) Minor Variations in Project. Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) for architectural review. “Minor” changes do not include changes in land use. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that construction of a single-family home pursuant to will not result in a significant impact on the environment. The City Council finds that this ordinance is additional categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it approves construction of a single-family residence. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: Item 3 Attachment B 702 Ellsworth Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 92     Not Yet Adopted 2 1 3 0 1 8 5 7 ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Manager ___________________________ Asst. City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 3 Attachment B 702 Ellsworth Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 93     Item 3 Attachment C Demonstration Plan July 17, 2023     Packet Pg. 94     _______________________ 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 Planning & Transportation Commission 2 Excerpt Minutes: July 12, 2023 3 Council Chambers & Virtual 4 6:00 PM 5 6 7 Action Items 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 9 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 10 11 2. 2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend 12 Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R-1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth 13 Place to Enable the Development of a Single-Story, Single-Family Residence 14 Chair Summa: This is a continued meeting, but I did want to let you know that Staff won’t be 15 giving the full presentation but has a few additional slides to share later. So, if anyone would 16 like to speak, who spoke before to something new, that would be fine but it isn’t necessary, or 17 even regular actually to speak again at a continued meeting. So, keep that in mind and groups 18 of five, if we have any, get 10 minutes. One speaker for a group of five gets 10 minutes, so with 19 that said I will go down the line and see if there are any disclosures. Commissioner Templeton? 20 21 Commissioner Templeton: No disclosures. 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: I received an email from a member of the public inviting me to visit the… to 24 visit Ellsworth Place and meet her. I did not meet with her but I did go visit on my own. 25 26 Chair Summa: Commissioner Akin or Lu? 27 28 Commissioner Lu: I got probably the same email and also did a site visit but did meet with the 29 neighbor and also another neighbor who was on the street. I think everything we discussed was 30 mostly captured in the Packet. I did ask if there… what compromises they would like to see and 31 they did mention that they would actually potentially prefer a two-story building if it meant 32 further setbacks and extensions of the pavement. 33 34 Chair Summa: Great. Commissioner Akin? 35 36 Commissioner Akin: I had a brief email exchange with Ms. Van Fleet and largely we discussed 37 strategy and engagement. That she should continue to engage with Staff and rather than 38 approaching the Commissioners individually, approach us all together. Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 95     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: Thank you and I’ll conclude disclosures. I did get a call from a member of the 3 public but I didn’t learn anything that wasn’t in the public record. So, with that, we will go to 4 Ms. French for a brief Staff update. 5 6 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. One moment while I share my screen. Let’s 7 see, where did it go? Okay, that’s where. Okay, and here we go. Good evening, Amy French, 8 Chief Planning Official. Speaking in my lower register tonight, recovering from being sick. So, on 9 the screen is the cover sheet for our slide presentation that was presented last time with one 10 difference. Noting todays date and noting the motion that did occur. It was the second motion 11 of the evening and it passed by a 3-2 vote. Noting that Staff sent the video link to the Planning 12 Commission, applicants and neighbors the week of July 3rd when it came out and then Staff 13 emailed the draft transcript, which we received on Monday this week, to the Planning 14 Commissioners, the applicants and neighbors and that was on Monday. And I’ll just I’ll note 15 before I commence any further, we did receive three letters today which have been I believe 16 put At Places from the applicant team. Two letters from them and one letter from a William 17 Ross. Those were forwarded by email to the Commissioners and are At Place in case the 18 Commissioners have not had a chance to digest those. And I’ll just note that in the past it has 19 been something that might be considered to take a break and a moment to read 20 correspondence that has not been digested if it came the day of so that’s at the Chair’s 21 pleasure. 22 23 Next, I’m just going to pass through all of the slides that were presented before. This is the 24 open items slide showing what Staff believes are the open items. I know at some point there 25 was discussion about Staff should say if we’ve addressed it or if it’s still been open. So, if you’ll 26 notice the trees on Mr. Dewey’s property, we believe we answered that on June 28th and the 27 private street not owned by Palo Alto. We believe we answered that on June 28th, but here they 28 are at the end five and six. So, just starting… and we do have our City Attorney Albert Yang on 29 the call as well and I believe Garrett Sauls in case my voice should completely take a turn for 30 the worse. The first there is Code Section 18.38.150, Items A through E. The second one is 31 commitments for Ellsworth Place widening. The third is the sight triangle/visibility regarding 32 fences and vegetation. The fourth is about the delivery truck spot and spaces and maneuvering 33 for those. So, to that end, we did create a couple of -and- we altered a couple of the prior 34 slides to provide some updates and we have a couple of new slides. So, to the extent that this 35 will help answer the questions that were asked on June 28th. 36 37 I’m going to go back first to Slide 12, noted as altered here and you have these in your Packet 38 from last time, so this shows Staff’s recommendations. Staff from Office of Transportation were 39 able to go out to the site and study the slope of that Middlefield Road as it slopes down to 40 Ellsworth and look at the existing conditions. And so, there’s recommendations here on this Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 96     _______________________ 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 screen with a lot of colors so we can come back to this slide as needed. Another slide that was 2 altered is this slide that was showing kind of where that flare might be approximately. That 3 would show a 28-foot wide curb cut here from on this side and then the things that would need 4 to be moved a bit to the north. The stop sign and then utility box. 5 6 Now, leading up to the slides to show that the study… the question about is this really the best 7 delivery truck spot going behind tandem spaces and or behind carport spaces in the last 8 iteration. This shows an option, this shows… first of all, those two areas that were discussed on 9 June 28th being the widened Ellsworth pavement and it shows a 90-degree delivery spot, 90 10 degrees from Ellsworth. It shows an alternative for parking spaces 13 and 14. One being in 11 tandem and one being not in tandem. The… there are truck maneuver diagrams showing how a 12 truck might back out of and back… drive into that spot and also, a maneuver showing how the 13 truck might go from Middlefield onto Ellsworth. 14 15 And this is the recommendation that I think. this would be something that Albert would talk… 16 speak to and I don’t know if now’s the time. So, I’m going to end there and see if Albert is on 17 the call and wants to present anything further. 18 19 Ms. Albert Yang, City Attorney: Sure Amy, if you just go back to the table. There were… there 20 was a question, the first open item there, about Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.150, specific 21 requirements that I apologize, Chair Summa, we didn’t address at the last hearing. But your 22 question was how does this Code section… what implications does it have for this property and 23 this application? So, Section 18.38.150 provides for PC ordinance certain maximum heights 24 depending upon the situation as well as minimum interior yards and Daylight Plane regulations. 25 And in the past and our ongoing application of this section is that the Council may chose to 26 exceed or deviate from those standards in a specific PC because PCs are ordinances as in the 27 same the way that the that Code section was adopted by ordinance. And so, the City Council 28 may, in a specific PC, chose to deviate from those items. 29 30 Chair Summa: Thank you very much for that explanation. Did you have comments on other 31 issues? 32 33 Mr. Yang: Not at this time. 34 35 Chair Summa: Not at this time, okay thank you. Ms. French, are you… have you concluded? 36 37 Ms. French: I think so, I should note again we have Garrett Sauls who is on the call as well as 38 members of the transportation Staff and so I don’t know if there’s anything else to be added. 39 We do have… they are at the ready for questions regarding the site visit that was undertaken Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 97     _______________________ 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 between meetings and the results of that. So, if it comes up in questions to pursue additional 2 information. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you very much. I was thinking that if we wanted to take a little time 5 to read the two letters that we received this afternoon. We could maybe do that after we hear 6 from the public and the applicant because it will kind of… better time to take a break while 7 things are fresh. So, I think at this time I would ask my colleagues if that’s agreeable to them, 8 that if they have any clarifying questions at this time for Staff. Not seeing any, I think we will 9 open the continued public hearing and Ms. Dao, do we have… what’s the speaker situation look 10 like? 11 12 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Assistant: Yes, and can give a couple seconds for those on 13 Zoom. I received on speaker card from William Ross who’s here in person. 14 15 Chair Summa: So just… sorry, just two speakers? 16 17 Ms. Dao: One. 18 19 [note - unknown female speaker in the audience:] This is for the [unintelligible] 20 21 Ms. Dao: Yes, just one and no hands-on Zoom. 22 23 Chair Summa: Okay, then we will go ahead and call on the public speakers, please. 24 25 Ms. Dao: Okay, Mr. Ross. 26 27 Mr. William Ross: Good evening, Chair, Commissioner Members, Staff. I believe I represent 28 more than 10 people. There are… in addition to the residents that are listed I believe there’s 18 29 there. I think there are four people online. Chen Wang, Caroline Garbarino, Kim Jackson, 30 Pamela Van Fleet that could also be counted so I would request 10 minutes. 31 32 Ms. Dao: Yeah, I see them on Zoom so we can have a group of five. 33 34 Chair Summa: Thank you, then please go ahead and take 10 minutes. 35 36 Mr. Ross: Thank you very much. I’m going to raise and parallel the issues that I’ve set forth in 37 my written communication on behalf of the residents. I’m going to make reference to 38 provisions in the PC regulations which are attached cumulatively as Exhibit A. I would not note 39 preliminarily that the regulations, which is the bases for a PC determination before you, are 40 replete with the word shall. Shall is a mandatory duty, I don’t think there’s any questions about Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 98     _______________________ 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 that and it refers to the analysis that has to be accomplished by Staff after an application is 2 made which also has mandatory provisions. The summary of the argument presented by the 3 residences that there’s incomplete or inaccurate representation set forth in the record before 4 you by the applicant and I think you have to construe it as both the owner of balances. A 5 balanced of a portion of the PC and the buyer. I note in the communication that there’s an 6 inconsistency between what’s set forth in the applicant’s counsel’s letter as to who the owners 7 are and what’s set forth in the first section of the proposed ordinance as to who the owners 8 are. I would respectfully suggest that that’s reflective of the balance of the record that there’s 9 either inaccuracy or incomplete information set forth for you, the Commission, to make a 10 decision where mandatory findings are required. 11 12 I think the first one that I’d start with is 18.38.060 (c). The specific part that I think that is 13 different from all the other types of land use approvals that come before you is this section in 14 the Municipal Code requires that there be a consistency analysis and determination with 15 respect to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Normally, as a Charter City, the City has chosen 16 not to indicate that they would require constancy of land use approvals with the 17 Comprehensive Plan which is your General Plan. Let’s respectfully say it this way, there’s no 18 analysis by Staff in the Staff Reports. I note in the written communication and I think if you go 19 through them the Staff Report from your last Commission and the Staff Report for this 20 Commission meeting are identical. So, if a member of the public wanted to comment on the 21 additional information raised by Staff a moment ago. It wouldn’t have been with respect to that 22 information that was furnished 72 hours before this hearing. I think that relates to this issue of 23 whether there’s been a fair and impartial hearing on this matter, but let’s go through the 24 consistency analysis. 25 26 Consistency, as defined by applicable case law, and again this is something that the City 27 normally does not do, can be summarized in probably I think there are 17 reported cases, about 28 half of the them before the Supreme Court. That say a consistency analysis should implore 29 some concept where the goals and policies of the General Plan are furthered without hindered. 30 Well, that’s the comprehensive examination. You know, the case law also says you can’t isolate 31 one portion of a General Plan. That you have to do that with respect to all applicable provisions 32 of a General Plan, but consistency analysis is a substantial land use decision. That’s not present. 33 It's not satisfied as indicated in the communication by just listing some policies in the 34 Comprehensive Plan as the proposed ordinance does. That’s not an analysis, right? So, for this 35 to go forward that analysis would have had to been in the record on the 28th or would have had 36 to been present now and been presented by Staff. And again, we’re not talking about 37 something that’s new to the concept of land use in California. You know, I looked right before 38 the hearing I think the first consistency case that I’m aware is 1974. So, that’s a substantial 39 omission and lack of compliance with the provisions in the PC regulations before you. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 99     _______________________ 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 Next basis is the specific requirements that are set forth and I note in the communication and 2 it’s legally relevant to the CEQA also. Is the extensive communication of adjacent residents 3 constitutes substantial evidence, substantial evidence as to the issue it’s offered on? Both with 4 respect to the issue of consistency and more importantly with respect to the CEQA analysis. So, 5 are there other areas that aren’t analyzed? Yeah, there are. The application itself triggers the 6 provisions of the Stream Med Protection Ordinance. The Public Records Act Request, which is 7 finally completely contained in the record before you, there’s an email from an administrative 8 clerk at the Santa Clara Valley Water District about that. I find that unique because, like the 9 provisions of the PC regulation, it also has that use of the word shall and that obligation is an 10 obligation of Staff. Is it evident from the application? It certainly is, it’s within 50-feet of a 11 designated stream bed. It doesn’t matter that it’s a confined channel. There are exemptions in 12 that provision but those exemptions aren’t applicable to a PC Zoning request. So, another 13 specific mandatory section for a PC regulation is not analyzed. 14 15 Let’s look at the CEQA exemption, I set it forth in the letter. It’s stated in both Staff Reports 16 again because it’s identical. A starting point in any CEQA analysis, anybody like me will say you 17 have to have a stable project description. It’s not stable here, why? One of the reasons 18 advanced for this PC application is the supposed error in the General Plan. You know, I’ve set 19 forth in the communication and I’ll say it here publicly. The error issue is irrelevant. Owners are 20 authorized to apply for a specific plan amendment, so it doesn’t matter whether it's Dewey or 21 Handa. They’re both authorized to apply for a PC Amendment. Is there an error? If there were 22 an error, I would think there would be an analysis by the City Attorney’s Office about a liability 23 because there are several immunities. If… you know if I were a municipal attorney I’d be 24 advancing. The zoning sheets itself say it’s not to be relied on, but if it’s an error then why 25 weren’t the immunities raised by the City Attorney’s Office? Neither an individual nor the City 26 itself, would be liable for a negligently issued Land Use Permit. 27 28 Let’s go on, again the testimony of the residents constitutes substantial evidence, and there’s a 29 case site, the Salmon Case where CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 says look, even if there is an 30 exemption. If there are unusual circumstances that are supported by substantial evidence then 31 that exemption fails. I also believe that the screening application in this matter, one of the 32 Council Members said I’m aware of traffic access and safety at the location. The intersection of 33 Middlefield and Emerson. I think that’s critical here. The exemptions not applicable. Staff 34 should perform an initial study and analysis. 35 36 So, keeping again within the 10 minute timeframe there are mandatory duties that haven’t 37 been complied with in the analysis of this and finally, there’s this issue if you look at the PRA 38 request response. This seems to have been decided offline. There’s a communication that I put 39 in as Exhibit C where the principal planner, Ms. French, communicates directly with Cara Silver, 40 the former Deputy City Attorney. I don’t know whether that was properly disclosed in anything Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 100     _______________________ 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 under what I call the Ethic Law and asks her about a legal question concerning this project. That 2 should have been directed to the City Attorney. 3 4 In short, this matter needs to be decided in a public hearing, before you, consistent with these 5 mandatory standards. They aren’t present in the record. I think your Commission should deny 6 the application. Thank you. If there are question, I’ll be available to respond. 7 8 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Do we have any other speakers? 9 10 Ms. Dao: No, that’s just the one. 11 12 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you so much, so I am (interrupted) 13 14 Ms. Dao: Oh, well, Ken Hayes but if he gets a rebuttal. 15 16 Chair Summa: I know that’s what I was going to say, so please come forward for your rebuttal. 17 18 Mr. Ken Hayes: This will be an interesting rebuttal and this is not a legal rebuttal. I… Ken Hayes 19 with Hayes Group Architects (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Summa: Just make it… yes, make sure we can hear you. 22 23 Mr. Hayes: Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects, good evening Chair Summa, Members of 24 the Commission. I’m here tonight with my client Richard Dewey, RLD Land, the owner of 2901 25 Middlefield, with… along with Ollie Zhou of Hexagon Transportation in case you have questions 26 relative to transportation safety. Camas Steinmetz, our counsel with Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure 27 & Flegel. 28 29 And the only reason we are here is because of a serious mistake that I pointed out last time 30 that everyone is aware ago… aware that was made 56 years ago of not properly recording a PC 31 development in the Zoning Map as it was required to do so. None of us here today had 32 anything to do with this but we’re here trying to resolve this in a fair and reasonable way. I 33 respectfully request that the City’s corporation in achieving this fair and reasonable resolution. 34 35 Quickly, by way of background, Ellsworth Place has been 20-feet wide since its beginning. The 36 15 homes and the apartment building that currently exist have been using Ellsworth Place for 37 access for at least those 56 years and safety concerns the neighbors have noted have persisted 38 for at least this period as well. As part of this PC Amendment, we’ve proposed numerous 39 community benefits that justify the PC Amendment and the R-1 rezoning which will resolve the Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 101     _______________________ 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 decade-old Zoning Map error that was relied upon by my client and Mr. Handa when they 2 purchased their properties. 3 4 So, let me just note, we are granting the owners of the other parcels on Ellsworth Place an 5 access easement over a 20-foot by 100-foot strip of land called Ellsworth Place that here to for 6 has not been properly memorialized. We are improving vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist safety at 7 the intersection of Middlefield Road and Ellsworth Place by increasing the width of Ellsworth 8 Place by 4-feet for the first 35- to 40-feet of the length of Ellsworth Place. Through a 9 combination of dedicating a portion of the 2901 Middlefield property and a portion of the 702 10 Ellsworth property. And we plan on matching the paving of Ellsworth Place in those two 11 extensions. We are removing and rebuilding a wider driveway apron, 24-feet wide, to match 12 that width with a throat at the street of 28-feet wide to aid in maneuvering. We’re going to 13 install no parking signs as they have further down the street on the fence in front of 702 14 Ellsworth so no one will park there. We’re creating an enhanced 35-foot site triangle at the 15 intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield. That includes moving the new fence that could 16 otherwise be at the property line at 702 Ellsworth an additional 4-feet away from the… well, 2- 17 feet in from the side or the property line, 4-feet in from the sidewalk at transportation’s 18 request to make the intersection safer. Then that in effect is Mr. Handa loses another 2-feet of 19 his front yard. We’re also going to be creating a temporary delivery truck parking space at 2901 20 Middlefield that Amy… Ms. French had shown you just a minute ago. That allows vehicles to 21 pass that otherwise might block… be blocked by a delivery truck on Ellsworth Place and we’re 22 accommodating all current required parking for the apartment project on the 2901 Ellsworth or 23 2901 Middlefield property; reducing the cars on Ellsworth Place. And lastly, we’re allowing for 24 the addition of a new 16,090-square foot single-family home to add to the housing stock and 25 furtherance of RHNA goals of the City. 26 27 So, accordingly we respectfully request that you allow Staff’s or follow Staff’s recommendation 28 and vote to recommend that the City Council approve the project as proposed and our team, 29 like I said, is here to answer any questions that might come up. Thank you. 30 31 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. I would like to ask my colleagues if they have any 32 questions for Mr. Hayes or Mr. Ross or our Staff at this time. Yeah, go ahead. 33 34 Commissioner Lu: I had one questions or I have a couple questions maybe for Albert and Mr. 35 Ross. Firstly, I wanted to ask, what does a consistency analysis actually look like? There were 36 some comparisons, existing lots, existing homes, existing kind of streetscapes. Does it need to 37 be codified in a certain way? Like what does that look like? 38 39 Mr. Yang: So, I guess I’d say we actually do consistency analyses all the time. They’re a regular 40 feature of our Code. They’re required for every ARB approval and the way that we’ve done it in Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 102     _______________________ 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 this case is it’s a part of the ordinance. And Mr. Ross may not think that that’s good enough but 2 we disagree. That is the analysis that we have of consistency with our Comprehensive Plan and 3 consistency doesn’t mean that it’s consistent with every Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 4 It’s that on balance, it is… it furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan itself so I think 5 we’ve… we feel we’ve shown that in the ordinance. 6 7 Commissioner Lu: Oh, sure. 8 9 Chair Summa: I think… oh thank you. 10 11 Mr. Ross: I’ll respond and say a consistency analysis is as stated, that’s the authority. You know, 12 it’s not nearly setting forth the sections of the plan like I referenced earlier. What does it look 13 like? If it’s accomplished, the goals and policies of the General Plan, here you call it the 14 Comprehensive Plan, as set forth and there actually is an analysis between them. So, that you 15 say look, here’s a policy for example for neighborhood preservation. Here’s a policy on 16 transportation safety, here’s… and there is a mandatory duty to implement those policies in 17 Government Code Section 65103 (b). So, there is an analysis which usually is quite extensive, 18 not a portion of a page where those goals and policies are performed and analyzed by Staff in a 19 way that they can come to a collusion that says these policies are furthered. These are 20 hindered, but based on that analysis. When they go through the mandatory seven elements, 21 which in the Comprehensive Plan are combined, I think there’s five. They then come to a 22 conclusion of consistency. Mr. Yang is right in one portion of his consistency analysis where he 23 says there’s no requirement that it's required to be consistent with all elements. That’s why this 24 balancing standard that I referenced in one of a multitude of cases is how that’s accomplished. 25 Once again, respectfully, and I understand… you know and again, I think this is reflective of an 26 institutional bias of the Planning Department. It’s very clear what a General Plan analysis is. You 27 go through and you pick the relevant policies of the mandatory element of the Comprehensive 28 Plan. Say are they furthered or hindered by this development proposal, this PC Amendment? 29 Once again, respectfully, that’s not present, thanks. 30 31 Chair Summa: Any other questions? 32 33 Commissioner Lu: I realize asking legal questions is dangerous. I would like Albert’s 34 recommendation on how we actually move forward. So, we have all the facts on the ground. 35 The legal arguments I have no expertise or ability to comment on. Should… does anything bad 36 happen if we just make our recommendation and then the legal issues are sorted out offline? 37 38 Mr. Yang: Our opinion is you have sufficient material before you to provide a recommendation 39 to Council. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 103     _______________________ 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 Lu: Thank you. 2 3 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Akin? 4 5 Commissioner Akin: I have two question. The first perhaps is for the Office of Transportation, if 6 not then for Mr. Zhu [note – not sure who he’s referring to]. Are we pursued that the widening 7 and other changes at the entrance to Ellsworth from Middlefield will improve safety over what 8 exists today? 9 10 Ms. French: Hi, this is Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I don’t know if we have… okay, she… 11 and I can… Sylvia, I can put up Slide 12 if that will help tell the story. 12 13 Chair Summa: So, Ms. Star-Lack is here to answer your question I believe. 14 15 Commissioner Akin: Okay, great. Shall I repeat? 16 17 Ms. Sylvia Star-Lack, : No, no I think I have it, thank you. Good evening, Commissioners, this is 18 Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager for the City. Shrupath… my Transportation 19 Planner Shrupath Patel and I visited the site on Monday, July 3rd. We spoke with residents, 20 Shrupath and I did a simulation of car… of his car. He was driving his car out of Ellsworth Place 21 and our recommendation is reflected in what you see on this slide which is to pull back the 22 fence… yeah shorten the fence next to the creek if possible. Yeah, to 3-feet, pull back the fence 23 to 4-feet behind the sidewalk, the back of the sidewalk because when cars have to come to a 24 stop before the sidewalk. They need to be able to see people on the sidewalk before they can 25 cross the sidewalk. We’ve also reached out to Valley Water to eliminate the vegetation that is 26 overgrown at the corner of the… of their site at the creek and I think… oh and the driveway 27 widening will allow for an easier turn for vehicles when another car is… when is a car is at the 28 exit. Transportation Staff feel that these adjustments will be… will improve visibility and the 29 ability for people to get in and out easier. 30 31 Commissioner Akin: Okay, so this, in Office of Transportation’s opinion, this is an improvement 32 in safety at that entrance. 33 34 Ms. Star-Lack: Yes. 35 36 Commissioner Akin: Second question is possibly for Mr. Hayes, possibly for Mr. Dewey, I’m not 37 sure or Mr. Zhu [note – not sure who he’s referring to]. For me, the two key transportation 38 concerns here are safety at the entrance and also the ability to circulate along the length… the 39 initial length of Ellsworth. And given that we’re taking width away from Ellsworth, it seemed to 40 me that perhaps the only way to restore that functionality was to increase the width. The Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 104     _______________________ 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 applicants have proposed to do that to some extent and the question is did you consider 2 increasing the width by undertaking other changes? For example, as I walked the site, it 3 seemed to me that removing or relocating the power pole next to the one that’s closest to 4 Middlefield on Ellsworth Place could buy you as much as a 9-foot width increase. You’re using 5 much of that already in your current proposal for but perhaps there’s room for more. Was this 6 considered and if so, what was the rationale for not pursuing it? 7 8 Mr. Hayes: So, we looked at the power pole quite closely. We tried to get a hold of Palo Alto 9 Utilities probably, I don’t know, I probably have a half dozen emails to them with no response 10 but that pole is sort of the end pole. It has guy wires that come down that help kind of rack the 11 forces of the line of power that strings entirely down Ellsworth. So, based on that, it’s… we just 12 figured… it's not going to be possible or within the means of the project. However, we are 13 having to relocate a cable utility box and we don’t really know what the implications of that are 14 at this point because we’ve not been able to get the cable folks out there to tell us what’s in 15 that box but here we are agreeing to widening the street on that sort of Ellsworth Place on that 16 side by 30-inches. 17 18 I believe Hexagon’s original… well, I know Hexagon’s original report… review states that 19 Ellsworth Place is, in their mind, wide enough as it is to allow two cars to pass. Now I know we 20 have testimony from those that live there that say that it’s not an so we’re trying to work with 21 their concerns and provide a wider width. And so, we’re going as far as we can go to guy wires 22 on our side but Mr. Handa is continuing the 18-inches on his side to the his… to where his 23 walkway intersects Ellsworth Place. Does that answer your question? 24 25 Commissioner Akin: Mostly, yes, I really do appreciate the flexibility that has been shown here. 26 Particularly, the recent change from Mr. Handa’s perspective is significant. Yeah, I also looked 27 at that pole. There’s an underground service entrance there so it would have to be rerouted 28 underground as well as (interrupted) 29 30 Mr. Hayes: That’s right, I didn’t mention that. 31 32 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, as well as the guy wires for supporting the pole string. 33 34 Ms. Camas Steinmetz, legal counsel: And if I may? I’m Camas Steinmetz, legal counsel to the 35 2901 Middlefield applicant. Just to correct for the record, I think you mentioned there would be 36 a reduction in the width of Ellsworth Place and just for the record that the width is 20-feet. 37 There will be an increase in the width, a proposed increase and the apparent extra width is a 38 private parcel. That’s private property and not part of the Ellsworth Place 39 [unintelligible](interrupted) 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 105     _______________________ 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 Akin: Right, I apologize, that wasn’t my intent. 2 3 Ms. Steinmetz: Okay, thank you. 4 5 Commissioner Akin: Simply that people do… people were using the parking lot for passing and 6 circulation purpose so I’m interested in being convinced that we’re doing no harm here. 7 8 Ms. Steinmetz: Okay and we do have testimony from our property manager that’s been on the 9 site for 6-years or more that he has not seen any use of that space for circulation or passing and 10 that’s in our letter that we submitted in the record, thank you. 11 12 Commissioner Akin: That’s it for the moment, thank you. 13 14 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 15 16 Vice-Chair Chang: Thank you, Chair. I had a follow on question for transportation, for Ms. Star- 17 Lack. Is she there? 18 19 Chair Summa: Ms. Star-Lack, are you still with us? 20 21 Ms. Star-Lack: Yes, I’m here. 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: Hello. 24 25 Chair Summa: Thank you. 26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: So, you had mentioned in response to Commissioner Akin that you believe 28 that there is an improvement in safety and so I wanted to ask you an improvement in safety 29 over what baseline? Over the current state where there’s a parking lot or over the current plan 30 prior to your adjustment of moving the fence and contacting Valley Water and…? 31 32 Ms. Star-Lack: Over the current plan. 33 34 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay and what’s your assessment in safety relative to the current state; 35 status quo if nothing were done? 36 37 Ms. Star-Lack: The… currently the visible… just speaking about the visibility, right now it could 38 be improved. What’s existing could be improved because the vegetation, because of how the 39 incline is and how a car is screened from any kind of vegetation once a car is up on the… is 40 approaching the driveway, approaching Ellsworth Place. The Valley Water vegetation and the Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 106     _______________________ 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 vegetation that currently exists on the site and in the planter stripe actually screen an existing 2 vehicle so that needs to be improved. 3 4 Vice-Chair Chang: Great, thanks. Then I have another question about the site triangle and 5 speeds of the road and this is a little bit of a follow on question to one that was asked by, I can’t 6 remember which Commissioner, at the last PTC meeting when this item was discussed. When 7 somebody had asked, you know the site triangle, the 35-foot site triangle is designed for certain 8 speeds and also it’s designed assuming that the grade of the intersection is all the same. And 9 this particular situation is a little bit unique because Ellsworth slopes down from Middlefield as 10 well as Middlefield itself is sloping at that (interrupted) 11 12 Ms. Star-Lack: Exactly. 13 14 Vice-Chair Chang: Or very close that intersection and then in addition, when I did my own site 15 visit there. The City has installed those little radar meters, whatever, telling people to slow 16 down because that section of Middlefield has people… drivers traveling very quickly. So, you 17 know, it blinks slow down, slow down at you and then flashes what speed. So, as I stood there 18 for five minutes, I watched numerous cars travel at 40 miles an hour and so I guess I wanted to 19 ask you with respect to… really what implication does that have for what the site triangle 20 should be if cars are traveling at 40 miles an hour sometimes and also if there’s this… the 21 intersection is not necessarily at grade. 22 23 Ms. Star-Lack: So, those signs are called speed feedback signs. 24 25 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, that’s a… sorry, thank you for the technical term. 26 27 Ms. Star-Lack: Speed feedback signs and that condition that you’re… the condition of cars 28 speeding and driveways on that road exists up and down Middlefield so it’s not unique to this 29 location. The speed… the site triangles, that analysis does assume that everybody’s at the 30 right… at the same grade and that was why going to the site and seeing it for ourselves was 31 important. There’s always an element of engineering discretion and context sensitivity when 32 you do something like this. So, that is why our recommendation or our suggestion was to adjust 33 the fence height and location as is indicated in the drawing. 34 35 Vice-Chair Chang: Thank you. 36 37 Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you, so first of all, thank you Ms. Star-Lack for being present 40 to answer our questions today. It’s very helpful to hear from you. I had an experience this Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 107     _______________________ 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 weekend where I went to a friend’s property that was outside of Palo Alto and had a very long 2 driveway off of a major road. And as I was pulling up to pick up my daughter, I saw a delivery 3 vehicle there and so I was of course thinking about this project and watched what they did and 4 they didn’t go onto the private property. They parked in front of but alongside what would be 5 the equivalent here of Middlefield and as we talk about the delivery process here I definitely 6 don’t want that. We don’t want the delivery trucks blocking Middlefield but also we heard from 7 people last meeting that were describing a number of small children that play at that 8 intersection; for better, for worse. What they should or shouldn’t is not for me to say but if we 9 do have delivery vehicles circulating there and our proposal is that we have them pull in and 10 then pull back out for turning around purposes. I’m wondering if… yeah, if you could bring that 11 up that would be great, thank you, Ms. French. I’m wondering if this is optimal given that isn’t 12 that possible to drive thru to Sutter. Instead of turning around, if they turned in to where you 13 have the green space on the design is that possible to go through? 14 15 Ms. French: I guess depends on the truck size. I’ll bring up the other slide that shows the site at 16 2901 Middlefield. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: Well, nonetheless, just while you bring that up, the person was 19 able… the delivery person was able to traverse the length of the driveways that’s longer than 20 this road and drop off the package. So, I think… yes, I would be hopeful that we could find a 21 positive forward direction. Most delivery vehicles prefer that just for safety reasons, rather than 22 requiring them to back up. That’s a side note, it’s not a deal breaker here for me but that is 23 what I’m, as far as safety is concerned, recommending for you guys. So, to have a circulation 24 that’s forward. 25 26 Regarding the safety improvements at Ellsworth and Middlefield, I’m satisfied with what has 27 been proposed here. I’ve driven the area, I don’t find that the slope is… then again, I grew up in 28 a hillier place but I’m not too worried about the slope… the slopes intersecting there. I felt safe 29 pulling in and pulling out of Ellsworth Place. So, I think you’ve done a good job of answering the 30 questions. 31 32 The issue of whether or not it's private, it looks like it's been settled from the City’s perspective 33 so I’m not going to get into that. I’m interested in reading the letters more thoroughly before 34 making more comments on the zoning question, but as far as the feedback that we had for you 35 last time. I really appreciate you putting together these responses, thank you. 36 37 Chair Summa: Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 38 39 Vice-Chair Chang: Thanks again, I had one more questions for Counselor Yang. So, I had read in 40 some of the public comments but didn’t actually manage to find the old PC to which PC… to Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 108     _______________________ 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 which the more current PC refers to but had read that the current PC says that the old PC stays 2 in effect. Except for whatever the current PC overrides and that the old PC had intended 3 originally to widen Ellsworth. So, I wanted to ask what’s the City’s… and yet, we the City seem 4 to have forgotten that this PC existed. So, what is the City’s obligation to do what the PC… what 5 we said we would do in the PC, or to I guess hold the PC to task if my question (interrupted) 6 7 Mr. Yang: Yeah, so that older PC is PC 1810 (interrupted) 8 9 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 10 11 Mr. Yang: And it actually… it doesn’t say very much. It shows that the land shown in the 12 development plan attached tier two is rezoned as PC and the development plan is approved 13 subject to the condition that the driveway to Middlefield Road be modified. So, then you would 14 look at the development plan that’s attached to see well, how did that driveway look and 15 unfortunately it’s illegible at this point. We have a scanned document where you just cannot 16 really see anything. 17 18 Vice-Chair Chang: So, we don’t know (interrupted) 19 20 Mr. Yang: Yeah. 21 22 Vice-Chair Chang: Is the answer, okay thanks. 23 24 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu. 25 26 Commissioner Lu: I had just a couple more questions about the intersection for Ms. Star-Lack. 27 So, you mentioned the site visibility was 35-feet, was that before the modifications in the latest 28 proposal since we saw this last time? 29 30 Ms. Star-Lack: I might need your help Shrupath for this. I mean I think the analysis was done but 31 I’m not… but I don’t think it was done in… on site. 32 33 Mr. Shrupath Patel, Associate Transportation Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. Shrupath 34 here from Office of Transportation, so 35 site visibility is also has to more do with the fence 35 height I think. So, but I would note that in general, if there was no greater than a normal 36 scenario we allow a fence which are less than 3-foot in height. So, that’s what Office of 37 Transportation recommended in the previous plans also and the fence was proposed 3-feet in 38 height on Middlefield frontage and also 35-feet on Ellsworth Place. But because of this grade 39 then there was… there’s additional recommendation from Office of Transportation to put the 40 fence 4-feet back. So, that way stop sign will be stop… the fence will be 4-feet back from Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 109     _______________________ 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 basically from the stop line. So, that will increase the visibility for Middlefield vehicles and also 2 Ellsworth Place. That fence won’t be… won’t fall on that visibility triangle and the traffic I think 3 going northbound on Middlefield will be able to the car or the vehicles easily because the fence 4 is already 4-feet back from the stop line. 5 6 Commissioner Lu: Okay got it, so basically the site line was 35-feet. Then to… but the incline in 7 practice makes it a little bit less but then the moving the fence makes it a little bit more again. 8 So, on balance, we’re still in a reasonable ballpark, okay. Is it possible to also give any context 9 on whether 35-feet is good? What would we normally require along Middlefield or El Camino? 10 11 Mr. Patel: So, as I said earlier, 35-foot is more about like driveway entrance but based on other 12 site distance called stopping site distance. So, I think in the draft transportation study done by 13 Hexagon they have also mentioned that is based on the speed on the main street and basically 14 based on the street. I think [unintelligible] design [unintelligible] have more guidelines than 15 the… if there’s no grade in the discussion then based on the speeds, stopping site distance 16 could be anywhere between 100-feet to 250-feet. So, that provides major street traffic to make 17 required actions if they see the cars coming out of the crossing street or for making right or left. 18 So, but as I said earlier, now with the fence its already back from the stop… 4-feet back from 19 the stop sign. Vehicles exiting on Ellsworth Place are required to stop before they make left or 20 right and then after they see that Middlefield Road is clear. And then… and the driver should 21 make call to move a little bit forward and they can go on their sidewalk or driveway 22 [unintelligible]. And then after that, once they check back on the Middlefield Road and then 23 they should make left or right. That’s how the driver behavior when they’re crossing major 24 street. 25 26 Commissioner Lu: Thank you. 27 28 Chair Summa: Thank you. I really want to sincerely thank everybody who came here today. 29 Especially the speakers and I think we have a difficult situation in evaluating Ms… Mr. Ross’s 30 opinions because it is opposed to our City typically does things. So, and… so I don’t think we can 31 resolve all of that today. Would… I would like us to resolve is to move forward with a 32 compromise that serves everybody’s interest and that means all 13 properties on Ellsworth 33 Street plus Mr. Dewey and Mr. Handa. 34 35 I will note that it seems… there’s so many unknowns and I think that’s just an aspect of loss 36 memory and records in the City and nobody’s followed… just what happens over time. But I did 37 want to mention a couple things that I have heard from the representatives of Ellsworth 38 residents and that is that they all have easements to traverse already. They… and I’ve heard 39 them say this more than one time so I don’t think that suppling that is a benefit. It’s great that 40 everybody has them because that’s not a problem then. Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 110     _______________________ 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 2 And I also wanted to say that I don’t think… I don’t know that we know when the mistake was 3 made on the Zoning Maps which are updated constantly and so I don’t know if we can assume 4 it was all 56 years. The first time I ever heard about this project was because of neighborhood 5 association that I sometimes attend the meetings of, and I was able on that very day to locate 6 and I’m probably more familiar with using the City website than everybody, both 18.10 and the 7 1967. I don’t mean the year 18.10, I mean the earlier and the ladder ordinances and they were 8 available. I mean older ordinances like that don’t have all the detail in them that we have now, 9 so sometimes we have to kind of assume what the intention was I believe. 10 11 So, I’m not sure we’re going to solve… I’m pretty sure we’re not going to solve all the legal 12 issues tonight and I’m… I don’t… I also think if we keep it a PC the private street issue becomes 13 irrelative because we can control the setbacks and those other issues since everyone’s 14 easements are intact. So, I don’t think we need to worry about that because we can control 15 those details and I just… we got a lot of emails very late today, this afternoon and we didn’t get 16 a chance to read them as Ms. French mentioned. Would my colleagues like to take 10 minutes 17 to read them or would you just like to proceed? 18 19 Vice-Chair Chang: [off mic] I would like to read them. 20 21 Chair Summa: Okay, is 10 minutes good or? Okay, so we are going to take a 10 minute break so 22 we can give your hard work the thoughtful review it deserves, or at least a quick 10 minute 23 review and we will be back. 24 25 [The Commission took a 10 minute break] 26 27 Chair Summa: Thank you everyone, we’re back from our little read and we will carry on with 28 our deliberation. So, do I have questions, thoughts? I have an additional question for Staff. Is 29 the Streamside Corridor Protection review area the same as the Streamside Setback and that 30 would be 18.41.40? 31 32 Ms. French: We’ll have to give it a minute. 33 34 Chair Summa: Okay, we’ll take a minute and think about that. Any other questions? Anybody 35 want to make a motion? 36 37 [note – unknown female Commissioner:] [off mic] [unintelligible] comments. 38 39 Chair Summa: Comments? Oh yeah, of course, go ahead. Sorry, Commissioner Chang [note – 40 Vice-Chair Chang] Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 111     _______________________ 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 2 Vice-Chair Chang: I’ll start with comments, so I should just say that I wasn’t here at the last 3 meeting but I did spend 5 hours watching the video. So, I’m fully up to speed and I spent even 4 longer reading everything and I just wanted to say a couple of things. 5 6 There was a public commenter who said two wrongs don’t make a right and that really sat… 7 that sat with me. In other words, the City… that there was an error on a map and the map says 8 don’t rely on this to make your decisions and that being said I feel very badly for the applicant 9 because they find themselves in a bit of a pickle. But even though that’s the case, there’s a lot 10 of reasons that the neighborhoods very unhappy with this. So, I’m hoping that there’s a way to 11 find a compromise here. 12 13 At the same time, we as a Commission are tasked with making sure that a PC shall be 14 compatible with existing and potential uses. So, there’s the current use is an existing use and so 15 we need to be cognizant of whatever the existing use is. That’s something that our Code says in 16 PCs. 17 18 And we also often say up here on the dais that safety is paramount and so I want to make sure 19 that we walk the talk. Particularly, because there’s a school across the street, the Winter Lodge 20 is right next store, there’s a yoga study on the other side, Kim Grant Tennis is there. I’ve biked 21 there, it's harrowing to bike there which is why you see people biking on the sidewalk there. 22 When I did my site visit, two people biked by me. People drive quickly there, as I said it was 40 23 miles per hour repeatedly. There was also some very respectful people who drove 25 miles an 24 hour but many people blew by at 40 miles an hour. And then 2 years ago a friend of mine, her 25 child had a concussion not two blocks away. He was crossing Middlefield in the crosswalk on 26 the green and somebody ran the light because the sun was in their eyes. So, this is just a 27 harrowing stretch of road that is heavily, heavily used and in our Comp Plan, we say that we 28 want to really make this like a pedestrian and biker-friendly area because mid-town Palo Alto is 29 an area that we want to make like a vibrant CN neighborhood. So, I just really want to be… if 30 Palo Alto grows as we want it to with all the additional housing. There’s going to be more 31 pedestrian, more bikes, more car traffic, more everything there. So, we just need to be careful 32 about what we’re doing. 33 34 I’m also concerned… I heard a number of Commissioners last time raise the issue of what 35 happens to this parcel if we follow the Staff recommendation and make it a stand-alone R-1 36 parcel. And then we lose control over it in the future and it’s such a weird spot where prior City 37 Councils had said we don’t think this parcel is actually an appropriate place to develop a 38 residence. And granted, times have changed and maybe now with all of our desires to have 39 housing. We would love to see housing there but I’m also not sure given all the safety concerns 40 that we want to lose control of it. Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 112     _______________________ 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 2 So, where I’m leaning right now is towards an alternate… one of the alternate Staff… one of the 3 alternate choices in the Staff Report which is to keep it within the PC but to allow a residential 4 use within the PC and so that’s my comment for now. 5 6 Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I have a lot of maybe mixed thoughts on this property 9 and what we’ve been asked to do. I will start by agreeing with my colleague here that 10 Middlefield is still too dangerous for our walkable, bikeable, family-oriented community vision 11 and we have to do something about it. I’m not sure how much that weighs in on this property 12 when we speak about it in the safety of Middlefield in general and I do think that the proposed 13 improvements for safety will make it better than it currently is so we have that positive. 14 15 I also agree that this communication error is really unfortunate, but I also think that that knife 16 cuts both ways. So, if you are saying… if we are saying on the one hand it’s unfortunate that 17 there was this mix-up and that this is affecting the buyer of the property. We have to also say 18 that for the other neighbors which I think is really hard to say. You know, these were previously 19 parts of other parcels and this was subdivided and the entrance to their homes is through a 20 right of way. An access that has been granted through dependency on your neighbors and it’s 21 so complex that it makes it really difficult for us to single out any person’s individual interest 22 here and come to solution that will satisfy everybody. I think that’s really the challenge that 23 we’re dealing with. 24 25 So, I am concerns about the proximity to the creek. However, I don’t believe that’s what we’re 26 being asked. I would like to know the answers to the question that was raised about making 27 sure that we have proper setbacks and won’t be degrading the creek in any way by the 28 construction or the structure. 29 30 How I’m leaning, my leaning at this point is I think a lot of compromises and concessions have 31 been offered by the applicant that meet the needs of the residents of Ellsworth. That will 32 improve the safety of their street and their community and will provide an opportunity to bring 33 another unit online. So, how do we do that? Do we do that through breaking out the R-1 out of 34 the PC, or do we keep it included? I feel confident that any concerns we could have about this 35 property, we could have about any other R-1 properties that were nearby. If we don’t feel the 36 need to control those or put the whole neighborhood on a PC. Then I’m not sure why we would 37 want to do it for this particular property. So, those are some thoughts from me at this point, 38 thank you. 39 40 Chair Summa: Mr. Yang? Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 113     _______________________ 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 2 Mr. Yang: I just wanted to address an issue that had come up in Vice-Chair Chang and 3 Commissioner Templeton’s comments on the idea of losing control if this is zoned as R-1. One 4 mechanism we could use is to require a deed restriction be recorded on this property that 5 includes the conditions that we would be interested in preserving. Like the fence location, then 6 fence height and keeping the vegetation clear as well as the expended pavement width. So, 7 that is one tool we could use that could be paired with an R-1 zoning if that’s the direction the 8 Commission wanted to go. I just wanted to mention that because this idea of losing control had 9 been mentioned a few times. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: Very helpful, thank you. 12 13 Chair Summa: Thank you, then I will go to Commissioner Akin. 14 15 Commissioner Akin: That’s a good segue on the loss of control issue. Yeah, I was also concerned 16 about what might happen to future owners of the property and if I understand the PC process 17 correctly. One significant advantage of sticking with PC, in this case, would be that we have a 18 set of plans which we believe are acceptable to all the parties that have a stake in the decision. 19 And rather than have to innumerate a set of restrictions that may yet turn out to be 20 inadequate. We have a plan that we can deem adequate today. So, my inclination is to lean 21 towards retaining the PC designation and amend it. 22 23 On a general issue, this is taking place in the context of changes in State policy that reduce the 24 viability of private vehicles in almost all context and so far, haven’t provided adequate 25 alternatives. So, this kind of problem is going to come before us again and again as parking 26 disappears for example. I think of the folks who live on Sutter who are going to deal with the 27 spillover from at least guest parking, if not delivery parking because we’ve made it more 28 difficult for those things to happen on Ellsworth. Repeat this enough times and you have a 29 serious cumulative impact. 30 31 Nevertheless, for me, I think this proposal had cross the line from something I was not willing to 32 accept to a compromise that I could. So, that’s what I’m feeling at the moment. 33 34 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Lu? 35 36 Commissioner Lu: A quick question for Albert, is there… what are the practical differences 37 between a deed restriction and a PC Zoning? Just for whatever motion we make tonight. 38 39 Mr. Yang: Practically, I don’t think that there’s very much. They’re both… they’d both be fairly 40 difficult to change. A PC might actually be a little bit easier to change than amending a deed Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 114     _______________________ 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 restriction, but it’s probably about the same. In both cases, the property owner would need to 2 come to the City and seek the City’s approval. 3 4 Commissioner Lu: Cool, thank you. 5 6 Chair Summa: Ms. French, did you have the answer to the streamside setback, or do you need 7 more time? 8 9 Ms. French: Yes, so it was… there was a little bit of confusion as to whether you had said 10 Streamside Protection Corridor, which is the title of a section of the Code versus the other 11 which is the Streamside…what is it called? Streamside Review Area, so I mean the protection 12 area is not 50-feet if that was the intent of your question. I don’t know if it was. 13 14 Chair Summa: I was looking for the setback which I thought was 20-feet from either the toe of 15 the bank or some calculation of (interrupted) 16 17 Ms. French: Yes, top or toe of the bank (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Summa: Angle (interrupted) 20 21 Ms. French: Depending and the channelized creek is not as much of a concern because this is a 22 channelized creek. 23 24 Chair Summa: Yes. 25 26 Ms. French: So, it is… there is some discretion given to the Public Works Director on these 27 matters. 28 29 Chair Summa: I see Mr. Sauls, maybe he had something to add. 30 31 Mr. Garret Sauls, Planner: I’m just popping in. I’m turning my camera on and off, don’t worry 32 about me. 33 34 Ms. French: It relates to the Geotechnical Slope Stability Analysis. 35 36 Mr. Sauls: What Ms. French is identifying is correct. There are possibilities for individuals to still 37 develop within those Streamside Protection Areas provided there’s a Geotechnical Analysis that 38 demonstrates the impact won’t impact to that Slope Stability Protection Area and with 39 channelized creeks that’s certainly less of a concern. We typically will review projects with the 40 Santa Clara Valley Water District and many of their concerns are focused on any sort of Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 115     _______________________ 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 outward forces impacting the stability of their channelized… you know concrete wall. So, that 2 would… that’s typically what they’ll be looking for. 3 4 Chair Summa: So, has there been any investigation into the soils and what would be required in 5 this case of a setback from the channelized streams is what I’m looking for I guess. 6 7 Ms. French: So, the City rejected the Building Permit application what would have provided 8 the… because it wasn’t R-1 zoned. So, that kind of thing would be reviewed that the Building 9 Permit application phase for constructing a home. 10 11 Chair Summa: Okay, so that comes later in the process is what you’re saying. Okay, thank you 12 and then piling onto what Commissioner Akin just said. Was there any evaluation of potential 13 impacts on Sutter or was that just not looked at, at all? I don’t believe I remember seeing it in 14 the traffic analysis. 15 16 Ms. French: So, the… so impacts, I mean circulation would be an environmental impact as 17 possible to parking, parking is not reviewed. Are you think CEQA wise or what are you thinking? 18 19 Chair Summa: Either way, CEQA I guess is circulation or parking. 20 21 Ms. French: Well, and Albert might want to weigh in on that, but my understanding of CEQA is 22 that circulation is the factor that’s reviewed as opposed to parking being it parking is not 23 considered an environmental impact. 24 25 Chair Summa: No, but outside of CEQA it is a potential impact for the neighbors, but anyway we 26 feel that it will be fully parked at this time and in a future… in the future with the four 27 additional. And then so one of my biggest concerns about this was not having property setbacks 28 on 702 and that restriction can certainly be lifted if we have a smaller footprint and go to a two- 29 story house; which I see is more desirable for everybody on Ellsworth getting along and still 30 having a sense of not being closed in. And what they had experienced in the past was of course 31 sort of more emptiness there because of the parking lot and they had a situation where they 32 had a functional 25-foot street. And they only have a 20-foot street and our minimum street… 33 private street width in Palo Alto is 26-feet. That is the width that is supposed to serve I think up 34 to four houses. The maximum is 32 and that’s the number of houses it would be served would 35 require that but I have heard the Ellsworth people say that they would be satisfied with 26-feet. 36 And that would be… we would be able to achieve that now just in the first 100-feet between 37 2901 Middlefield and 702 Ellsworth. So, I would be interested in seeing that done at this time 38 and that in addition to the standard type of turning ratio or flare, whatever it’s called that the 39 traffic engineer feel is appropriate. I think would really increase the safety at the point at which 40 it's dangerous which is at the intersection and you really can’t… people… I was there too in my Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 116     _______________________ 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 car. Well, the first time I went I parked on Sutter because it sounded dicey but it’s not scary or 2 anything but you can’t really pull in and out. You can’t have one person pulling out and one 3 person pulling in. There just isn’t going to be enough room, so what I heard from the residents 4 was that would improve the situation enough for them and I think it’s a compromise because it 5 is less than our standard. 6 7 So, and I would like to also establish setbacks for the house that allow the house to go up or 8 down if appropriate but not be such a big footprint. And the Ellsworth setback for 702 is kind of 9 a mystery to me because it’s not… it cannot be the regular corner lot situation in Palo Alto 10 because it would take up to much of the lot. And that’s one of the advantages of a PC in this 11 situation is because we have an ability to, without going through a Variance process, just set 12 that. But I don’t know what it should be and some of the houses on Ellsworth I don’t think 13 there’s a standard. Some are close and some are further but I would almost think that the 24- 14 foot setback for required special setback from Middlefield, a 20-foot setback from the stream if 15 in fact the toe or the angle of that is required. The regular 6-foot side setback since Ellsworth is 16 the front from 705 and I almost don’t know what to say about the Ellsworth setback. I certainly 17 think it’s not going to be consistent with any standard we have and it might want to be 18 somewhat flexible I think because I think it depends a little bit on the person building the 19 property there, how close they want to be. I think that would… I think those are kind of my 20 interests but the PC does allow us to have more control over those things for what I still… I 21 believe is a substandard lot. 22 23 So, but we don’t have to solve all those issues, whether it’s a substandard lot or whether it’s a 24 private road if we’re keeping it all a PC and trying to find a really good solution that works for 25 everyone so those are my thoughts. I’m not sure who was next. 26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: [off mic] I was. 28 29 Chair Summa: Oh okay, Commissioner Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang]. 30 31 Vice-Chair Chang: I actually liked a lot of your thoughts Chair Summa. I did have a question for 32 Counselor Yang about… so since the stream stability component is usually done… so I have a 33 question about how we do a PC because usually a PC is done with a specific set of plans as I 34 understand it, or at least that’s what I gathered from watching the last PTC meeting recording. 35 But it sounds like we don’t know about the stream bank’s stability, soil stability, I’m not using 36 the right technical terms here. So, it’s possible that that set of plans wouldn’t work anyways, so 37 how would we proceed in this situation? 38 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 117     _______________________ 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. Yang: Well, there’s… you know one way is to have the set of plans that’s before us be the 2 development plan but have it conditioned that it will… if necessary it will be modified to 3 accommodate whatever stream slope stability analysis that’s performed. 4 5 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay. 6 7 Mr. Yang: And then I guess it would depend on who you wanted to review that, [unintelligible] 8 that change. If could be the Planning Director, it could be a subcommittee of the PTC or 9 something like that. 10 11 Vice-Chair Chang: Is it possible… I mean where I’m landing with this is I’m more interested… I’m 12 less interested in being prescriptive about the residence because I don’t… I’m interested in the 13 safety. I’m not interested in prescribing what somebody’s house looks like. That’s up to the 14 resident, but I think that the… what the applicant’s have already been flexible with. You know, 15 we want to preserve some of that as well as some of the additional concerns of the neighbors. 16 We want to preserve those things as well as some of what Chair Summa mentioned about the… 17 you know as a City we prescribe that the minimum width of a private street serving more than 18 four residences is 26-feet. It’s actually supposed to be 32 I think is the minimum but we can go 19 with the Director’s discretion we can go down to 26 I believe. So, that all makes sense to me 20 but then doing so would require some significant rejiggering of plans. And I’ve heard from other 21 Commissioners that a basement or a second story might make sense here; whether it’s up or 22 down and I don’t know what makes sense and we don’t know what the soils. So, I would rather 23 be prescriptive about the intersection and the street than about the house. And so, can… could 24 I try and… well, I don’t want to… I know the (interrupted) 25 26 Chair Summa: [unintelligible -off mic] 27 28 Vice-Chair Chang: Right, I know there’s other lights but I have a motion that I think I could try 29 and throw out there. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton: [off mic] Can it wait? 32 33 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, I will wait, yes. 34 35 Chair Summa: Thank you, we’ll go to Commissioner Templeton and then Commissioner Lu. 36 37 Commissioner Lu: [unintelligible – off mic] 38 39 Chair Summa: Oh okay. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 118     _______________________ 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: Oh, thank you so much, I appreciate your flexibility. So, Mr. Yang, 2 can you please speak to this 26-foot thread we have going on because that’s surprising and I 3 want to make sure I understand exactly what it is from your perspective. 4 5 Mr. Yang: We’re talking about the street width? 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: Do street… do private streets need to be 26-feet wide? 8 9 Mr. Yang: So, newly established privates streets in a subdivision generally have to be 32-feet 10 wide unless an Exception is granted. That doesn’t apply here because we’re not creating a new 11 private street. It’s… there’s an existing 20-foot wide private street and there’s not really a 12 reasonable way of making it 32-feet or 26. 13 14 Commissioner Templeton: Okay, thank you and I read someone in a Packet or a letter, I’m sorry 15 I don’t recall, that this is being… the width that’s being used is appropriate for a driveway, is 16 that correct? Is that where the 20-feet comes from? That that’s (interrupted) 17 18 Mr. Yang: That’s not something I can answer. 19 20 Ms. French: Yeah, I believe that multiple-family residential apartment buildings and such can do 21 a 20-foot driveway. I believe that was an Office of Transportation Staff comment. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you, I appreciate (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Sauls: [unintelligible] minimum dimension for a two-way driveway is 20-feet. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton: That is very helpful, so now we understand where the numbers are 28 coming from and why it’s not the same as the road or street numbers. Personally, just to… I’m… 29 I don’t know why we would make the road width so different at this property without also 30 requiring all the other properties to expand. It feels very unfair and that it’s targeting a single 31 property whereas this street abuts many properties, so I feel that’s unfair. 32 33 That said, we have talked… it looks like the proposal here is 24-feet. So, I think that is a 34 compromise between 20 and 26 if they’re offering 24. I feel that that is enough, however, if the 35 whole street wants to get together and agree to expand it to 26. That’s fine but that’s a 36 separate issue. So (interrupted) 37 38 Chair Summa: May I offer (interrupted) 39 40 Commissioner Templeton: Sure. Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 119     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: An observation on that? 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: Yeah. 5 6 Chair Summa: So, we have a concept of grandfathering that is broadly across our Municipal 7 Code and (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: I’m familiar with it. 10 11 Chair Summa: It is because and we don’t require people to come up to Code or change things 12 until they have an applicant or a demolition or they’re going to rebuild something and I think 13 that’s the reason why. And it may be kicking the can down the road a little but we have an 14 opportunity here and we have two properties, 2901 and 702, that have… are going to have 15 substantial benefits from allowing this PC change; financially and maybe in other ways. You 16 know, I don’t know what’s… I can’t… I don’t know what’s in their head about it but certainly 17 financially and so I think it’s reasonable. Unless it is absolutely 100 percent impossible and I 18 know that utilities can be relocated and I just think it's an opportunity… I think it’s a great 19 opportunity for 702 also to have a more spacious situation. I think it benefits them and that’s 20 why we want to be flexible with that front Ellsworth setback because I think they should have a 21 great say in it. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton: And that’s absolutely fine, we may disagree on this. We’re talking 24 about one foot on either side so it’s not a major disagreement. And my perspective is informed 25 by that this is being treated as not a new road and historically as a driveway. And I know that’s 26 not how it’s been used but that’s where the numbers have come from. So, I’m satisfied with the 27 current proposal because I think it comes very close to the desired width and is improving what 28 is currently very narrow. 29 30 So, I don’t… I agree with Commissioner Chang… Vice-Chair Chang that I’m not exactly sure 31 about the soil condition and what’s going to be possible there. I’m nervous because it’s on a 32 creek side that is this even going to be something that can have a basement at all, right? Or 33 certain serve the foundation of a two-story home and I would like to not prescribe that as well. 34 35 As for what other areas of compromise, I think I’m very satisfied with what has been offered 36 because I think that’s going to really improve the safety of the residents and their children and 37 people who use the sidewalk because it will be expanded as well so I’m very hopeful. 38 39 Again, with a PC versus R-1, PC is an option. I’m… I still feel uncomfortable given that this was 40 stated as an R-1 by the City and has neighbors who are R-1 and I just I hate to tie this property Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 120     _______________________ 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 in perpetuity to the property across the street. I’d like to sever it because that’s what the 2 applicant’s seem to want. Thank you very much. 3 4 Chair Summa: I am not seeing any other lights. Do I have any other comments? Commissioner 5 Chang [note – Vice-Chair Chang] indicated that she wanted to make a motion so why don’t we 6 go ahead to the motion? 7 8 MOTION 9 10 Vice-Chair Chang: I will make a motion and we can work with it from there. I’d like to move that 11 the PTC recommend that City Council amend PC 2343 to add single-family residential use to the 12 list of Conditionally Permitted Uses of the PC Zone and that A) the width of Ellsworth Place 13 easement running between 702 Ellsworth and 2901 Middlefield be widened to 26-feet for the 14 entire length of the easement; B) the easement shall be given to the City of Palo Alto to settle 15 any debate on who has right to access the street; C) that the curb cut approach at 16 Ellsworth/Middlefield shall be widened by 4-feet to a total of 28 at the street… 28-feet at the 17 street flare; D) that the 35-foot site triangle for the Ellsworth/Middlefield intersection must not 18 be obstructed by vegetation, fences or other objects with heights greater then 1-foot; E) that 19 four additional parking spaces shall be provided on 2901 Middlefield; F) that a temporary 20 loading zone for delivery trucks shall be provided at 2901 Middlefield; G) that green waste 21 garbage enclosure and pickup for 2901 Middlefield shall be moved of Ellsworth and that 2901 22 Middlefield trash pickup shall be moved from Ellsworth to Sutter; and H) regarding setbacks, 23 that the… first the 24-foot special setback on Middlefield shall be observed; 2) that the creek 24 setback will be observed according to stability requirements; 3) that the front setback from 25 Ellsworth is determined based on safety requirements as reviewed by the Planning Director; 26 and 4) that the standard 6-foot side setback is observed from 705 Ellsworth. 27 28 And so that’s my motion and I felt pretty strongly about keeping the parcel within the PC 29 because this was a PC. I know it… just to… sorry? Okay, I will wait for it to be seconded, sorry. 30 31 Chair Summa: Do we have a (interrupted) 32 33 Mr. Sauls: Point to clarify? Ms. Dao, were you able to capture all of those? I think there was A 34 through H items and then three or four subitems within H. So that maybe we could share it on 35 the screen and everyone can be sure to respond. 36 37 Ms. French: Yeah, there’s one point that was mentioned. I want to make sure that what you 38 said was 26-feet as opposed to the 24-feet because when it’s widened from 24-feet it gets to 39 28-feet at the curb. So, do you mean 26-feet? 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 121     _______________________ 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 Chang: So, maybe it should be 26 to 30 at the curb then I guess. I don’t know what 2 the right (interrupted) 3 4 Ms. French: That’s what it would be if following the City standards. 5 6 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, then 30 at the curb. 7 8 Commissioner Lu: Can I? As part of this motion, do we need to specify details like the asphalt 9 or moving the cable boxes or anything else like that? 10 11 Vice-Chair Chang: I don’t know. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: I was going to ask if first of all, is this motion correct? It looks like 14 there’s a blank line. Is there something missing? 15 16 Vice-Chair Chang: I think there are things that are missing so. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, so if you can correct the motion and then I would ask Staff to 19 highlight the ones that are not part of the Staff proposal. So, we know the delta between what 20 you were proposing and what she’s proposing. 21 22 Vice-Chair Chang: So, A, the width of the Ellsworth easement to be widen to 26-feet. 23 24 Ms. French: It’s not specific to the length of that. Did you mean within that 35-feet site triangle? 25 26 Vice-Chair Chang: For the full 100-feet. I don’t know if the parcel’s exactly 100-feet but for the 27 full length. 28 29 Ms. French: It is. 30 31 Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah, so then the curb cut would be 30-feet at the street flare I think, right? 32 33 Ms. French: I think that B we… it says easement be given to the City of Palo Alto. I think what 34 was said was City of Palo Alto has a right to determine who has access. Is that… did I hear that 35 right? 36 37 Vice-Chair Chang: Sure. 38 39 Ms. French: Somehow. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 122     _______________________ 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 Chang: I think the easement should be given to the City of Palo Alto to settle on any 2 debate on who has right to access the street. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: For just this property or for all properties on Ellsworth Place? 5 6 Vice-Chair Chang: For all properties on Ellsworth. I mean I don’t know what the right issue is but 7 all of the houses on Ellsworth Place need to be able to access this. I think there… I’m copying 8 from some language that was in somewhere in the Packet. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton: But for the length of the entire road. 11 12 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 13 14 Mr. Yang: I’m sorry (interrupted) 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: [unintelligible] 17 18 Mr. Yang: We can’t… the entire roads not before us. It’s just… we’re only talking about the… 19 that first 100-feet of that parcel. 20 21 [note - unknown female speaker:] See, it’s not necessary. 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: Well, then maybe it’s not necessary but (interrupted) 24 25 Commissioner Templeton: The whole point? 26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: The easement needs to be given to somebody. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton: The easements have already been given. 30 31 Vice-Chair Chang: If it’s widened. 32 33 Chair Summa: Oh, perhaps you want to… I don’t know but perhaps you want to change the 34 language to say the new widen of this easement for the first 100-feet from Middlefield shall be 35 recorded with the City. Something like that but (interrupted) 36 37 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, that; the new width of the easement for the first 100-feet shall be 38 recorded with the City, sure. 39 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 123     _______________________ 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. Yang: So, we would actually recommend that it be granted to all the neighbors on Ellsworth 2 just because right now… you know that would basically have… the City has a right to these little 3 strips along the edges and the City also has… Staff has said that we do not have an interest in 4 having a Public Access Easement or public right of way. 5 6 Mr. Yang: Great, thank you, Mr. Yang. Let me check the other ones, curb cut (interrupted) 7 8 Commissioner Lu: In the Staff proposal the road was 20-feet, then I guess it wasn’t an 9 easement. It was adding 30-inches on Sutter and taking or sorry, okay. 10 11 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, we’re starting with 20-feet and then we’re adding 4 in two separate 12 chunks and (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lu: Oh okay, right, right because of the PC because it’s a PC [unintelligible] 15 (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Akin: While I’m all in favor of making it wider, I think we had the discussion with 18 the applicants and it may be very difficult to make it wider and that’s not what’s being 19 proposed by the applicant. So, I just wanted to be clear that that’s what we are proposing. 20 21 Vice-Chair Chang: That’s what I’m proposing because I’m… I mean I’ll speak to it in a second and 22 we can go backwards and we can play with this but. Then for D, that the site triangle not be 23 obstructed by plants or fences or any other objects taller than 1-foot. And then for E, that four 24 additional parking spaces shall be provided on 2901 Middlefield. F is that a temporary loading 25 zone for delivery vehicles be provided at 2901 Middlefield. G is that garbage pickup and 26 enclosure for 2901 specifically be moved from Ellsworth to Sutter which is already… so E, F and 27 G already been agreed to. H is regarding a number of items regarding setbacks, so the first one 28 is 24-foot special setback observed for Middlefield. Creek setback observed according to… yep, 29 stability requirements. The next one is that the front setback from Ellsworth be determined 30 based on safety as reviewed by the Planning Director because I don’t know how to make that 31 determination. 32 33 Ms. French: It might be clearer if you don’t say front because that would not be the front in our 34 Code. 35 36 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so… sure, setback from Ellsworth, whichever the side of the lot we call 37 that and then that the standard 6-foot side setback from 705 Ellsworth. So, it’s four different 38 setbacks, four sides of the lot. 39 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 124     _______________________ 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: And can you, or Staff, compare these proposed numbers to what’s 2 on the diagram on Slide 12? 3 4 Ms. French: Sure, I’ll show that. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: Because I think it’s mostly the same. 7 8 Vice-Chair Chang: I think it’s mostly the same too. We just didn’t have evaluation of the creek 9 side. 10 11 Ms. French: So, this is why I think it’s important to talk about… am I sharing? This is important 12 to talk about, so this is the property line of Mr. Handa’s property. So, this is a 30-foot setback 13 right now from the property line to the house that is shown. So, what you’re saying is a setback 14 from Ellsworth for safety, so if it's from this edge of the roadway to the house, that’s 10-feet as 15 shown here. Right now, on this side, we’re showing a 24-foot… the special setback from the 16 property line which is correct to meet the special setback on what we would call the front of 17 the property here because it’s the shortest of the four lines. This is then the side facing the 18 creek, that’s a side property line, the 6. This would be then what you said was based on 19 stability. This is… would be the rear and that’s to the neighbor here showing that they have 20 observed the 20-foot setback as in R-1 Code with an encroachment into the setback which is 21 allow for R-1 properties to a 14-foot setback here with the garage in the rear setback as allowed 22 in the R-1 Zone. 23 24 Chair Summa: It’s substantially similar. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton: Right, I just want to highlight the differences so that I can decide if to 27 support it. 28 29 Chair Summa: Yeah and I think one of the differences is it might be a little bit less on… it might 30 be a little greater, the setback, on Ellsworth because of the widening. I was wondering if we are 31 capturing what needs to be captured with regards to easements. And if I could ask myself if I 32 can ask one of the members of Ellsworth to answer… to approach the microphone and answer 33 that because I want to make sure we’re capturing what is correct here. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton: What do you mean? 36 37 Chair Summa: Regarding the easements. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton: Would Mr. Yang know that? Like are you asking a legal question of a 40 neighbor? Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 125     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: No, no, I’m just asking if they’re... to make sure that they’re comfortable with the 3 way the easement was… is stated… issue is stated in the motion. 4 5 Mr. Nitin Handa: So, I don’t know, can I speak? I’m the applicant. 6 7 Chair Summa: Yes. 8 9 Mr. Yang: So, actually Chair, have we had a second to the motion? 10 11 Ms. French: We have not. 12 13 SECOND 14 15 Chair Summa: Okay, I can do that first. Do we have a second? Okay, I will second the motion. 16 Thank you and Mr. Handa, did you want to speak? 17 18 Mr. Handa: Yes, so you know, Item E said that you are proposing widening Ellsworth 26-feet. 19 Our proposal was 24-feet in the first 35-feet area, so are you proposing something different 20 from what we proposed? And then my second question is on the setback on the left side of this 21 house, it’s 14-feet. I saw something saying 6-feet or something like that. It’s 14-feet and also 22 with a garage, I think it's only 1-feet or something, whatever the Code requires it to be or I 23 don’t know if it is on the property line. So, I need clarification on that proposal regarding these 24 two items. 25 26 Chair Summa: So, I think there’s a little confusion about what the front of the house is. So, I’m… 27 so if we’re still going to call the front, I don’t understand why it’s not a Middlefield address 28 then. 29 30 Ms. French: The… if I may, the Code is not specific to where you put the property numbers. 31 It’s… our Code, for at least R-1 lots and many other zones, the shortest line of the four… if it’s 32 four property lines, that’s abutting the street on a… if it were a corner lot. That shortest line is 33 the front lot line and then opposite that is the rear. 34 35 Chair Summa: That’s right, that’s right. 36 37 Ms. French: Then the sides are the sides. 38 39 Chair Summa: Thank you for reminding me. Okay, so it… but Mr. Handa’s… would… it… the 6- 40 foot is not more restrictive. I mean he’s not required to take it the 6-feet, so I think that there’s Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 126     _______________________ 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 a little confusion there but as to asking the neighbors if the easement situation was recorded 2 accurately. It’s because it seems a little confusing but if other… so I would like to get an answer 3 to that. Is that okay, Mr. Yang? 4 5 Mr. Yang: Yes, and I would just add now that we have the motion seconded and it does deviate 6 from the proposal. We should hear from both the applicants as well. 7 8 Chair Summa: Thank you for that. 9 10 Ms. Kristen Van Fleet: I would like to understand your question better. If you’re asking how our 11 easements work on our deeds? 12 13 Chair Summa: I was just double-checking to make sure that the way this easement… the new 14 easement is being proposed to be recorded which is just increasing width. If that should 15 happen, is sufficient from your point of view because (interrupted) 16 17 Ms. Van Fleet: I… sorry. 18 19 Chair Summa: Go ahead. 20 21 Ms. Van Fleet: I believe it would be sufficient now in terms of that’s what our deeds say. There 22 is still some unknown… while the City says it’s a private road and we’re going to go with that for 23 now. That’s the 26-foot wide, that’s where that came from. Santa Clara County still says this is 24 public and that has not been established and so we’re talking about maps being… R-1, he gets 25 an R-1 because the City map said it. Do we get a public road because the County maps say it 26 and so is that what we’re starting with here? I know that this is not extending to the full length 27 of Ellsworth, and maybe that needs to come back for a separate session, but we have a section 28 of road that’s actually abandoned after this 100-foto strip that use to attached to it. And all of 29 our easements go over that and so this is sufficient for that but it still doesn’t establish road 30 ownership. And so, when Amy is saying that it’s 30-feet of his road, that road use to be a flag lot 31 and when I asked Garrett this question about the 741 property. He said that they would not get 32 the same benefits that Handa is getting, even though they own the road to across from their 33 property. 34 35 So, there’s a lot of ambiguity about the street itself and the ownership and that was why in the 36 letters we said we need to establish that but if we want to move past that. I believe that the 20- 37 foot easement or 26-foot easement would be sufficient over the 100-feet to start from for now 38 and then we can establish road ownership for the rest of Ellsworth Place later because it is an 39 issue. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 127     _______________________ 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 Summa: Yes, and I understand that the neighbors are very concerned about that but that 2 is not agendized and can’t (interrupted) 3 4 Ms. Van Fleet: I understand. 5 6 Chair Summa: Even really be discussed tonight. What is up for… what is agendized and up for 7 discussion is their PC Amendment so thank you so much. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: Ok, hold on, hold on. You only asked if 26 is sufficient, is 24 10 sufficient? 11 12 Chair Summa: I didn’t ask but is 24 sufficient? 13 14 Ms. Van Fleet: We believe that is not sufficient based on where the fence… the temporary 15 fence was pushed back and it was at about the 24-foot line. And it kept getting hit by trucks and 16 you can see on the photos where it was dented in in the center and that was being pushed back 17 a foot to two. Right now, we have over the parking lot, if a car is parked there, we have 18 between 25 and 26-feet behind the cars is what we’re use to. So, that’s why I was looking at the 19 Codes and saying okay, that’s the minimum, just using a Code. It's not me making this up that 20 get to 26 and I think you’ll have that circulation because that’s what would be on a private 21 street for four houses according to what was already established. Does that answer? I think 24 22 is too narrow. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: It doesn’t quite answer because some of the property hasn’t been 25 paved yet so that’s why it’s confusing. So, you’re talking about the current status, not the 26 proposed status, but thank you. I got it, thank you. 27 28 Ms. Van Fleet: Okay, thank you. 29 30 Chair Summa: Thank you. 31 32 [note – unknown male speaker:] [unintelligible] 33 34 Chair Summa: I’m sorry, you just can’t come and speak. You have to be called. 35 36 [note – unknown male speaker:] Because there’s a wide bigger safety issue… public safety issue 37 over there because on the [unintelligible]. 38 39 Chair Summa: Thank you very much, thank you. I think we were going to let Mr. Handa and Mr. 40 Dewey speak to this. Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 128     _______________________ 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 2 Mr. Handa: So, I don’t know Richard, do you want to go first or can I go first? 3 4 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, go ahead and this is Ken. 5 6 Mr. Handa: Okay, [unintelligible]. You know, I think Amy, if you can share the map once again. 7 That slide that shows what we were proposing there. So, I just come back to that, that we did 8 propose a 24-feet. Now that is despite the fact that the seat… the street is deemed as safe as is, 9 the way it is 20-feet. All of the neighbors have 20-feet only but we still gave… agreed to do 24- 10 feet by giving up about 18-inch on my side and 2 1/2 -feet on Mr. Dewey’s side as whatever 11 restriction or whatever we might call it as. We were willing to do that thing and 24 was a big 12 compromise for the… and you know, we only proposed it for the first I don’t know, wherever 13 this red line is. That’s the proposal from our side. 14 15 Now, I didn’t… where I’m trying to get clarification is, is the Planning Commission proposing to 16 make it all 26-feet and what does that mean? Does that mean that I need to give more land 17 through the street? That’s one clarification I’m trying to seek and secondly, the most important 18 thing, 26-feet which is probably coming from the idea of the street has to be minimum of 26- 19 feet in some Codes like Albert mentioned earlier. That’s for the new street, not for the existing 20 streets. It’s if a new subdivision is being proposed and once again, I want to reiterate the fact 21 that even at 20-feet it was deemed safe and Ms. Star-Lack can jump in here. Even at 20-feet it 22 was deemed safe but we really being very generous here offering that extra 4-feet in the first, I 23 don’t know, 40-feet of the street to help with the vehicle maneuvering. 24 25 Chair Summa: Thank you. 26 27 Mr. Hayes: Great, so Mr. Handa makes a good point and we concur with that. That 24-feet is… 28 seems to be sufficient, but any wider than that might not be possible. The City power pole and 29 we looked at it. Let’s say you got rid of the power pole that’s about 35-feet in from Ellsworth, 30 maybe it’s 40-feet in, I’m sorry, from Middlefield on Mr. Dewey’s side of the property. The… 31 that power line that runs down Ellsworth needs a counteracting force to keep that line and that 32 line of poles erect and right now, that last pole has the guy wires that come down. If that pole is 33 removed, where does that counteracting force come from because the physics don’t change 34 and then if you have to install guy wires at the next pole in. That’s going to obliterate where the 35 loading zone is and any possibility of providing a place for the trucks to turn around. So, it’s 36 complicated, I don’t think it’s doable, I leave it there. 37 38 The other thing about making the roadway wider is that it becomes an access easement I 39 believe and I know that access easements are deducted from the site area. Just like we’ve 40 already deducted the 2,000-square foot, 20 by 100-foot Ellsworth Place access easement from Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 129     _______________________ 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. Handa’s site area, which reduces the size of the house that he can construct there. So, if 2 that is extended 3-feet on his side, 3-foot on our side, whatever to get to 26-feet. He’s not 3 going to build the house that he’s proposed and it’s only a 1,690-square foot house. 4 5 The last point I wanted to make was I think there needs to be a clarification also in our motion. I 6 believe I heard you say no obstructions within the site triangle more than 12-inchs high. Does 7 that mean we don’t have the fence? So, you don’t have a yard? So, somebody can walk off of 8 Middlefield into my backyard and take my barbeque, take my kid’s ball or his tricycle or 9 whatever? Alright, that doesn’t quite make sense, thank you. 10 11 Chair Summa: Is your light on Commissioner Templeton? 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: I want to hear Vice-Chair Chang speak to her motion. 14 15 Chair Summa: Okay. 16 17 Vice-Chair Chang: So, the reason I started at the point I did was because this… so, if we start 18 from what should have happened. What should have happened is this R-1… this proposed R-1 19 parcel should have never been sold off separately. We should have… the neighbors have been 20 saying for a very long time that this… that there are safety issues here and the City had… there’s 21 a PC in place. We would have had control over a parking lot and we could have easily at that 22 point widened the street and so that’s what should have been done. There wouldn’t have been 23 the issue of a… of the need to build an R… of the need to build a house there. There’s still some 24 question actually as to whether a house can actually be built there because we’re not sure what 25 the soil stability is. So, that’s why I started with 26, looking at safety. There’s a reason why our 26 Code says that a new private street has to be in fact 32-feet serving this number of residences. 27 It’s suppose… like 26 is a bare minimum and only in several circumstances which this street 28 does not meet with the Director’s discretion. 29 30 And even though you can technically… even though a number of people have said this is safe. 31 There’s… in the record there have been complaints from the neighbors long before this 32 property was sold complaining about safety issues here. So, that is why I started with the 26 33 because that would boulevard the ideal doable. We can’t make it 32 here, so that would be the 34 ideal situation that’s doable here. Now, I don’t know if it is actually doable given the power pole 35 on that one side but maybe it is on the other. So, I don’t know enough about the… I mean it’s 36 not all in the drawings. I’m not familiar enough with it all but that’s why I started there. 37 38 We do have a PC, if I start at… again, two wrongs don’t make a right simply because there was… 39 the… simply because the math didn’t properly reflect the ordinance. Doesn’t mean that we Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 130     _______________________ 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 then need to change our PC. There’s just still an application process that needs to be followed, 2 so that’s why I started with this. 3 4 Now, whether this is doable, I mean maybe we need to modify some things and you’re… and I 5 hear what was said about okay if we really want an R-1 house. Do we need to allow for a fence 6 and I would be interested to hear what my fellow Commissioners say about whether moving 7 the fence 4-feet back and keeping it at 3-feet is sufficient. I’m concerned because I’ve tried 8 making turns around fences and it’s difficult but I haven’t seen what it looks like in this 9 particular situation. So, I can’t be the judge here but it sounds like transportation has said that 10 that should be sufficient there. I… you know but other… I don’t know, I think transportation also 11 said that 20-feet was sufficient and the neighbors have said that that isn’t sufficient. So, I… it’s 12 just hard for me to be the judge of that. 13 14 Chair Summa: Yeah and my second, I wanted to have more time to discuss this and hear about 15 it. And I think… I mean I don’t know, not everybody has a fence in their front yard anyway right 16 on the sidewalk, or as close to the sidewalk as you can legally put it. I don’t really… I don’t but I 17 mean so… but I have a weird corner lot situation with a private road so anyway. 18 19 I… we were trying to find a compromise here because something is actually being taken from 20 the people who have use this street for since almost 60-years and it’s… since somebody else 21 purchased it but when it was all part of the PC. It… since somebody else purchased it but when 22 it was all part of the PC it was… it didn’t come up. I came up because of this purchase which 23 may or may not have been a mistake. I’m sure there was no intention on anyone’s part 24 deliberately to do something but I think it's an issue that should be addressed and if the 25 applicants would like to take… should this motion pass as a suggestion to figure out if they 26 could do it this way. I think that’s a reasonable approach but until we rule that out. I feel like… 27 and we’re not able to deal with the issues that Mr. Ross brought up because they’re not issues 28 that our legal department sees the same way but another attorney has represented them as 29 unfair to these people also. So, I can’t do anything about that and so maybe what we can do is 30 change the motion and I would like to add at this time. There’s another thing that we didn’t 31 opine on and that was the new configuration of the four spots that Ms. French provided. It 32 wasn’t in the motion but I wanted… we can bring it up separately after this because we didn’t 33 discuss that. 34 35 So, I see that I have another light, Commissioner Lu. 36 37 Commissioner Lu: Sorry, me or Cari [note - Commissioner Templeton]? 38 39 Chair Summa: You can go. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 131     _______________________ 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 Lu: Okay. Personally, I just feel like it is sufficient and simpler to take the Staff 2 recommendation. It's very hard for me to visualize or I think it's hard for everyone to interpret 3 what exactly that 26-foot easement would mean in practice to the plans. I don’t truly know 4 what that would actually mean for the utility pole or the additional asphalt that would be 5 needed instead of pavers. 6 7 To me, it feels like it introduces complexity and I would personally prefer a motion that is 8 aligned with Slide 12 in the Staff Report. 9 10 Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you and thank you for this detailed motion and giving us a 13 chance to have something to react to. I know it's hard to go first and hats off to you. 14 15 I also share the Chair’s intention of finding a compromise. What I’m struggling with is I don’t 16 feel like the compromise that has been proposed has been viewed that way. We keep moving 17 the starting line for them because these are some proposed changes and I think it’s good to 18 see. And 24-foot is much closer to 26 than 20-foot was, so I think that’s a huge win for the 19 neighbors. 20 21 As far as something being taken away from the neighbors, I’m struggling with getting on board 22 with that concept because the uses that they’re claiming a right to are not authorized uses of 23 that property. So, they were using it, yes, but I’m taking in my mind taken back to my friend 24 who lived between two empty lots and was able to play on those lots and spend time with her 25 family on both of those lots. One of them was sold and turned into a home and while that did 26 take away “her ability to enjoy that space”. It wasn’t her space to begin with and the owners 27 had a right to do with it. She learned she bought the other lot and… on the other side of her 28 house and now it’s a beautiful garden. But I think about that in terms of the use of a space that 29 wasn’t theirs in a way that was allowed or intended but had been indulged and that should be 30 held against the new property owner. I’m really struggling with, so those are some comments in 31 response to our discussion. 32 33 I would love to see this comply more with Slide 12 as well and for the similar reasons that 34 Commissioner Lu mentioned. I feel very uncomfortable extending into the utility right of way 35 which is even more complicated than these driveway right of way. I promise it really is difficult 36 to move those things and sometimes not wise and that’s what we’re hearing right now from 37 the engineers who studied it. So, I am not supportive of this motion as is and if we want to get 38 into a discussion of how we can adjust it together and come to something we can agree with. 39 I’m totally supportive of that, thank you. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 132     _______________________ 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 Summa: Just a couple responses, I was not suggesting they park on there as a matter… 2 the Ellsworth neighbors don’t use it as parking. What it created was a more viable, functional 3 street because it was parking spots and not built on. So, it just… that’s what they’ve had… that’s 4 what they’ve used for nearly 60-years. I’m not an attorney so I’m not going to go into it. I would 5 be… I would like to know whether the maker of the motion would like any amendments or 6 would you like to call the vote because I think it’s time to. 7 8 Vice-Chair Chang: I would just like to make one more comment and I appreciate your analogy 9 about the neighbor who had a house between two empty lots. And this situation is a little bit 10 different because while the other Ellsworth property owners don’t own the PC land. The PC is a 11 PC which is suppose to have a public benefit and even though the public benefit wasn’t 12 specifically to make… to improve the circulation of Ellsworth. It did do that and there was… that 13 was part of the public benefit. You know, maybe not the 100 percent stated public benefit. It 14 did become the public benefit and that was the use over the last many years. And so, the PC 15 has a public benefit and in changing a PC we need to also be creating a public benefit and we’re 16 losing a public benefit in this situation and so, that’s what I’m trying to address. 17 18 I would be open to amendments if somebody has a better suggestion, taking into account what 19 I’m trying to do here but I don’t know if anybody has anything. 20 21 Commissioner Lu: Not to the core point, though I definitely agree in general with your analysis 22 of taking things away or maybe halfway between you and Cari… and Commissioner Templeton, 23 I’m sorry. 24 25 On the site triangle not to be obstructed by plants, fences or objects taller than 1-foot. We 26 could change that to allow it to be taller of the… if the Planning Director approves though. I 27 think that gives more flexibility or it can be no more than 3 but the Planning Director can set 28 the height later based on whatever the final safety analysis is. 29 30 Chair Summa: Commissioner Akin. 31 32 Commissioner Akin: Thank you, Chair. I’m, as you know, I’m always reluctant to dive into 33 designing on the fly. So, let me elaborate on the utility pole just a little longer so you can see 34 what we’re getting into. So, that is the final utility pole in the string and it is braced as Mr. 35 Hayes described and it also… the line dives into an underground service access point at the 36 bottom of that pole. It’s actually braced in a couple of different ways. Now, while it’s physically 37 possible to move that pole, to relocate that pole so that it's further down along the same line 38 and then guyed out in much the same way that it is now simply farther away. You then have to 39 trench to get back to the underground service entrance and relative to the complexities that we 40 could get into. Chair Summa mentioned we haven’t looked at the proposed new parking places. Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 133     _______________________ 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 Doing all of those changes that I just described eliminates one of those places. Right, so there’s 2 an interaction there that it’s hard to characterize in the scope of just one attempt. 3 4 I don’t mean to say that I’m opposed to this extra width. In fact, I think it’s doable and I would 5 prefer that it be wider. However, what has been proposed is a good compromise. So, given the 6 interaction with the other elements that are part of this proposal, I don’t know what to do. 7 8 Vice-Chair Chang: Well, so that wasn’t exactly an amendment but what I’d like to see… I mean 9 part of my concern also with this is that the 24-feet that was proposed was I think 35-feet deep. 10 So, not very deep if I… if… Ms. French, could you pull up the diagram? Yeah, and there was 11 another… at some point, somebody had shown a photo of how far deep it is and it just isn’t 12 very. 13 14 Ms. French: I’m sharing my screen. 15 16 Vice-Chair Chang: Far (interrupted) 17 18 Ms. French: Can you see the distances? Beyond 35-feet the… I can toggle back and forth 19 (interrupted) 20 21 Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah because right now if you visit the site the entire length is the eight-car 22 widths of parking, correct? 23 24 Ms. French: No, if I… I’ll go to that screen. The parking doesn’t start for some distance. The 25 parking… sorry, the parking starts beyond that first 35-feet. The 35-foot site triangle starts from 26 the curb of Middlefield. So, it’s some like here, the 35-feet, so the parking spaces don’t start for 27 some (interrupted) 28 29 Vice-Chair Chang: Right so the 35-feet isn’t very far at all and I think that was my concern. So, I 30 guess my question is how far back does the parking… does that power pole go and how far back 31 can we go? So, if not the full 100-feet (interrupted) 32 33 Ms. French: So, I’m going to (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Templeton: And can you (interrupted) 36 37 Ms. French: I’m going to share the screen that shows, so the 35-foot site triangles stop about 38 right here. It’s drawn to the curb of Middlefield. 39 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 134     _______________________ 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 Chang: No, but then the width of the… 24-foot width was proposed to go further 2 back than the site triangle I think. 3 4 Ms. French: Yes. 5 6 [note – several folks started talking at once] 7 8 Ms. French: To here (interrupted) 9 10 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 11 12 Ms. French: And then the guy wires and the pole are up here. So, this is why on Dewey’s 13 property this was the terminus of that width extension. 14 15 Vice-Chair Chang: Because of the guy wire. 16 17 Ms. French: Because of the guy wire and the pole and then this is where the proposed space 18 was going to go to avoid being a tandem space. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton: And Vice-Chair Chang, where you asking on Slide 12 how deep that 21 red block is? 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: I think it’s 35-feet if I understood correctly. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton: She said it's more than 35-feet, much more. 26 27 Ms. French: This here? 28 29 Commissioner Templeton: No, please go to Slide 12, the red block. 30 31 Ms. French: This is yeah, much deeper than… because the 35 (interrupted) 32 33 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, how deep is that? 34 35 Ms. French: Stops about right here between Middlefield and here is where it stops. 36 37 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay so how deep is it from the front of the property line? 38 39 Ms. French: Well, the property line is right here. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 135     _______________________ 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 Chang: Right. 2 3 Ms. French: So, that’s going to be… I would ask the architect to state (interrupted) 4 5 Vice-Chair Chang: It's about 50 or 40-feet or something like that. 6 7 Ms. French: I think it’s more than 50. 8 9 Vice-Chair Chang: Well, if the whole thing is 100 so it’s less than half. 10 11 Ms. French: Oh okay, so (interrupted) 12 13 Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah, 40-feet or something like that. 14 15 Ms. French: Okay so this is shifty, about right here so just the red thing is probably… and of 16 course, I drew the red thing to go all the way to the sidewalk, back of sidewalk. So, it stops… 17 here’s the property line, here’s the property line, but the 35 is from here to about here. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton: But it’s not as deep on the other side. It’s a few feet short on the 20 other sides because of the pole. 21 22 Ms. French: Yes, I’ll go back to this diagram that shows. 23 24 Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah, I mean I still remain concerned though about that front section about it 25 just not being wide enough. Especially given the neighbor’s concerns about where the fence 26 was so I don’t know what to do about that. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton: It's currently wide enough like they use it. They’ve been using it for 29 60-years at the current width, right? 30 31 Vice-Chair Chang: And then when the fence was put in there were dings in the fence. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton: Because they don’t have this paved extra part. We’re talking about 34 adding 4-feet. 35 36 Vice-Chair Chang: You mean the other side? 37 38 Commissioner Templeton: We’re talking about adding 4-feet. 39 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 136     _______________________ 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 Chang: I’m not sure I understand. I think we’re talking about adding the feet on the 2 other side. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: [off mic] It’s both sides, it’s on both sides. 5 6 Vice-Chair Chang: If I understood correctly, when you add… when the fence was there it was 7 24-feet. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: They said they moved it a few feet so I don’t know. 10 11 Chair Summa: [unintelligible – off mic] 12 13 Vice-Chair Chang: Can you ask them in the mic? 14 15 Chair Summa: So, can you clarify that the sort of reddish brown lines that proceed sort of 16 those? 17 18 Ms. French: Yes. 19 20 Chair Summa: Those are the new proposed widths. 21 22 Ms. French: Correct, this is 30-inches wide (interrupted) 23 24 Chair Summa: Right. 25 26 Ms. French: Until you get to the guy wire. This is 18 inches wide until you get to the walkway. 27 28 Chair Summa: Would it be an advantage… I mean we’re talking about a foot on each side. 29 Would it be an advantage to increase the width to 26 from 24 just in the area that’s ready being 30 increased to 24? 31 32 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, it would. I mean I know it sounds… I know that the 2-feet sounds 33 ridiculous but as my architect told me in a remodel and the architects in the audience can see if 34 they say this to their clients. But you know, 2 out of 26 is something like less than 10 percent 35 which is significant, right so it’s as a percentage of what is there and it is significant and 36 particularly right at the mouth. That is where it’s a significant amount so maybe that’s what we 37 need to do. 38 39 Chair Summa: May I make a suggestion (interrupted) 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 137     _______________________ 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 Chang: Sure. 2 3 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 4 5 Chair Summa: In a form of an amendment that we amend it to read, to increase the width to 26 6 in the distances that are being… currently being proposed in an increase in 2 and that we have 7 story poles put up for a described number of weeks, whatever is the standard and also, to 8 represent this stuff. So, people on Ellsworth, everybody, can experience it and see how it’s 9 going to work. We don’t use these kinds of things often enough and I think the illegal fence 10 wasn’t really providing that sort of information. So, I think we might be able to resolve some of 11 these issues if people could see what it felt like by using a story pole type of thing. And also, we 12 could mark the site triangles and the 3-foot requested fence. Leave that up for 6-weeks or 13 whatever is standard Ms. French and then have the… have everyone comment on it. It might be 14 quicker than resolving it in a motion this evening. 15 16 Ms. French: With a… if I may, with qualification I don’t think we want to put story poles to block 17 the triangles. I think that would want to be tape or something (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Summa: Well, yeah. 20 21 Ms. French: At the ground level. 22 23 Chair Summa: Yeah, just [unintelligible](interrupted) 24 25 Ms. French: So as not to cause (interrupted) 26 27 Chair Summa: Just open poles with, not solid but with you know tape so everybody can see 28 what it’s going to look like and see if it serves the role of the best compromise we can make. 29 Would that be…? 30 31 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 32 33 Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah, I think that’s a great idea, accepted. 34 35 Chair Summa: Accepted, okay. 36 37 Vice-Chair Chang: And so, we’re reintroducing the fence as suggested, 4-feet setback as Ms. 38 Star-Lack had suggested too. So, we’re not going to say… we’ll keep the plants no taller than 1- 39 foot but we can reintroduce the fence at 3-feet height, right? 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 138     _______________________ 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 Summa: Yes, in a form of temporary visual aide so people can experience. Story poles is 2 just the word I knew. It may not be the right term. Temporary visual aid so people can 3 experience what this is going to be like in actual use and I think that would help Commissioner 4 Lu also. 5 6 Ms. French: So, we’re mocking up a fence, a 3-foot fence? Is that part of the (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Summa: And a 26-foot wide distance. 9 10 Ms. French: Okay. 11 12 Chair Summa: And I would also indicate where the site triangles are. I mean it's not a 13 complicated thing to do and I think it might elevate a lot of concerns and I don’t know how 14 typically… how long you typically have to leave that up to ensure that people will experience it. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: I have my hand up, Chair. 17 18 Chair Summa: Yes, go ahead. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton: So, I do love the idea of rabbit prototyping it. I still not sold on why it 21 needs to be 26-feet there and I’m very uncomfortable at the idea of even suggesting that they 22 couldn’t have a fence around their property when they’re adjacent to a major street like 23 Middlefield. I mean you want to talk about safety, that’s not very unsafe. So (interrupted) 24 25 Chair Summa: Wasn’t suggest that they couldn’t have a fence, it was to say that if it interfered 26 with the site (interrupted) 27 28 Commissioner Templeton: I’m… sorry, I was talking about the original motion and she was 29 (interrupted) 30 31 Chair Summa: Oh, okay sorry. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton: Suggesting no fence, so I… we’re still not there as far as if I would 34 support this motion because they need to be able to have a fence for sure. And if the story 35 poles are going to go up we should do it at 24-feet because that’s what the compromise offered 36 by the applicant and when then we’d see whether that works or not. And then they would have 37 a better case for making if they need 26-feet or not, so those are some feedback on the 38 changes. 39 40 Ms. Star-Lack: Chair Summa? Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 139     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: Yes. 3 4 Ms. Star-Lack: Hi, sorry I just… Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager, I just… sorry, 5 just wanted to note that the story poles, adding those so that folks will be able to experience a 6 different width, is a little bit of a misnomer because the stop signs exist in the current location 7 within the area that you’re discussing. As does the cable box I believe that the applicant talked 8 about having to relocate. So, I just want to make sure that everyone understands there’s some 9 existing things in that zone. 10 11 Chair Summa: Yeah, but I think that the people that use this road all the time can kind of see… 12 can kind of see around those things. 13 14 Ms. Star-Lack: Okay, I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware it’s not going to be an actual 15 simulation of the actual width. There’s stuff in the way, thank you. 16 17 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you for that. 18 19 Commissioner Lu: So [unintelligible – off mic], oh so just so I understand how the motion is 20 going to work. We’re going to have placeholder numbers as… well, not placeholder but default 21 numbers, this 26 and 1-foot and then do the poles. So, that when this gets to Council they can 22 decide or like how would that work? Like when do we make [unintelligible](interrupted) 23 24 Chair Summa: I think it has to come back to us. If you are happy with the motion we should call 25 the vote. 26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: I’m happy with the motion as it is. 28 29 Chair Summa: Okay, Ms. Dao, will you conduct the vote, please? 30 31 Commissioner Lu: Oh, there’s a hand from the applicant. 32 33 Chair Summa: Oh. 34 35 Ms. Handa: Hey, can I speak? 36 37 Chair Summa: Yes, please. 38 39 Ms. Handa: I just want to be sure, number one the PC Amendment you are suggesting, which 40 basically tells me that my lot will also be a PC, that’s the recommendation. I presume it’s going Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 140     _______________________ 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 to be a separate PC, it’s not going to be within the same PC that exists today which means I am 2 [unintelligible] the whole thing with Mr. Dewey. It’s going to be separate independent PC for 3 me. That’s the amendment being suggested, is that correct? 4 5 [Note - unknown female speaker:] No. 6 7 Chair Summa: What the Staff alternate recommendation was to keep it all one PC as we 8 discussed on June 28th. 9 10 Vice-Chair Chang: It’s one PC but two parcels. 11 12 Ms. French: In fact, yes the Staff Report said an alternative is to keep it a PC and add the single- 13 family use but I believe also at some point, there was a statement that there’s options for that 14 alternate recommendation that include an individual PC for Mr. Handa’s parcel. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: Or an individual R-1 with lot restriction or property restrictions of 17 some sort. 18 19 Ms. French: Right, that’s the other approach so. 20 21 Ms. Handa: Yeah exactly, you know having it as an independent lot for me is very important. 22 You know, if it is part of the same PC and same piece of land that Mr. Dewey has, it’s basically 23 very complicate in terms of selling it or in terms of having clear ownership. So, having it as an 24 independent lot for me, preferably as R-1 lot because that’s what the City told me. It is R-1, 25 preferably R-1 lot with the restrictions we are proposing through some deed restriction, 26 whatever way Mr. Yang might suggest. That could be an approach, you know okay with that but 27 having it as part of same PC as Mr. Dewey has today and not having it as an independent lot 28 doesn’t serve the purpose. 29 30 Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Templeton, do you have your light on again? No, okay 31 thank you. So, okay, I think we need to talk to Mr. Yang at this point because I think we can do 32 one thing tonight. We can amend Mr. Dewey’s PC and then come back with a separate hearing, 33 is that possible still to decide what to do exactly on 702 or is that not possible at this time? 34 35 Mr. Yang: You could do that. You could have a motion that applies to the 2901 parcel and then 36 continue the 702 Ellsworth piece, but I guess just looking at the motion on the board right now 37 this mostly relates to 702. 38 39 Chair Summa: The motion on the board right now basically is to mock up a situation so 40 everyone can experience it and it’s… it can be limited to that. If that gets us… I’m a little Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 141     _______________________ 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 concerned about our schedule and keeping everybody here for this kind of circular 2 conversation so. 3 4 Vice-Chair Chang: And I don’t think I understand enough… because it wasn’t in our Staff Report 5 about detailing sort of the pros and cons and differences between a PC versus an R-1 with 6 restrictions and the various intricacies and differences between those two and the implications. 7 So, I don’t feel like I can on the fly right now make a motion that distinguishes between… I 8 understand from Mr. Handa’s perspective that there’s definitely a benefit for one over the 9 other but I don’t know what I’m trading off, if anything. 10 11 Mr. Yang: [unintelligible] 12 13 Vice-Chair Chang: So, I just don’t have enough information. 14 15 Mr. Yang: I think from Staff’s perspective there’s not an appreciable difference between the 16 various forms that this could take. So, having one PC versus two PCs doesn’t change how the 17 City would be able to enforce any of these items and I think we do… I do appreciate the desire 18 not to have these two separate property owners governed by on PC because then if one of 19 them wants to make an amends. They have to coordinate with the other and the application 20 process for that is sort of unnecessarily complicated. 21 22 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 23 24 Chair Summa: So, then the zone… the motion would have to be amended to say, amend PC 25 2343 to add single-family residential… no, amend PC 2343 to remove blah blah blah portion 26 from it and do the following to 2343. And then we would have to end this motion, create a 27 separate PC for 702 and the first step of that would start with this mockup situation so we 28 could all experience it. 29 30 Vice-Chair Chang: Can… is that a suggested amendment Chair? 31 32 Chair Summa: Yes. 33 34 Vice-Chair Chang: I accept that amendment. 35 MOTION RESTATED 36 37 Vice-Chair Chang: So, we are… so what we are doing is amending PC 2343 and adding whatever 38 PC it will be for 702. We are proposing the parking changes for 2343 and we are suggesting a 39 mock-up for changes that are being asked for at 702. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 142     _______________________ 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: So, point two goes at the top, Veronica. I think you’ve got them 2 (interrupted) 3 4 Ms. French: So, on the very first sentence we would say, amend PC 2343 to remove 702 5 Ellsworth from PC 2343 and, and then we would have a one and a two each governing each PC 6 and we’ll have to move those things so this could take a while. Thank you, Veronica. 7 8 Chair Summa: If everybody understands the intent of that which is to amend PC 2343 by 9 removing 702 from it and to create a new PC for 702 and the requirements on 2343, which is 10 basically four new parking spots only. And then we would like PC… the new PC to come back to 11 us after this trial has happened. If everyone’s clear about that I think we can vote, except I see 12 that Mr. Handa has a hand up. 13 14 Commissioner Templeton: I have a comment as well. 15 16 Ms. Handa: Yeah sorry, you know the most important thing on Item A where you are suggesting 17 the width of Ellsworth Place to be widened to 26-feet. Amy, just show the map once again, that 18 slide so that we are sure where exactly it is getting widened. 19 20 Ms. French: Yes, one moment. Oops, gosh, sorry. There we go, is this what we want shown, Mr. 21 Handa? 22 23 Ms. Handa: Yeah, I mean so it says that it’s going to be widened in the area which was shown as 24 24 which I believe cut somewhere because of the guy wire. It cut somewhere 1… 2/3 part of 25 that red area, right? 26 27 Ms. French: I’m going to share this slide that’s in tonight’s deck that shows the brown around 28 yours, Mr. Handa, goes all the way up to your walkway whereas Mr. Dewey’s is short because 29 of the guy wire. 30 31 Mr. Handa: And the 24-feet which we were proposing was up to where Mr. Dewey’s guy wires 32 are located, right? That’s the area you are suggesting to widen to 26 total. 33 34 Ms. French: Mr. Handa is asking if the area to the left that goes to the guy wire is the limit of 35 the 26-foot width that’s being proposed with this motion. Would it be equal on both sides of 36 the street? If I understand you correctly Mr. Handa. 37 38 Mr. Handa: Yeah, yeah. 39 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 143     _______________________ 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 Summa: It could be. I think what we should… well, I want to hear from my colleagues but 2 it could be that. I don’t know what the difference is in feet because this view doesn’t show it 3 but it could be if that’s what agreeable to everyone, but I want to call on Commissioner Akin. 4 5 Commissioner Akin: I differ to my colleague. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: I’m sorry, I definitely want to hear from you and I just wanted to 8 check the motion that she has written doesn’t sound anything like what you guys just said and 9 I’m a little concerned we’re not on the same page. So (interrupted) 10 11 [note – someone spoke off mic] 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: Veronica. 14 15 Ms. French: Back to you, Veronica. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: Sorry and I know it’s really hard, that’s no dis on you. Veronica is 18 amazing everybody. It’s just we changed a lot and it doesn’t… I was going to propose when we 19 said we were going to vote either… it’s changed a lot since then. Do you want to (interrupted) 20 21 Vice-Chair Chang: [off mic] Restate it? 22 23 Commissioner Templeton: Restate it, withdraw it, change it. Like I don’t know where we are but 24 I’m… I would not… I’m not ready to vote for this, what’s written. 25 26 Chair Summa: No, I think we did restate the motion and I think (interrupted) 27 28 Commissioner Templeton: It’s not written (interrupted) 29 30 Chair Summa: Staff is writing it up. I don’t think they’re done with it (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Templeton: Okay. 33 34 Chair Summa: And it’s a very simple motion that creates two PCs. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton: It is not simple. 37 38 Chair Summa: It’s pretty simple. It creates two PCs, 2343… PC 2343 has 702 removed from it 39 and has to provide four additional parking spots. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 144     _______________________ 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: It has 12 bullets, it’s like complicated, but I want to just throw that 2 out there that as stated I can’t support it and I would propose the Staff motion if we go forward 3 with this. But I would love to change it to what you guys described but we don’t have that yet. 4 Thanks. 5 6 Chair Summa: No, we’re working on it with Staff’s help. Commissioner Akin. 7 8 Commissioner Akin: Right, just to clarify, there’s a lot more that has to go into 2343 than just 9 the four parking spaces because the extended width is part of the equation for 2343 too. So, 10 how you manage the tradeoffs between the two separate PCs is a very interesting and 11 complicated question in its own right. That was the advantage of keeping it as one PC, there’s 12 one decision to be made. 13 14 Chair Summa: I agree, I had assumed that’s what the Staff… I thought that’s what we were 15 talking about in… on June 28th but. Commissioner Lu. 16 17 Commissioner Lu: Personally, I feel… yeah, this just gets really complicated and very difficult for 18 me to image what the 26-feet looks like. Very just in terms of like in this would we actually need 19 to specify how many feet come off from each side? I would personally be comfortable just 20 advancing Slide 12 as is, just kind of full stop, but otherwise, I would suggest amending this 21 motion to change the defaults to be 24-feet and 3-feet. Simply so we can (interrupted) 22 23 Vice-Chair Chang: I think we got there, I think we were there. In other words, so we had to 24 change it to 26-feet in the distances that are currently proposed as 24-feet by increasing by 1 25 foot on each side; that describes how. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton: But he said 24 and I’m also at 24 just to let you know. 28 29 Vice-Chair Chang: I understand that but that’s… but that would help visualize it and that would 30 not make it complicated to visualize then so. 31 32 Commissioner Lu: [off mic] It’s the utility pole for me. That [unintelligible](interrupted) 33 34 Vice-Chair Chang: But no, we won’t… we’re not reaching the utility pole anymore. Right, so 35 we’re just… we’re solving my problem which is (interrupted) 36 37 Commissioner Lu: Got it. 38 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 145     _______________________ 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 Chang: Which is upfront, I don’t think it’s wide enough according to what the 2 neighbors are saying. So, upfront where there’s no utility pole and there is space to widen. We 3 widen by 1-foot on either side. 4 5 Commissioner Lu: Okay, sorry things totally make sense to me now I believe. 6 7 Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, okay. 8 9 Commissioner Lu: I would still believe 24-feet is a reasonable number given that the current 10 choke point is 20-feet. 11 12 Vice-Chair Chang: Right. 13 14 Commissioner Lu: And yeah, but (interrupted) 15 16 Vice-Chair Chang: So, we can agree to disagree there. 17 18 Commissioner Lu: That’s just [unintelligible]. 19 20 Chair Summa: Okay, let’s clean up this motion and vote on it really quickly now because we’re 21 really behind schedule also. So, let’s vote on a motion that amended PC 2343 to remove 702 22 Ellsworth and to require the garbage pick-up enclosure, so G would stay with it. H would stay 23 with it, that would be for both. I mean… whoops. It went bye-bye. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton: And we don’t want the other property to be R-1, do we? So, we got 26 to change that first bullet. 27 28 Vice-Chair Chang: [off mic] It’s not suppose to be R-1, it’s suppose to have a second PC. 29 30 Chair Summa: I would remove B, I think it’s unnecessary because we’re not going to do that 31 that way. The curb cut at Middlefield applies to both. So, we can identify the standards that 32 apply to both sides right now and achieve the (interrupted) 33 34 Mr. Yang: Sorry, if you just wait for one minute. Veronica, [unintelligible] this point this 35 updated. 36 37 Chair Summa: Yeah. 38 39 Mr. Yang: Sorry. 40 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 146     _______________________ 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 Summa: Okay. 2 3 Chair Summa: Curb… 4 5 Mr. Yang: So, the one clarification that I have is the idea of coming back to the PTC. Just looking 6 at the motion for 702, everything is very well defined in a way that wouldn’t need to return to 7 the PTC. 8 9 Chair Summa: I think it looks good and I don’t… I think it is a very minor deviation from what 10 Mr. Dewey and Mr. Handa wanted. And I think it might be the best we’re going to get now and 11 I’m very sorry but I think the Ellsworth people are going to have to pursue some of the issues 12 by… in a different way; whether it’s with the City or in another manner. So, I would say, if 13 everybody is comfortable with this as written, that we vote on it. Ms. Dao? 14 15 VOTE 16 17 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin? 18 19 Commissioner Akin: Yes. 20 21 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu? 22 23 Commissioner Lu: No. 24 25 Ms. Dao: Vice-Chair Chang? 26 27 Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 28 29 Ms. Dao: Chair Summa? 30 31 Chair Summa: Yes. 32 33 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Templeton? 34 35 Commissioner Templeton: No. 36 37 Ms. Dao: Motion carries 3-2. 38 39 MOTION PASSED 3(Akin, Chang, Summa) – 2(Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Hechtman, Reckdahl 40 absent) Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 147     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who came here this evening. Oh, 3 would you like to speak to your no-motion? Commissioner Templeton. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I don’t support this because I don’t think it needs to come back 6 to the PTC. I don’t think it needs to have this level of control and I specifically am opposed to 7 the 26-feet. I think 24-feet is a compromise that was offered in good faith by the applicants and 8 I think feel that it is surprising that the… that there are people that want more because that is a 9 tremendous improvement over the street already. And that would be taking away property 10 from the applicant whereas nothing has been taken away but instead given to the 11 neighborhood by the compromised proposal… proposed compromise I mean. 12 13 I also think that we have made a lot of improvements. We’ve seen a lot of improvements from 14 the applicant for safety at Middlefield as well and I think that obviously, we need to have a 15 fence available for the property owner. So, I totally object to Point 2 (d) in every way, thank 16 you. 17 18 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu? 19 20 Commissioner Lu: I think I could ultimately live with the 26-feet but I generally agree with Cari 21 [note – Commissioner Templeton] and don’t think… sorry, Commissioner Templeton and don’t 22 think… I don’t think we can productively understand 24 versus 26-feet any better next time and 23 would be very comfortable advancing 24-feet as is, so that’s my take. 24 25 Chair Summa: Thank you very much for that and thank you to everyone in the room. I think 26 we’ll take a little itsy-bitsy short mini-break but come back as quickly as you can, please. 27 28 [The Commission took a short break] 29 30 Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Summa. Passed 3-2-2 (Hechtman, Reckdahl 31 absent) 32 Item 3 Attachment D PTC 7.12.2023 Verbatim excerpt 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 148     _______________________ 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 Planning & Transportation Commission 2 Action Agenda: June 28, 2023 3 Council Chambers & Virtual 4 6:00 PM 5 6 7 2. 2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend 8 Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R-1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth 9 Place to Enable the Development of a Single-Story, Single-Family Residence 10 11 Chair Summa: Item Number Two which is 2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place. 12 Request for rezoning to amend Planned Community 2343 and to apply R-1 Zoning to 702 13 Ellsworth Place to enable the development of a single-story, single-family residences. And 14 before we get started, could we go down the line and are there any disclosures? 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes, I had a conversation with counsel for the applicant where we 17 discussed the content of her June 8th letter and the plan set that was associated with it. 18 19 Commissioner Lu: I had a brief email exchange with Ken Hayes the architect on the project 20 where we actually decided not to meet and so did not discuss anything. 21 22 Commissioner Akin: And I had a brief email exchange with Richard Dewey and decided that it 23 was also the better part of valor to not meet. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 149     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: Thank you and I did have a call also from the applicant’s attorney and declined to 3 meet. 4 5 I did several site visits and on one I met a resident who… and her husband who own a house 6 there because they saw me poking around and I wanted to introduce myself. So, that they 7 didn’t think I was doing something nefarious and I did learn a couple of things from her and she 8 was very generous with her time. She took me over to a private street that’s just north of 9 Sutter. It kind of abuts the south end of the Safeway there if that makes sense, called San 10 Carlos, to point out how differently that private street was signed. There’s signage at 11 Middlefield and interior to the project siting saying it’s a private street and also siting what I 12 think is California Vehicle Code about no parking. And she also indicated to me, and I don’t 13 [note – video skipped] time that they had no idea it was a private street when they bought it. 14 So, I just wanted to let people know that and I did note at the same time that Ellsworth Street 15 has what appears to be a regular City street sign. Not one of the private signs I noticed on San 16 Carlos and then applicant Mr. Dewey texted me yesterday but unfortunately I just… he wanted 17 me to… offered to do a site visit today but I just didn’t have any time to do it at that late 18 moment. And any other members of the community that may have mentioned it to me or 19 spoken to me about it. I didn’t really speak to them and I didn’t learn anything that was not in 20 the public record so. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 150     _______________________ 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 2 Commissioner Templeton: I also have no disclosures, Chair. 3 4 Chair Summa: Pardon me? 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: I also have no disclosures. 7 8 Chair Summa: Oh, thank you, thank you, sorry. That having been done we’ll move onto the Staff 9 report. 10 11 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official and I 12 have with me today Garrett Sauls who is accompanying on this project. We started off with a 13 prescreening for this application, so next slide. This is the process for amending a PC. It’s similar 14 to establishing a PC for the first time. We do a Council prescreening, which we did in March and 15 then we proceed onto the Planning and Transportation Commission to provide input and 16 review an ordinance and forward that on. In this case, it is not a new development of a multi- 17 family residential apartment building. It exists and so there would not be an Architectural 18 Review Board Major Project Review because what is proposed is a single-story single-family 19 home on the 702 Ellsworth parcel. The parcel exists, the parcel includes the pink shape there on Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 151     _______________________ 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 the screen and Ellsworth Place as an easement across it. So, the Planning and Transportation 2 Commission would provide a recommendation to Council for their consideration, next slide. 3 4 This shows the parcels that exist. Mr. Dewey owns three parcels, APN 127-35-194 in the orange 5 outline there and then Mr. Handa, who is here as well, owns Parcel A-4, 127-35-152 is the 6 parcel number there. So, we’re looking at four parcels that exist, three of those are on Mr. 7 Dewey’s parcel. One is on this property and is Mr. Handa’s property. So, the proposal is to 8 separate those out by returning Parcel A-4 to the R-1 Zone that shows on our Zoning Map and 9 then retain PC zoning on those three parcels Mr. Dewey owns. So, moving on and this just 10 shows that the Comprehensive Plan has been unchanged for decades showing 702 Ellsworth as 11 single-family residential land use designation and the Dewey parcel as a multi-family 12 residential. 13 14 And then we have a little bit of history showing the former house that was there. A one-story 15 home back in the day on Mr. Handa’s parcel and Ellsworth Place as well on that parcel. Of 16 course, that Ellsworth Place has served the homes on the back side of that first home for 17 decades beginning in 1938 through ’49 when those homes were built. Along comes a Planned 18 Community that involved parcels along Middlefield, including the dentist office that I use to go 19 there for my dentist growing up here, farther up north on Middlefield. That came through with 20 a PC. Then later that PC was reduced in size and modified with a Conditional Use Permit to see Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 152     _______________________ 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 the result that you see today which is a multi-family apartment building on Mr. Dewey’s parcel 2 and guest parking for that apartment building on 702 Ellsworth. 3 4 Then we have the request, so the request is that again, to separate… to reduce the size of the 5 PC and modify the ordinance to remove 702 Ellsworth from the PC. That is what’s proposed and 6 just noting there’s… and the applicant has provided background regarding the purchase of the 7 property and what was showing and still shows today on our Zoning Map. It shows Ellsworth as 8 R-1 and it shows Mr. Dewey’s property as RM-20. However, we know they’re affected by the PC 9 that was adopted. 10 11 So, this just shows what was approved back through the Conditional Use Permit process 12 following that Planned Community. It shows Mr. Handa’s parcel in blue with guest parking 13 spaces that still exist today, are paved with asphalt but are proposed to be removed and then 14 the next slide shows the proposal to stripe open uncovered spaces on Mr. Dewey’s parcel to 15 provide for uncovered parking spaces. Two of those are in… actually, they’re all in tandem 16 fashion and then a delivery parking space on Mr. Dewey’s parcel, as well as showing site 17 distance triangle areas in that red dashed line for the corner areas where Ellsworth meets up 18 with Middlefield. So, in the last several months, as things were going to prescreening with the 19 Council, they modified several things such as moved the garbage and recycling truck pickup to Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 153     _______________________ 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 Sutter Avenue. It had formally been taking place on Ellsworth where you see those proposed 2 tandem pink parking spaces near the delivery spot that they’re proposing. 3 4 And this was provided in the Council Packet as well as here we have a (or it might be in the 5 presentation last time) a comparison table showing what the original PC was proposed, the 6 proposed PC that reduces the site area of the PC, and then the proposed one-story home on 7 the proposed home site, taking into account reduction of the street area from that area that 8 provides the basis for the Floor Area for the proposed home. 9 10 And I think I have maybe a couple more slides. I’m going to turn it over to Garrett, he’s been 11 busy working on the tree issue and landscaping. 12 13 Mr. Garrett Sauls, Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Garrett Sauls, so as Ms. 14 French was noting. There was back in 2018 a tree removed on the… what was zoned the R-1 or 15 single-family zoned parcel. That at the time was communicated … the applicant had a 16 conversation with the City’s Urban Forester and with the understanding at that time that it was 17 reflected in our Zoning Map as an R-1 property. The Urban Forester had said that that removal 18 could take place and they wouldn’t necessarily have to go through an Architectural Review 19 process, which would otherwise normally be required for a PC district or a commercial property Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 154     _______________________ 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 owner that chooses to remove any sort of landscaping or modify their approved landscaped 2 plans. 3 4 And as a result of trying to course correct for that issue, the applicant has provided for, as a 5 result of removing that oak tree that’s highlighted in this, as you can see my curser moving 6 around it. The tree that was highlighted… sorry, removed again within that area, they proposed 7 six additional trees which are shown on the left side of the images. These trees kind of 8 highlighted or circled in… outlined. In reviewing that with the current City Arborist, the 9 replacement based on the canopy of that tree that was removed would have been… today 10 would have been the requirement of four trees. So, the applicant has proposed additional trees 11 beyond that replacement requirement. All of them being native, which again is something that 12 the City has been prioritizing with its new Tree Ordinance. 13 14 So, some additional information about the project itself. What the applicant has provided staff 15 is kind of a general understanding of what house it is that they’re looking to do. Staff has 16 provided commentary on how that home would or wouldn’t conform to R-1 Zone District 17 standards for the parcel. This is the 702 Ellsworth Place parcel, so there are certain limitations, 18 in particular, for the parcel related to the front or special setback along Middlefield Road. 19 Having the rear setback of 20-feet and then having the kind of interior side along the creek and 20 then the street side along the same shared Ellsworth Place Street. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 155     _______________________ 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 2 Additional items to note as a part of that submittal that was or that documentation that was 3 provided to staff is that the applicant is not proposing any sort of basement. They were 4 proposing to incorporate a wider driveway along Ellsworth Place such that as you can note on 5 the bottom of the image that you see here. This represents the parcel line shared between Mr. 6 Dewey’s property and Mr. Handa’s property. So, this represents a 20-foot distance which is 7 what the current easement is right now and then beyond that what is being shown is this red 8 line that you see over here. The applicant… Mr. Handa excuse me was proposing to have a 9 building set back even further than that which would be 10-feet creating a visual space within 10 this area of about 30-feet. The other things that they were noting as a part of that drawing was 11 that they would have a shorter fence along Middlefield Road. So, that they can maintain or 12 meet the City’s required visibility triangle at those driveway intersections, and some of the 13 other items that the applicant has proposed as a part of their application where to incorporate 14 pavers along both Mr. Handa’s property on the other side of the Ellsworth Place easement as 15 well as what you’ll see in a couple slides later some pavers on Mr. Dewey’s property. Which 16 again, would try to provide for additional visibility or additional visual width towards that 17 driveway area; which is something that the City Staff has raised as part of the… some questions 18 to the PTC about how that should be maintained going forward. Whether or not that would be 19 adequate to be able to provide that actual meaningful visibility and capability for people to 20 drive within that space is certainly a question that can be discussed. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 156     _______________________ 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 2 Ms. French: Here’s another slide that we shared with the City Council at the prescreening. 3 There are a number, in fact, most, of the lots along Ellsworth are considered substandard… 4 technically substandard by Code definition. And that has something to do with the Matadero 5 Creek there - sometime decades back that kind of chewed some of the depth of those lots, but 6 you can see all the lots in blue are substandard. And then across the street, there are R-2 lots 7 also and then there’s one that’s not substandard, a lot at 705 Ellsworth that’s a two-story home 8 - because it is not substandard by definition. So, the definition is at the bottom of the screen 9 there to understand that. With 702, because the street is on top of the lot at the parcel, you 10 would reduce the lot area for the purpose of calculating Gross Floor Area by the size of that 11 Ellsworth private street 2,000-square feet. So, it impacts the amount of Floor Area but 12 technically it doesn’t become a substandard lot because the width of the lot does not subtract 13 the private street easement. So, it cannot be called a substandard lot as it exists today. 14 15 This is just another slide that I believe we showed to the Planning and Transportation 16 Commission. There’s a bike network that shows a Class 2 lane that is planned from Moreno to 17 Loma Verde, so that’s important because we’re all looking at the potential safety concerns 18 along Middlefield as relates to Ellsworth. There are some bullets over here on the left that 19 began to summarize some of the concerns the neighbors expressed during the City Council Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 157     _______________________ 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 prescreening. So, I believe that the folks are here to speak to this item will provide more detail 2 on those concerns. 3 4 And we just had another slide there that showed some… the easement. The City does have 5 some easement across there to maintain the sewer pipes that are in that easement or private 6 street on Ellsworth. That… they’re on Mr. Handa’s property and there are some other 7 easements reflected there. And this is kind of an old map that you can see from 1958 on the 8 right that shows what the parcels use to be zoned and it shows how the first PC that came 9 through included those parcels to the north of Sutter as well to change those, the zoning there. 10 11 So, I think that concludes our report, just that the Planning Commission is asked to conduct the 12 public hearing - we have a number of speakers - and tackle the recommendation to Council. 13 Thank you. 14 15 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you for that and I think we should go to the applicant first for their 16 presentation, thanks. 17 18 Mr. Ken Hayes: Am I able to? 19 20 Ms. French: [off mic] Or you can just say next slide. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 158     _______________________ 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 2 Mr. Hayes: I know, it’s just such an interruption. 3 4 Ms. French: [off mic] I know. 5 6 Mr. Hayes: No, that’s fine. I’ll… we’ll just go from there. Good evening, Chair Summa, Members 7 of the Commission. My names Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’m joined tonight by my 8 client Richard Dewey with RLD Land. Also joined by Gary Black … he’s our transportation 9 consultant with Hexagon Transportation so he can answer any questions that you might have 10 related to the safety of the pedestrian and traffic and so on. Also joined by Nitin Handa who is 11 the current owner of 702 Ellsworth and the principle with RRP Homes and so he actually would 12 like to say a few words when I’m finished tonight. 13 14 I want to thank Amy French, the Chief Planning Official, for her expertise and personal attention 15 to this item and for helping us navigate the City process. This hearing, let’s go to the first slide I 16 guess, second slide probably. First slide is our logo, I’m sorry. 17 18 [note – many folks started talking off mic at once] 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 159     _______________________ 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. Hayes: So, yeah, Garrett please… yeah, there you go. So, this hearing is for consideration of 2 amending… number one, amending a 56-year-old uncodified, unrecorded PC Ordinance that 3 involved two parcels of land. Number two, rectifying the recently discovered Zoning Map error 4 that has persisted for 56-year-old and upon which two property owners relied for real estate 5 transactions. Number three, creating an opportunity for a new single-family home, as staff has 6 just discussed. Four, consolidating apartment parking on one parcel that is conforming to 7 current City requirements for multi-family parking. Number five, modifying an ingress and 8 egress easement to access other properties on Ellsworth. And lastly, increasing pedestrian and 9 bicycle safety at Ellsworth and providing for a delivery truck space. (Next…stay there, I’m sorry 10 go back. Back, back, one more, there you go). 11 12 So, since our City Council prescreening in March, our team has met with the neighbors to 13 understand their concerns. We understand their main concerns are public safety at the 14 intersection of Ellsworth and Middlefield and the accommodation of this delivery truck space as 15 well as the removal of two trees five or so years ago. On the tree removal mitigation, you’ve 16 just heard from Staff we’re working with them on native tree replacement. (Next slide, so that’s 17 good.) 18 19 So, the existing PC 2343, as you see there, involves two adjacent parcels with an access 20 easement between them. PC was created in 1967 on the parcel on the left there to allow a 12 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 160     _______________________ 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 unit apartment building to be constructed upon the 2901 Middlefield parcel and to provide, 2 next slide, the balance of the parking on the Ellsworth parcel. At the same time, next slide, this 3 easement was created on the Ellsworth parcel there in yellow and that… we’re not quite sure 4 how that, next slide, how that easement effects or served the parcels further down on 5 Ellsworth. Next slide. RLD Land bought the properties in 2017. The Zoning Map showed two 6 parcels, one was zoned RM-15 and one R-1. In 2019, the RM-15 was changed to RM-20. The R-1 7 parcel remained as an R-1 parcel. I should also say that the parcel reports that I commonly refer 8 to when doing due diligence on properties also confirmed all of this zoning that I’m telling you 9 about and that was reflected in the Zoning Map. 10 11 In 2022, after discussing single-family development on the Ellsworth parcel with the City’s 12 planners. RLD Land sold the Ellsworth parcel to RRP Homes where Mr. Handa, who’s here 13 tonight, is planning on building a single-family home of one-story, 1,695-square feet, so it’s a 14 fairly small three-bedroom home. However, when Mr. Handa submitted plans for a Building 15 Permit, he’d already prepared plans for a Building Permit and went to the City to submit, the 16 City uncovered this mysterious unaccounted-for record of a PC 2343 and they informed Mr. 17 Handa to his surprise that the Ellsworth parcel was not zoned R-1 but in fact, could not be built 18 on. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 161     _______________________ 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 So, the next slide should show some photos of the property. The top photo is just a panorama. 2 If you’ve been out there, you’re familiar with that. To the right is Middlefield Road, to the left is 3 the rest of Ellsworth. The photo in the upper right is looking down Ellsworth to show the rest of 4 the Ellsworth Street from the 702 property. The three pictures on the bottom show Mr. 5 Dewey’s apartment building and the asphalt parking areas where we’re planning on 6 accommodating the four tandem parking spaces. The photo on the left is where two of them 7 would be at the back or at the side rather and then at the back the photo on the right the two 8 spaces would be to the right of that carport that you see. 9 10 So, the next slide just shows the owner’s goals to extract the Ellsworth parcel from the PC 11 Ordinance by amendment of the development plan, provide compliant required parking 12 associated with the apartment building entirely on his property, revert 702 Ellsworth to R-1 as 13 I’ve said and… where Staff just said a home once stood. And hopefully, a home will be built 14 there again and then address the neighbor’s concerns within the context of the site constraints. 15 16 And so, the next slide shows the original site plan that Amy shared a minute ago. The 12-unit 17 apartment building on the corner of Middlefield and Sutter has four two bedrooms; four, one 18 bedrooms; and four studio apartments requiring 20 spaces previously. Under today’s standard, 19 however, only 16 spaces are required but 12 need to be covered. So, the 12 spaces, if you go to 20 the next slide Garrett, are shown there in grey and then please go to the next slide and you’ll Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 162     _______________________ 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 see those same 12 spaces in that grey L-shaped space at the apartment building. The next slide 2 would be where we propose the four red rectangles or where we’re proposing the parking 3 spaces in the existing asphalt parking lot, two in the side yard, two in the rear yard. The 4 Ellsworth side of the property is considered the rear yard and this effectively reduced by five 5 the number of cars that would be using Ellsworth. So, that inherently by itself will help mitigate 6 some safety concerns and we won’t have people crossing Ellsworth, that part there, to go to 7 the apartment building in the future if that was a problem. 8 9 Next slide. Since the neighbors are concerned about delivery trucks, RLD Land is allowing an 10 area on his Middlefield parcel for temporary delivery truck parking which is shown in the green 11 there. And RPP Homes is also allowing a 4-foot strip in front of his homes on 702 Ellsworth to 12 create an effective 42-foot wide area that would be used for maneuvering and turning and to 13 get the delivery truck, whenever it’s there, out of Ellsworth drive aisle let’s say. 14 15 The next slide shows widening the driveway, I think it shows that. As you… as it necks down 16 where the dustpan style driveway apron is Mr. Dewey is going to dedicate or not dedicate… he 17 has a 2 ½-foot strip of land there that we would pave in pavers. That would match a 1 ½-foot of 18 land on the 702 Ellsworth side, so we’d end up with a 24-inch kind of or 24-foot clear drive as 19 you come in. And that would extend as far in if you go to the next slide, where we show in red 20 the recommendations by Hexagon Transportation to provide a 35-foot site distance triangle Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 163     _______________________ 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 where we would have nothing higher than 3-feet tall bushes or shrubbery, so that you can see 2 traffic left and right. And Mr. Handa would erect a 3-foot high fence to enclose his backyard but 3 that fence would consist of horizontal boards with gaps between them. So, you could actually 4 see through that fence as well, but it would be a 3-foot-high fence. 5 6 So, in conclusion, a previous unknown City mapping error that was relied upon by all parties has 7 resulted in a situation that can be easily rectified with this proposed PC Amendment and at the 8 same time, provide increased safety for the neighborhood, create a space to accommodate a 9 temporary delivery truck and clear up an access easement for the rest of the Ellsworth parcels. 10 We request that the Planning and Transportation Commission support adopting the draft 11 ordinance, amending the development plan of PC 2343, to right-size the parking, make a safer 12 neighborhood and create an opportunity for a single-family home. 13 14 Now, Mr. Handa would like to say a few words as well. 15 16 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. 17 18 Mr. Nitin Handa: Yes. 19 20 Chair Summa: Goode evening, Mr. Handa. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 164     _______________________ 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 2 Mr. Handa: Hey, good evening everyone. I’m just waiting for my slides to be shared so I can 3 take you through that, but just before that, I want to give you some background here. I 4 purchased this lot way back in November 2022, about 7-8 months back and our intent at that 5 time was… you know my son is an 8th grader. He was an 8th grader, now he’s getting into high 6 school and we intend to build a house here so that we can get him to a great school district; 7 Palo Alto High School. And as you will notice we submitted all the plans, even though we 8 purchased in November. We submitted all the plans in January and the reason we moved really 9 fast was that so that we can get this through and we can build the house if not by August, at 10 least by November/December and my son can go to that high school. When we submitted the 11 plans middle of January we got a huge surprise that the lot is not R-1 and as you all know, 12 before I purchased the lot we had multiple meetings with the City, multiple email exchanges. 13 [unintelligible] told this is an R-1 lot, it was so important for us and we can build a single-family 14 home as it is shown in some previous slides. We relied on that and the City Planning Director in 15 the pre-Council City meeting accepted… prescreening City Council meeting accepted there was 16 no way that I could have found this out. That this was not an R-1 lot because all the required 17 which were visible to me and also to the City planning Staff suggested it’s an R-1 lot. 18 19 So, anyway, in January when we submitted the plans, we came to know it’s not and we started 20 working with the City. I started working with the neighbors also. We had multiple conversations Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 165     _______________________ 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 with the neighbor on this. We did see some reservation there and at that stage, working with 2 the neighbors, there were six changes that I agreed to the plans and the number one change 3 was if you see the two plans I have shown here. The old plan and the new plan on the screen, 4 the old plan you will see it does not show any pavers on the front. It only shows the lawn but 5 we agreed to add pavers out there on the front, about 4-foot of pavers, so that it gives a little 6 more space for the trucks and bikers to move around. You’ll also notice that the driveway was 7 much narrower in the old plan and then we decided to… agreed to widen the narrow driveway 8 again, you know just to give more space for parking and for bikers to move around. We also 9 agreed with the neighbors that a lot of bushes… there have been a lot of bushes in that… on the 10 Middlefield side of the lot which has been blocking the line of sight and we agreed to cut the 11 bushes. Not only just cut it but cut it regularly and we have been doing that for quite some time 12 now. Initial plan was to build a bigger house with a basement. The neighbor’s suggested no 13 basement – it is not good idea. Even though the Code does permit to build a basement, we 14 agreed not to build a basement at that stage. We also agreed what Ken already mentioned that 15 we agreed to build a 3-foot tall fence on Middlefield and Ellsworth. Initially, we suggested 4- 16 foot, but then because of again the line of sight issues and all that stuff, we agreed to do a 3- 17 foot tall fence and you know, we did something more which will come in the next slide. And 18 then there’s a 24-foot easement on Ellsworth side which belongs to my lot and we are okay. 19 You know, there has been some debate around it, we are okay to settle that and give the right 20 to access to the City for that easement so that’s not an issue. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 166     _______________________ 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 2 Ms. French: [off mic] Next slide? 3 4 Mr. Handa: Next slide, yeah. So, I mentioned that despite all these five, six things that we 5 agreed with the neighbors. A couple more things that we have done recently which, despite the 6 fact that we got to transportation report from Gary (he’s here from Hexagon); the report, which 7 was also reviewed by the City transport department and the report clearly says that Ellsworth 8 Street is pretty safe. It has been reviewed by the City, peer reviewed by the City transport 9 expert. Despite that, you know despite that we agreed that the fence along Ellsworth and 10 Middlefield, the 3-foot… reduced 3-foot tall fence will have horizontal planks and it will have a 11 3-inch gap between each plank. So, there again, you can see through and through now. Even 12 that’s not ideal for us to have so much a gap on a busy Middlefield Street where everybody can 13 see our house but we agreed to do that in the spirit of neighborhood there. Also, big thing was 14 we agreed to give 18-inch, 1-foot 6-inch paved that area with pavers, 18-inches of space and 15 Mr. Dewey graciously agreed to do 2 ½-feet of his side that we can widen Ellsworth to give 16 more space for maneuvering. Again, it was not required, the report… traffic consultant report 17 reviewed by the City clearly says it's very safe there but we are still going multiple steps forward 18 to do that so that we can see this thing through as soon as possible. So, that’s where I stand, I 19 think that’s… any questions for me? No, questions? Okay. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 167     _______________________ 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 Summa: Thank you very much both of you, so at this time we’ll take it back to the 2 Commission for clarifying questions. Would someone like to start? I… do I have a light? 3 4 Commissioner Lu: [off mic] Oh, yes, [unintelligible]. 5 6 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, just a couple of quick clarifying questions and I think that 9 at least initially these are for Staff. So, Mr. Hayes mentioned that the original PC approval 10 required 20 parking spaces. My understanding from the staff report is that number 20 is correct 11 but the PC approval actually distinguished those. There were 12 parking spaces required on the 12 apartment property, one for each unit, which apparently at the time was the standard. Plus, the 13 additional eight spaces were particularly to be designated guest parking, which again was at the 14 time a City requirement and those were the ones identified on the Ellsworth parcel. So, I just 15 wanted to confirm that my understanding of the distribution of the 20 per the PC is as stated in 16 the Staff Report. 17 18 Ms. French: That’s correct, what you said. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 168     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: Alright, thank you, and then the other question I had Mr. Sauls and 2 that’s I’m interested in the location of pavers on the Ellsworth property. So, the owner just 3 showed us I think his second to last slide really showed two sections of pavers and I don’t know 4 if you can pull that up. I think it was the second to the last slide where it showed the pavers in 5 the first 35-feet which are 18-inches wide. Mr. Sauls, I think will do it. Yeah, right here, so you 6 could see again, we’re just looking at the Ellsworth side, 18-inch width of pavers and then 7 there’s a gap and then there are the resumptions of pavers. That, again the owner referenced, 8 which sort of connect his what I’m going to… I assume his is front entry walk and then run along 9 Ellsworth to his widened driveway. So, the question I have is in the slides that Mr. Sauls’ 10 showed us toward the end of the Staff Report. That gap was connected with pavers and it was 11 maybe two or three slides from the end of Mr… of what Mr. Sauls showed us and so I… because 12 there was an inconsistency there. I would just like to get some clarity and understand what the 13 current proposal is. It could… these projects evolve over time and that could be one of these is 14 an older drawing perhaps, one of them is newer and I want to know what the proposal is. Mr. 15 Sauls, were you able to find the slide I was referring to? 16 17 Mr. Sauls: Yeah, I was, give me a second. 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: There is it, thank you, thank you. Yeah so and again, I don’t know if 20 this is an older or newer slide than the ones that the owner showed but this seems to me, and Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 169     _______________________ 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 maybe I’m misreading it, but it seems to show no gap between the pavers for the first 35-feet. 2 And then the continuation of that until you get to the widened area connecting the entry 3 sidewalk to the driveway. So, I’m wondering if Staff knows what the current proposal is, or if 4 not, the applicant can tell us? 5 6 Ms. French: I confess that I was having fun with cut and paste and I was… showed this as a 7 representation from what I heard verbally what was proposed and then that is, as you said, 8 different from what Mr. Handa showed tonight. But perhaps Mr. Handa could comment on 9 what’s on the screen now? 10 11 Mr. Handa: Yes, this is correct, absolutely correct what we see here. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: So, what’s being shown here is pavers for more than 35-feet. They 14 continue all the way to your (interrupted) 15 16 Mr. Handa: Yes. 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman: Right and so, I just again, the slide you just showed me had them 19 stop at 35 feet and this has them extending. So, I’m not trying to box you in, I just want to know 20 what is your proposal. Is (interrupted) Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 170     _______________________ 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 2 Mr. Handa: This is the proposal. That is… the initial 35-feet is 18-inches wide and then it goes all 3 the way which is 4-feet wide. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, that’s… so that’s actually not what this is showing, so that 18- 6 inch wide stripe, just so you understand, I’m going to guess is 60… maybe 60-feet long. It goes 7 back the 35 feet. Mr. Hayes, maybe you can help us out here? Again, I’m just trying to… I don’t 8 want there to be misunderstandings on this. 9 10 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, so there’s an 18-inch… right now our slide and what… and Mr. Handa’s plan 11 did not get updated but so our slide showed 18-inches, 35-feet from the face of curb as an 12 additional paver area on both sides. 18-inches on Mr. Handa’s side, 30-inches on the 13 Middlefield side. What Mr. Handa is agreeing to right now is that he will extend that 18-inches 14 all the way to his entry walk. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Got it, okay, alright. Alright, so that’s very helpful in clarifying on that 17 point. So, those are my questions before public comment, thank you. 18 19 Chair Summa: Commissioner Akin. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 171     _______________________ 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 Akin: Thank you, Chair Summa. So, I’ve got about a half dozen here, some of 2 them should be quick and easy. First question is, is a two-story house permitted at 702? 3 4 Ms. French: The existing PC Ordinance does not permit a single-family home period so that’s 5 not permitted right now. If it were rezoned to R-1, it’s not considered a substandard lot and the 6 applicant could come forward with a two-story home for Individual Review. That would be only 7 if it were rezoned to R-1. 8 9 Commissioner Akin: Great, thank you. That’s what I expected but I wanted to make sure and 10 I’ve forgotten the rules on this. If you… is it possible to move a detached garage to the front and 11 if so, would it be subject to the 24-foot setback? 12 13 Ms. French: Along Middlefield, the 24-foot special setback is for any structure. So, we would 14 not allow any structure within that 24-feet, except for a low fence. 15 16 Commissioner Akin: Great, thank you. I would like to understand a little bit more about the 17 objections to the basement and I’m not sure who to ask about that. Perhaps, Mr. Hayes, you 18 could summarize what you heard or Mr. Handa? 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 172     _______________________ 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. Handa: So, the objection basically we pretty much had a very cordial discussion with the 2 neighbors. Kristen is here and she suggested that basement is not advisable in that area. 3 Especially given the way the soil is and there were a few other conditions she warned me 4 about. And we spoke about it and you know me and my wife spoke about it and we came to a 5 conclusion that’s fine. If it is not advisable, we’ll probably not do it. Basements in any case are 6 not easy to handle and we have a creek on the back side so that was the understanding I 7 reached with the neighbors. 8 9 Commissioner Akin: Okay, I was curious. I did do a little research, it's in an ex-flood zone so it’s 10 outside the 100-year flood plain. 11 12 Mr. Handa: Right but it is allowed by Code. It’s not in the flood zone, it is allowed - the 13 basement is allowed. 14 15 Commissioner Akin: Right, it looks like the water tables about 11-feet down there according to 16 the USGS, so you’d have to build a bathtub but it… maybe it’s feasible. Finance is always a 17 concern there. 18 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 173     _______________________ 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 Next few questions are about Mr. Dewey’s property. It looks like the new tandem parking 2 spaces, number 15 and 16, block the passage-way that runs from Sutter to Ellsworth. Are the 3 residents okay with that? The resident of 2901 through five Middlefield. 4 5 Mr. Hayes: The two new spaces on… they don’t effectively block the access from Sutter. You 6 can still drive in from Sutter and park in those. You’re talking about the two spaces on the side? 7 8 Commissioner Akin: I meant that today it’s possible to drive all the way from Sutter to Ellsworth 9 but it would not be after the tandem parking spaces are established. 10 11 Ms. Hayes: Oh yeah, (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Akin: Is that an issue? 14 15 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, no they don’t want… Mr. Dewey doesn’t want to cross-sight traffic through 16 there. That would not be a safe thing. There were trash cans actually and the recycling 17 prevented that kind of through traffic in the past, but that’s all now been relocated to get the 18 green waste and the waste removal over to Sutter, so to free up Ellsworth a little bit more. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 174     _______________________ 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 Akin: Good, it’s nice to know the history there, thank you. This is a hard one 2 given that it requires a little visualization. Can someone walk me through the expected path of 3 a delivery vehicle that’s using this proposed delivery space? So, you can turn… suppose you are 4 heading north on Middlefield, you turn right, where do you go to get in and get out? 5 6 Mr. Hayes: So, let me introduce Gary Black. There is no turning diagram in the set. 7 8 Commissioner Akin: Right, but I assumed you had during the discussions you probably worked 9 this out so. 10 11 Mr. Gary Black: Good evening, Gary Black with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and the 12 way that space is kind of drawn is where a truck might be able to stay for a while if it needed to 13 park without blocking anything. But actually, if it’s only going to be there for a short period of 14 time, it might actually park at 90 degrees to that. Right now, there’s 38-feet, that combined 15 width is 38-feet and with this proposal that combined width will be 42-feet. So, there’s actually 16 going to be a little bit more space for the trucks to maneuver around. They could also park in 17 that space and then if Mr. Handa has no car in his driveway. They could use his driveway to turn 18 around so that would be an option as well. So, they would have various ways to get in and out 19 of that space and then we also know that delivery vehicles come in different sizes and so we’re Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 175     _______________________ 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 looking at what we call a typical UPS truck when we look at things like that. They would be able 2 to maneuver in and out of that space. There would be different options how they could do it. 3 4 Commissioner Akin: Okay, good. I did walk that area and my reaction was well, if I were driving 5 the delivery truck, I’d probably turn around in Mr. Handa’s driveway, but I’m not sure liability 6 would allow that for some folks. But it’s interesting to know that you did consider the possibility 7 of parking horizontally rather than vertically. 8 9 Mr. Black: Yes, only if they would be there for a very short period of time because then the back 10 of the truck would kind of hang out into the street a little bit, so that wouldn’t be desirable. 11 12 Commissioner Akin: And I think that’s it for me, thank you. 13 14 Chair Summa: Okay, I do have a couple of questions also and I’ll continue with the delivery area 15 since we were just discussing that and I guess this is for staff or the applicant’s team. It would 16 block the four required covered parking spots. Is that… doesn’t sound desirable but is that legal 17 that we have a loading delivery area that blocks required parking? 18 19 Ms. French: I mean it’s… a PC has options for considering configurations. So for instance, if that 20 was not an acceptable location for a delivery truck for this PC, you could have the two tandem Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 176     _______________________ 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 spots in front of the other, the covered tandem spots and put the delivery truck where those 2 tandem spots are shown - I forget which numbers those are - as another option. I think 3 anything’s possible with a PC to consider such placement. It's not illegal to offer temporary 4 location for delivery. 5 6 Chair Summa: Okay. 7 8 Ms. French: It’s not a required delivery space. 9 10 Chair Summa: Okay and then typically tandem spots are required I think by our Code, you can 11 help me clarify this, to be used by the same unit. So, that they can coordinate getting in and out 12 of them. Is that correct and would that work also? 13 14 Ms. French: If an apartment is required to have two spaces, one covered, one uncovered. You 15 can have those in tandem arrangement. Delivery spaces are not required for apartment 16 buildings. 17 18 Chair Summa: No, I know, I was asking about the tandem spots. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 177     _______________________ 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: Tandem, yeah that’s allowed by Code. If it were not a PC, you could still do tandem 2 spaces for the same unit. 3 4 Chair Summa: Right but do they have to be used by the same… they have to be used by the 5 same unit so that they can coordinate going in and out? 6 7 Ms. French: I think that… it makes sense logically speaking. I don’t know that it's stated that 8 way in the Code. I mean we have many instances of residential development where there are 9 multiple tandem spots and leave it up to them to coordinate their own logistics. 10 11 Chair Summa: Okay so what you’re saying is that it’s not a requirement of the Code that the 12 tandem spots like that be used by the same unit. That’s all I’m trying to understand. 13 14 Mr. Sauls: I’ll take a look at the Zoning Code real quick and get back to you on that. Give me a 15 second. 16 17 Chair Summa: Thank you so much and then so I have so many questions and I probably won’t 18 ask them all now because some of them will come out in discussion but this is about 2901 19 Middlefield and I was wondering since the PC is an older PC from ’67. There are some special 20 requirements for PCs that are still there. It’s 18.38.150 if I’m remembering correctly, A through Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 178     _______________________ 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 E, and it seems to me… so my question is would 2901 because the PC is being opened up. 2 Would they be required to comply with those special requirements and/or the special setback 3 along Middlefield? Could they be asked? I suppose they… but those special requirements are 4 not discretionary, whereas most things with PCs are of course. 5 6 Mr. Sauls: I would maybe say that for one thing in particular as it relates to the special setbacks. 7 It’s specific about structures, so for example, if they wanted to provide parking within that 8 space. It’s not obviously a structure so you may have paving there for parking. 9 10 Separately, just to your previous question, I was able to confirm in the Zoning Code, it's in 11 18.54.20 that tandem parking does require that those parking spaces be used by the same 12 residential unit. 13 14 Ms. French: In a multi-family situation. 15 16 Mr. Sauls: In a multi-family situation. 17 18 Chair Summa: So, one of the larger units is required… is… gets two parking spots? 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 179     _______________________ 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. Sauls: Whichever unit is going to be using the tandem spaces, that has to be used by 2 whoever will be using the tandem spaces - by the same residential unit, so if there are two 3 people living in one of the units they can coordinate as you were saying for entering and exiting 4 the space. 5 6 Chair Summa: Okay and if one unit gets two spaces. The other… the totality of the site is still 7 correctly parked, right? 8 9 Mr. Sauls: That’s correct. 10 11 Chair Summa: Thanks, and then, let's see, oh, do we have any very definitive information on 12 how frequently the eight spots on Ellsworth are currently being used? There was kind of sort of 13 two different ideas that I read amongst the submissions and maybe the traffic study, I’m not 14 sure, or staff report. 15 16 Mr. Sauls: The City doesn’t manage those so the applicant could probably talk a little bit more 17 about how often those are being frequented [unintelligible] used. 18 19 Chair Summa: I don’t… thank you. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 180     _______________________ 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. Hayes: So, I’m happy to answer that, so the… there was a manager at the apartment 2 building and there’s no demand for the guest parking since the time that Mr. Dewey purchased 3 the property in 2017. Any guests that come or that arrive there have been parking in the… on 4 Sutter apparently where there is more parking. 5 6 [note – unknown speaker from the audience]: [unintelligible] 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Sorry, can’t hear me? 9 10 [note – unknown speaker from the audience]: [unintelligible] 11 12 Chair Summa: Not at this time I don’t think, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Hayes. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: Yes, so it was my understanding that the guest parking is not used for the apartment 15 project. 16 17 Chair Summa: Okay. 18 19 Mr. Hayes: Which is why I was approached by Mr. Dewey. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 181     _______________________ 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 Summa: Thank you for that, and it was observed in one of the submissions that it was 2 frequently used, it was frequently full overnight and so I’m concerned about who’s using that 3 parking and for how long if it’s frequently full overnight but we can talk more about that later. 4 5 So, about 702 Ellsworth and the way we are looking at it, describing it as abutting 2901. I… it’s 6 hard to imagine how we can call it a corner lot if it abuts on its side 2901 and if it doesn’t have 7 Ellsworth Street and Middlefield to define it as a corner lot. How it’s a corner still, so if you 8 could help me understand that? 9 10 Ms. French: When we were looking at the setbacks and such, we had considered that to be an 11 interior lot because again, it's not abutting the street, it includes the street and so perhaps 12 technically not a corner lot but functionally - and if our City Attorney would wish to weigh in on 13 this - functionally speaking it would feel like a corner lot even if it’s not technically a corner lot. 14 15 Mr. Albert Yang, City Attorney: Well, so I believe it actually is technically a corner lot because 16 we define a corner to be the intersection of two streets and that can include a private street 17 which we would consider Ellsworth to be a private street. 18 19 Chair Summa: Okay. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 182     _______________________ 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: It’s just that the lot lines do not coincide with the boundary of the street on the 2 one side. It’s on the other side. That’s the unusual piece of it. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay and then the 3-foot fence, could somebody… proposed fencing, could 5 somebody describe to me where exactly that is again, and it can be anybody? It goes in the 6 front near Middlefield. 7 8 Mr. Sauls: Sure, let me go ahead and share the screen again. In general, the City has a sight 9 distance triangle at all streets, which is what is reflected in the applicant’s proposal, as any sort 10 of fence within this space within the sight distance triangle can’t exceed 3-feet in height. So, 11 that’s just a standard City rule for fences anywhere, for all types of properties and corner lots of 12 course are the ones where this is actually happening. So, that’s kind of also part of this whole 13 complexity of this unique and weird situation but give me one second to pull that up. 14 15 Chair Summa: So, 3-feet is a standard height (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Sauls: So that (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Summa: In this situation? 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 183     _______________________ 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. Sauls: Yeah, so this diagram here, this red triangle on both sides represents that site 2 distance triangle and where it’s taken at is the intersection of the curbs on both of the streets 3 outward. So, it wouldn’t necessarily be based on the property line, it’s actually kind of further 4 out. So, in many instances, it can be more forgiving in that way that it’s taking from the curb 5 line that’s out on the street. Rather than taken at the property lines which would be much 6 closer to where the actual building is. 7 8 Chair Summa: Yes, I understand the red triangles or the sight lines. Where is the fence exactly? 9 Where does it start on Ellsworth and I guess it turns the corner onto Middlefield? 10 11 Ms. French: What’s shown on the screen is the yellow is the proposed fence along that 12 property line that abuts the right of way on Middlefield and then turns the corner back. This 13 proposal that you’re hearing about, the 1-foot 6-inch paved area, the fence would be behind 14 that, that same 3-foot fence. Now, the place where that stops may be a little short… a little 15 sooner than the yellow that you’re seeing on this slide that Staff created if the 35-feet stops 16 before that point. Technically, it could go up to a 4-foot, but my understanding is they were 17 proposing the 3-foot for compatibility all along there. 18 19 Chair Summa: Okay and it’s the blue… well, the blue’s a rectangle but the blue on furthest from 20 the house is the property line or is it black one under the blue the property line? Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 184     _______________________ 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 2 Ms. French: The property line is Mr. Dewey’s property. That’s the property line that’s on the 3 other side of Ellsworth. 4 5 Mr. Sauls: The black line shown on the image that you’re seeing here represents that property 6 line that Mr. Handa has. The blue, that first blue that you see here, is Staff’s again 7 representation of that 1 ½-inch… sorry, 1 ½-foot landscaped strip. The yellow is the proposed 8 fence. 9 10 Ms. French: You need to bring the slide a bit because that black line is not the property line. 11 That black line is the edge of the easement for Ellsworth. Keep coming out with the slide. The 12 property line is at the bottom, the black line at the bottom, that’s where that touches Mr. 13 Dewey’s property. That’s the property line of Mr. Handa’s parcel where it abuts Mr. Dewey’s 14 parcel on the other side of Ellsworth. 15 16 Chair Summa: Okay and you’ll see my confusion arose from the fact that in the key on the left, 17 the 3-foot fence is a kind of a rusty brown/orange color. So, I was (interrupted) 18 19 Ms. French: Yeah, yes (interrupted) 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 185     _______________________ 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 Summa: And the yellow was… that’s why I was confused. 2 3 Ms. French: Yeah, that was an error in it needed to be returned, thank you. 4 5 Chair Summa: Thank you for clarifying that and then so I drove in and out of Ellsworth Place and 6 I’m not the tallest person in the world. It’s pretty hard to see and I’m wondering if the 7 standards take into account how far down you are… the slope because the slope is kind of more 8 than you would think it might be. And you… I really had to get all the way up on the sidewalk to 9 have any sight line south and that’s also because of the curve in the road. So, I was wondering if 10 there are different standards when there is… and it's usual for a street to have that much of a 11 slope up to another street in Palo Alto. 12 13 Mr. Sauls: And you’re talking about the standard for height for those types of fences? 14 15 Chair Summa: Well, in general for sight lines, if that slope… and I don’t know the angle of that 16 slope or anything, but if that would change the sight lines maybe because… and but we can talk 17 about more… more about this later when we come to our discussion; because I don’t want to 18 get into too much detail, but it’s just a yes or a no that doesn’t change it. 19 20 Mr. Sauls: Not to my understanding, no. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 186     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: Thanks. I guess one last question, this is kind of a big one so I don’t want shock 3 anybody but if the Council ultimately were to grant what we want here. Would we… how would 4 we have any assurance that… a lot of things can happen in construction and building. How 5 would we have any assurance that a subsequent person at any time who owned the property 6 or anybody might want to build something very different just under the regular R-1 7 Development Standards because it’s R-1? They… anybody who owns that property is eligible for 8 the same R-1 standards that everybody else has. So, how would we have any control over the 9 very nice plan that we have here, which a lot of neighbors are still… how would we have… 10 retain control to make sure it was what was being proposed here? 11 12 Ms. French: Well, if it was zoned R-1 and a single-story house came through, that’s a Building 13 Permit only. However, with… you know there are instruments such as this easement and what 14 have you. There could be agreements or such as far as keeping a fence height a certain height. 15 There could be other ways and our attorney could weigh in on that, but as far as development 16 of a home. The home itself, unless it’s a two-story home, it’s a ministerial process through the 17 Building Permit. 18 19 Chair Summa: Yes, so that was kind of my point. We lose control over being able to craft this R- 20 1 property specifically or this house, if it becomes R-1 if we change the zoning, may not be built Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 187     _______________________ 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 and something else could be built there. So, thank you for answering that, that we don’t have 2 any control over that and unless my colleagues have any other questions at this time we will go 3 to public comment. 4 5 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Assistant: Yes, our first speaker is Gala Beykin. 6 7 Chair Summa: Ms. Dao? 8 9 Ms. Dao: Yes? 10 11 Chair Summa: Could you tell me how many speakers we have in total? 12 13 Ms. Dao: Yes, so I have seven in-person single speakers, two groups, and one virtual on Zoom 14 currently. 15 16 Chair Summa: Two, 15-minute groups? 17 18 Ms. Dao: Yes. 19 20 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you for that. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 188     _______________________ 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 2 Ms. Gala Beykin: Good evening everyone, good evening Commissioners. My name is Gala, I 3 have a slide deck if we can have it… oh, thank you so much. So, before I jump into the slide 4 deck, I do want to mention a couple additional points. As of right now, cars cannot go out of 5 Ellsworth towards Middlefield and in at the same time. The current situation is that a car 6 coming into… from Middlefield towards Ellsworth require the cars tending in Ellsworth just too 7 backward for the other car to come in. This area provides the circulation and otherwise, it’s 8 not… waiting in Middlefield for a long time is not very safe. This road is driven with very fast 9 speeds. 10 11 Additional aspect is the safety triangles and I wonder if they take into account the high-speed 12 drivers are using because higher speeds require higher triangles. And also, I want to mention 13 from my perspective, average height person I would say, that is very hard for me to see the 14 road and the pedestrians when I drive my car out of Ellsworth and I have three kids as well. So, I 15 am very concerned about safety and as of right, when these brushes are cut off. Even though 16 it’s still very hard to see and often times we end of going all the way through the sidewalk. A 17 pedestrian is coming to walk on the sidewalk, we have to go back to the street. Some times it 18 happens a couple times before we can go out of the street and now I would like to go ahead 19 with my presentation here. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 189     _______________________ 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 So, I will speak about the trees and I hope to provide some more additional and helpful 2 information. You can see here these lovely six trees. That’s a picture from 2017, it’s 3 approximately about a year before these trees were all cut down. You can also appreciate in 4 this picture that there are three cars using the parking lot. I’ll go to the next slide. 5 6 So, that’s another view on the top left from 2017. You can see all those trees, nice trees and 7 tree number five is a valley oak tree. It’s a protected tree and then in 2018, you can see this 8 picture where a crew comes in and just cuts all these trees down. When neighbors approached 9 and asked for permits. None are provided to them and then you can see 2022 how it looks like 10 and then unfortunately 2023 with this pile of dirt and the fence. I’ll go to the next slide. 11 12 So, protected trees defined by specifies as well as that diameter of a tree and in the specific 13 case of valley oak tree with a diameter of 11.5 and higher is considered to be a protected tree. 14 I’ll go to the next slide. So, these are protected tree? The answer is yes. There is a survey by 15 Canopy that provides information that this tree is a valley oak tree with a diameter of 17, which 16 is by percentile. It could not be just a measurement error. I’ll go to the next slide. This 17 information is available to the City as well. There was another survey provided with similar 18 information. A private survey done by the previous apartment owner shows that the diameter 19 of the trees 15-inches; again, a protected tree. I’ll go to the next slide. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 190     _______________________ 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 So, where there any permits to cut these protected trees? So, we asked for the City to provide 2 any permits if those are available but we did not receive … any information about that. I would 3 mention that the previous meeting about this matter was held in March 29 where it was 4 mentioned that this tree was not protected. However, I would like you to take a look at the 5 records that we provided that show the tree was protected. I’ll go to the next slide. 6 7 So, how would it look like if there would be a notice placed on that tree? That’s a different tree, 8 unfortunately, that’s not the case of this tree because there was no notice ahead of time and 9 that is extremely important because if there would be a notice ahead of time. It would let the 10 neighbors know sometimes is wrong, go to the City and then reveal that there is a PC zoning 11 issue there and Code Enforcement issue, and that would be very helpful to find out before that 12 part was sold. I’ll go to the next slide. 13 14 So, in addition to that, there’s also violation of the landscape plan. When these apartments 15 were built, there was a landscape plan provided which was supposed to be permanently 16 maintained so that’s another issue here. I’ll go to the next slide. We sent this information to the 17 City and I’ll go to the last slide, and this information was accepted by Director Lait. Thank you so 18 much for your time. 19 20 Chair Summa: Thank you. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 191     _______________________ 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 2 Mr. Jeff Levinsky: Alright, good evening Commissioners and Staff. I’d like to begin by talking 3 about the corner lot issue that came up before. We heard slightly different things from 4 different Staff members. What the Code actually says is that in order to be a corner lot, you 5 have to have two abutting streets and there’s a certain definition as to what the angle of 6 intersection has to be. But Ellsworth is not abutting this parcel, Ellsworth is inside this parcel 7 and you can see that clearly on Packet Page 29. If a street is inside the parcel, the parcel doesn’t 8 abut it. You can’t abut something inside. It’s like saying that the United States abuts California. 9 It makes no sense, so this is not a corner lot by our own Code’s definition. There’s another 10 curious thing in how the Staff Report treats this. 11 12 The very same paragraph on Packet Page 16, claims that the side setback for the house on the 13 north side should start on its north property line adjoining the apartments. That is across 14 Ellsworth from where the house will be and thus the Staff is claiming that the road running 15 through the parcel can be counted towards the required setback. But as the letter I sent in this 16 morning explains, our Municipal Code for R-1 homes doesn’t actually require a side setback. It 17 requires a side yard, so what the Staff report is saying is that part of the side yard for the house 18 is going to be in the street, that is in Ellsworth. Does that make any sense? That is can you claim 19 that your yard is in a street, in a publicly accessible street? Of course, not and it’s a terrible 20 precedent. If builders can claim that roads along side their new homes count towards required Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 192     _______________________ 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 side yards. We’re going to have awfully small yards in our town. So, please insist that both of 2 these problems get cleaned up. If you remember the basement issue with Castilleja that took us 3 several rounds to that cleared up and this is similar, where the definition needs to be followed. 4 5 Now let me turn to a different problem. It’s essential for everyone to understand that the 6 proposed PC Amendment before you required massive upzoning. Right now, having 12 7 apartment units on the total site, which extends to the creek to Sutter is consistent with RM-20. 8 Not surprisingly, the records from the 1967 PC show that the City used that entire stretch of 9 land to justify having more units than allowable on just the apartment site, but when you 10 remove 702 Ellsworth and the road from the PC. What’s left is less than half an acre and it can 11 only have nine units under it… on it under our current RM-20 zoning. So, this PC amendment is 12 basically proposing to upzone that remaining land to have 12-units, not the allowed nine. 13 Here’s some simple math the Staff Report doesn’t give you. If you are allowed nine units but 14 you want 12. Those extra units mean you’re upzoning by 33 percent; 33 percent is a huge 15 amount. The letter from the applicant’s attorney says it's just “slightly more than what’s 16 allowed” but if you received a 33 percent salary increase. You wouldn’t say you’re getting 17 slightly more pay. If your rent or your mortgage went up by 33 percent, you wouldn’t say you’re 18 paying just slightly more and the attorney tries to justify that increase by noting we’re 19 contemplating upzoning some other RM-20 sites in Palo Alto to RM-30. But if you look that up, 20 you’ll find it’s just 19 such parcels out of, by my count, over 900 RM-20 parcels in the City and Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 193     _______________________ 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 those 13… sorry 19 aren’t around Ellsworth Place or Sutter. The RM-20 parcels near this PC 2 aren’t contemplated for any such upzoning. So, a key question before you is whether it’s 3 appropriate to upzone this one piece of land by 33 percent when we’re not doing that for most 4 other RM-20 parcels in the City. 5 6 What’s that 33 percent upzoning worth? Well, you might estimate it’s worth the $950,000 that 7 the potential house site was sold for last year; or maybe it’s the value of having three extra 8 apartment units on the remaining lot which I’d value at over $1.5 million. And we’re not asking 9 the owner to put out lots of money, just some paving and some white paint to restripe and stuff 10 like that. It’s nota big deal. No matter how you figure it, the amendment will be handing this 11 one property owner a lot of money. Not being given to others in this town. 12 13 Now this is a PC and the rules for PCs require that there be sufficient public benefits to merit all 14 the extra value being given to the apartment owner, but when you look carefully at this 15 proposal. The public benefits don’t add up to much. Let me walk you through some. One, the 16 100-feet of Ellsworth next to Middlefield is mostly going to get narrower, not wider. That will 17 make it much hard, not easier, for cars to pass on the street. Two, some pavers are proposed 18 right at Middlefield but as my letter points out. The improvements on the R-1 side, and I think 19 you just heard this too, aren’t guaranteed to stay there because once you remove the R-1 from 20 the PC. You can’t governor it. You lose the ability and if you read the Staff ordinance… the draft Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 194     _______________________ 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 ordinance closely it actually even admits that. That there’s really going to be no enforcement 2 on the R-1 side. Three, as for the proposed easements, other residents on Ellsworth already 3 have a base… easement from their homes all the way to Middlefield. So, they’re not getting 4 anything new. Four, the proposed delivery parking space… delivery truck parking space isn’t 5 legal under out current laws. It’s not and because it blocks tenant parking and delivery vehicles 6 won’t dare park there even if you tell them go ahead because they don’t want to be responsible 7 for someone not getting out of their space. Five, the existing guest parking, which you see being 8 used, will be removed. Six, the open space next to the creek will be lost, so what are the public 9 benefits? When you add them all up, frankly nothing. This amendment will make things worst 10 for neighbors. There’s no public benefit, it’s a public loss. In sum, this amendment give the 11 owner… PC owner a million dollars or more while the public loses. It simply doesn’t meet the 12 basic threshold for amending a PC. 13 14 Sadly, this is not the first time we’ve had problems with PCs in this City. In fact, our City Council 15 grew so annoyed with the illusory public benefits of PCs that they actually banned all new PCs. 16 Then they only relented if a PC provided substantially more affordable housing than a normal 17 project would, substantially more. I’d note that this proposal doesn’t provide any affordable 18 housing at all. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 195     _______________________ 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 In short, the upzoning proposal before you tonight clearly doesn’t qualify under the PC rules. I’d 2 hope the Staff report would cover these issues, but it actually doesn’t. So, please consider 3 asking Staff to return with a careful evaluation of both the 33 percent upzoning and the pluses 4 and minuses to the public so you can include that in your discussion. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Summa: Thank you. 7 8 Ms. Dao: Next group is by Kristen Van Fleet speaking on behalf of Jake Margolis, Venkata Kurra, 9 Andrea Alberson and Chuck Effinger. 10 11 Ms. Kristen Van Fleet: Good evening, thank you… sorry. Good evening, thank you for hearing 12 from the Ellsworth Place neighbors. I am speaking for many people tonight. 13 14 So, some of this will be repeated from the City Council notes but I don’t think either of you… 15 any of you have heard these yet. Our street was established in 1937, it became annexed by Palo 16 Alto in 1947, the apartments came around in 1967. Our houses were there 20-years before 17 those apartments were. The Ellsworth Place owners or homeowner and residents do not want 18 the PC 2343 lifted from the R-1 parking lot. We feel this does not provide a public benefit and it 19 will make the situation on Ellsworth Place worse than it currently is. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 196     _______________________ 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 We note that nothing is enforceable, I think I’m the third one now to mention that. Thank you 2 for asking those questions about that earlier and for Jeff also mentioning this as well. But if the 3 PC, as it stands now, is lifted from the R-1 parking lot. They’ll be able to do anything to that lot 4 and that will be at the detriment of the rest of our street. That is our circulation. We have no 5 other way to turn around. That is our cul-de-sac. The letter from the attorney keeps mentioning 6 this is a street with a cul-de-sac. We have a dead-end street at the end and there is no place to 7 turn around. So, the cul-de-sac is the parking lot and that would be removing that from our 8 circulation and that make… it would increase the already dangerous situation with how we 9 interact with cars on Middlefield Road going in and out. Especially turning right onto Ellsworth 10 Place because there’s the hill from Matadero Creek and kids do use the sidewalk there for their 11 bicycles too. It’s a fun hill to ride down, you should try it sometime. Next slide, please. 12 13 In 1967 they asked for putting the four lots together to make the apartments and it was 14 supposed to be for the greater good of the community. That was 56 years ago, and it’s done 15 pretty well. Yes, we have some problems with circulation but overall, no one’s really 16 complained a whole lot. 17 18 Next slide and as I said, this is our cul-de-sac. Here’s a better picture that’s not taken with a 19 width a wide angle lens. I’d like to invite you to come out to the street if you have not already. I 20 know some of you have. Because you really can’t get a feel for this until you come out, drive on Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 197     _______________________ 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 it, walk on it, understand what we are dealing with and why all 15 addresses and the residents 2 in them. Including the tenants and the homeowners are really upset about what’s going on 3 here and really worried for our safety on the street; next slide. 4 5 We also note that the apartments and I always have friends at the apartments, so I know the 6 situation that’s going on there. The far left unit or parking space on Ellsworth is to narrow, so 7 when they filled out the apartments. That car has to park literally on the stripe or she can’t 8 open her door and so the car that was parking next to it is now parking in the guest parking lot 9 because she can’t fit next to it. So, if they’re going to be using parking spaces and you know, 10 these are grandfathered in. I understand that but now you don’t have actually have adequate 11 parking. So, are you going to make sure that they have adequate parking if they’re going to try 12 and fit it all on their site? We went out and measured and this parking spot is only 98-inches 13 wide. It should be 120. That’s why she can’t open her door against the wall, so that’s a problem 14 that exists now and where is she supposed to park? 15 16 You can also see from these pictures that… and I took all these in June. I’m not out there every 17 day with a camera. It’s like, you know, coming in and out of the street. Oh, look, there’s a truck 18 there, there’s car there. The spots are used. They may try to tell you they’re not but every day 19 those spots are used. There’s at least one car parked there, if not two. There’s a delivery truck, 20 there’s Door Dash. We live in a society now where we get deliveries every day and that is the Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 198     _______________________ 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 only spot they have on our street to get stuff to both the Ellsworth Place homeowners and to 2 the residents of the apartments. 3 4 So, now we talk about safety and circulation, please. When that temporary fence went up, as 5 you saw in Gala’s slides. That was set 4-feet back from the perceived paver line, so that would 6 be the edge of where he’s talking about having 4-feet of pavers. It caused a problem. You can 7 see how the FedEx truck was trying to… it would do multi-point turns to get in and out and he… 8 they hit the fence multiple times. The UPS driver wouldn’t even come down our street. He 9 parked in the bus turnout. That created another blind spot and issues for traffic on Middlefield 10 Road as you can understand. Next slide and that fence set 4-feet back from the property line 11 had been hit multiple times. It was pushed back at least 2-feet in place, so that’s how it was 12 with the temporary fence. Now imagine if a home was there what that does to our circulation. 13 They want to make our road narrower than that; next slide. 14 15 We cannot allow parking on Ellsworth Place because it is only 20-feet wide. This is what 16 happened with the apartment parking when the temporary fence went up. Their residents 17 parked against the fence and blocked our road; next slide. 18 19 Going over their proposal to solve these problems. It’s already been mentioned that the 20 delivery space blocked the carports. I did ask our delivery driver, one of our drivers who’s been Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 199     _______________________ 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 delivering our route since the ‘90s, before I lived there. I’ve been there for 19-years, so this is… I 2 can give you some history. And they said that they would not use it because it blocks cars. They 3 cannot legally park there so it’s not a viable delivery space that they’re offering and the of 4 course, we already mentioned the tandem parking. I have that on my slide. Those have to be 5 assigned to the same residents, so I’m not sure how those work. Are they going to cover them, 6 like I don’t know. Anyway, you’ve got an issue where one of the carports isn’t of size and so 7 you’re already down a space there; next slide. 8 9 For our street, we have 7-feet of pavers or more in front of many of the houses, especially at 10 the start of the street. Handa was offering 4-feet of pavers. You could park two wheels up off 11 the road, that still puts a car half way into the 20-foot section of road. People don’t drive on 12 each other’s pavers so this idea that they’re going to use these to widen a road. It doesn’t make 13 any sense to us, but this is how many of our driveways are. You can see people park off the 14 street completely on 7-feet or more of pavers. 15 16 Then we get to the traffic review. This really we found interesting. We feel like the traffic 17 review is biased. It was paid for by the developers. It should have been done blindly, paid for by 18 the City. It should be an actual study, not a review. You had about just over two pages of text 19 and four maps and didn’t really talk about much. It’s very incomplete, as I said it was a review, 20 not a study. It was based on a plan from a landscaper according to how it’s written. We actually Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 200     _______________________ 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 wonder if they came out to the site to look at it. They came up with the sight triangle that fails 2 to take into account the decline of Middlefield Road from Matadero Creek. It fails to take into 3 the account the incline of Ellsworth Place. So, if you’re going up Ellsworth and down and you’re 4 here you’re looking up and they want to put a 4-foot fence in that section where there’s 5 already a blind spot. So, that’s where the sidewalk follows the narrowing of Middlefield Road 6 and kids come down that fast on their bicycles and skateboards. Many have almost been hit 7 and now they want to block that with a fence. Seeing through slats, when you’re… when you’ve 8 got slats here and slats there. You’re looking… it doesn’t work. I don’t know where they’re 9 coming up with these ideas but they’re not a benefit to any of us. There was false information 10 in that traffic review. They said we have a bunch of pot holes on our street, there are no pot 11 holes. We have water that will pool when it rains but there are no actual holes. You want to see 12 potholes, go out to El Camino Real those are pot holes. We have alligatoring, we have some 13 drainage issues. We know that it needs to be repaved but we do not have pot holes so I don’t 14 think they actually came out to the street. I question that and it gave misleading information. 15 They’re using Code for parking and entering a multi-family residential complex to come up with 16 that it’s adequate for a 20-foot wide driveway. When we actually have a street and we’ve had a 17 street there, as I’ll get to in a second, since 1949. We would like the Codes applied to a private 18 street, for those widths and to talk about those which start at 26-feet wide and go up to 32. I 19 know it was mentioned… it was asked at the City Council meeting how wide it needed to be 20 there and Amy actually answered that it would be 32-feet wide if it was a new subdivision. So, Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 201     _______________________ 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 they’re offering no extra width of actual drivable space. We are currently at 21-inches and or 2 21-feet and we know that we need to at least get to 26-feet minimum to even start having this 3 conversation. And then it missed information, so it missed the fact that Middlefield Road is a 4 major arterial classification according to Caltrans and it also missed the fact that bicyclists use 5 the sidewalk. I know they mentioned earlier that bike lanes might be going in there but kids are 6 still not going to use the bike lanes there. They’re still going to use the sidewalks, that’s what 7 kids do; next slide. 8 9 So, we come to this idea of is Ellsworth Place a road. This needs to be solved before anything 10 else can be voted on. They’re trying to take our road from us and put it into their property. 11 Gala, who spoke earlier, also has the road in her deed. However, we go through it and there are 12 many joint tenancy deeds that connect the front to the back. I’ve the Deed of Dedication from 13 when Middlefield Road was given. It was cut into three pieces. That mean there was piece in 14 front of Ellsworth Place, signed by the original owner, Katherine Emerson. She could have… if it 15 was all one lot at 702, it would have been one parcel. But instead, it was broken into a parcel in 16 front of Ellsworth Place and a parcel in front of 702 and then she also had 701 at the time which 17 is under the apartments now. Three different Deeds of Dedication were created at that time 18 which means that she saw that as a legitimate street and the street, for history, was named 19 after her husband’s hometown Ellsworth, Maine; next slide. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 202     _______________________ 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 – video skipped] whole different versions on this map. Go to the next map, when you talk 2 about a parking space or a parking entrance for a multi-family unit. There is no actual street or 3 road drawn on a map. It’s just a line, so if you do down the road from us. There are apartments 4 that you can go into and they’re multi-family and those are between 24 and 26-feet wide or so. 5 They’re drawn with a line, they have Middlefield addressed. They are not a road, so that needs 6 to be corrected; next slide. What is a minor arterial classification? It means that you can push 7 traffic through faster. We’re a minor arterial; next slide. Palo Alto was going to vote in 2015 to 8 up the traffic through Middlefield Road and make us a major. They might do that again in the 9 future, especially with more housing going in. That needs to be thought of now and you want to 10 connect us with 20-feet of road into a major arterial? That’s not okay with us. New 11 construction, as I said, would be required to be 26 to 32-feet wide. 12 13 Let’s keep going, I’m… skip to the… oh this is the blind corner. We can skip this slide. There have 14 been accidents across from us many times and those accidents were not logged. This is… I’m 15 sorry, there was on accident on April 20th, this is fine. This was logged at Towle. We felt the 16 impact in our houses. Two of us went out and checked and the police did come out. It was 17 never logged as happening outside of Ellsworth Place and I couldn’t get any more information 18 from the police on that. I asked and they wouldn’t give it to me; next slide. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 203     _______________________ 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 1810 ordinance was supposed to widen it. The current PC refers to 1810 and we talked about 2 this before. This is how we’re asking to have our road widened at the front at the driveway 3 entrance which is what was 1810. I sent a letter early today with that attachment to it. PC 2343 4 says on Section 4 that all other parts of 1810 are to be followed. 1810 was not included in our 5 Packet and it should have been; next slide. 6 7 As I said, Ellsworth Place is already 21-feet wide, they don’t get to narrow that. We’re already 8 using it at 21-feet and it’s not wide enough and they think they’re going to cut it down and put 9 pavers in. No, we’re… that’s not okay with us; next slide. 10 11 So, the proposal, to our estimates which I didn’t understand. I thought Dewey’s side was going 12 to actually be asphalt but it sounds like those are pavers too, so this slide is no longer valid. I 13 thought he was actually going to give us 2 ½-feet of asphalt added to the 21-feet but no. So, 14 that’s not valid, we’ll just pass that. 15 16 This is where 35-feet comes up to on our street, it’s partly entering in. It’s really… so this is… 17 they want to give us an extra foot and a half where to this… actually not even that. They just 18 want to do that perceived 24-foot width. It will still be 21-feet wide up to this point and take 19 away the rest of the circulation on our street. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 204     _______________________ 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 Let’s go back... keep going, one more slide to the next one. Who actually owns Ellsworth Place? 2 Two of us have claims in with our title companies and it’s right where the ownership of 3 Ellsworth Place Road would have been back in the day and they’re still working on it. We 4 submitted… I submitted mine I think like February 28th was my first email. Got my letter on 5 March 3rd. I just got a letter yesterday, they’re still working on it. It is that complicated and to 6 us, nothing can be decided until road ownership is solved. They’re trying to take the road from 7 us we feel and use that in their boundary. They’re calling it their property and saying we’re 8 driving over it illegally. This needs to be solved. This is something that you can’t just go oh, let 9 him build and use those Codes and then we’ll figure it out later. Once it’s built, it’s hard to get it 10 removed; next slide. 11 12 Every single homes has the ingress/egress. We have a parcel two on our Deeds, as I mentioned 13 before, in the Deed of Dedication. The Ellsworth Place Road section in front on Middlefield 14 Road was its own parcel. So, that tells me right there that that’s how the Katherine Emerson 15 intended it to be; next slide. This is how the deeds currently map now. You can see the back 16 house, 741, owns the road up to half way. The front house, 702, actually connected that but 17 that piece of road did not transfer when it was sold to the apartments in the late 1950s. And 18 the women who had it in her estate died in 1986 so that part is not abandoned. So, they would 19 have had a flag lot, not an actual piece like you see now; next slide. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 205     _______________________ 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 According to Santa Clara County, Palo Alto has actually owned our road since 1968. We actually 2 wonder if in the research for the last times, these came through for the PCs. If Palo Alto actually 3 did take ownership of the road because it is that complicated. I have asked for this information, 4 this history. No ones gotten it so I think we need to ask for that. It should be in the archives and 5 then finally in conclusion. The R-1 is only enforceable if it stays in the PC. Anything they’re 6 asking for, it has to stay in the PC for that to be enforceable. So far there’s no public benefit 7 provide for us. We lose more than we would gain by the requested changes and as it is now, we 8 will live with the situation we have now. We would like our driveway widened, but at the time 9 being the parking lot is necessary for the circulation on our street. It was designed with our 10 street in mind and it’s very much an integrated park of our street. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. 13 14 Ms. Dao: Next is Bhanu Iyer. 15 16 Ms. Bhanu Iyer: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m here to support my neighbors and all the 17 hard work that Kristen Van Fleet and Robert Chang have put in to gather all the information. 18 Just to reiterate what has been said before, the traffic study, which is supposed to address our 19 main concerns of safety. It’s not objective because that was commissioned by the two… the 20 applicant and the apartment owner. This lot should have never been sold and we’re going to fix Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 206     _______________________ 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 it by trying to… two wrongs don’t make a right and I think it’s time to say this shouldn’t have 2 happened. It’s… and please, we absolutely oppose any upzoning of this because it's not fair to 3 the other on the street and it’s not going to provide any benefit. We’re going to lose. We’ve 4 lived here much long so any attempts to support and try and benefit just one brand new owner 5 doesn’t make sense to us and our concerns are legitimate. They are main based on safety. As 6 you can see, I’m vertically challenged and for me to get in and out of that street is quite 7 something. And this is something… it’s risk mitigation, you have to look term. These are things 8 that you don’t make… you know, just because the lot was sold doesn’t mean it has to be 9 followed through. Sometimes mistakes happen and I think we need to own them and to say 10 sorry, it shouldn’t have happened. But it did and I don’t think we’re going to fix it by saying oh, 11 sorry, it happened, we’re going to let you go forward with it. We oppose that for lots of good 12 reasons and my neighbors have articulated that very well both today and at the City Council 13 meeting. Thank you. 14 15 Chair Summa: Thank you. 16 17 Ms. Dao: Paul Bigbee. 18 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 207     _______________________ 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. Paul Bigbee: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m a resident and homeowner on Ellsworth 2 Place. I appreciate you taking the time to visit, those of you who did, to connect our lived reality 3 to the proposal. I would like to raise three issues to your attention. 4 5 First, as it’s been mentioned many times now, the circulation around and into Ellsworth Place is 6 already problematic. I, myself, am a cyclist and often commute to work in Los Altos. Allowing 7 this change will make it perilous and I emphasize perilous. For anyone moving faster than 8 walking pace the risk, especially going northbound on Middlefield Road as it’s been sited by a 9 number of people here. You watch a child drive their scooter down the sidewalk, over 10 Matadero Creek and the risk will be obvious. The proposed configuration will materially and 11 directly the people in this community. 12 13 Second, the statement of public good has to [note – video skipped] no evidence presented here 14 that the net public good has met a threshold that can be deemed objectively positive. And 15 point of fact, the net result here in my view is negative. 16 17 Finally, our civil codes and local norms need to matter. They create expectations for the 18 responsibilities we have to one another. The precedent of violating multiple Codes with no 19 enforcement is an example to the community that anyone with sufficient financial incentives Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 208     _______________________ 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 can out wit and outlast the local community, the people we elect and the people we hire to 2 regulate a balance of our collective interests. 3 4 In summary, I would ask you to support Alternative One, denial of the application. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Summa: Thank you. 7 8 Ms. Dao: Next is Robyn Ziegler. 9 10 Ms. Robyn Ziegler: Hi, good evening. My name is Robyn Ziegler and I’ve lived on Ellsworth for 11 35 years. I’m one of the older, in more ways that one, residents and I did also want to speak to 12 the issue of safety. Especially exiting and entering Ellsworth as it bisects Middlefield. I travel up 13 to San Mateo County every morning at 8:30 to go to work and the traffic is pretty treacherous 14 right on that intersection because of the school across the street. In which parents are turning 15 right into school to drop off their kids and then coming out and turning right and left onto 16 Middlefield when they’re leaving. It’s quite treacherous there, so I did want to make that point. 17 I know it’s been alluded to a number of times. 18 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 209     _______________________ 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 The… also the issue has also been discussed is folks just walking down the street or parents 2 pushing babies in prams. That’s what… I think they use to be called or strollers or those triplex 3 gizmos where they can run with their kid and the bicycle riders. 4 5 And I’m also pretty concerned about the idea of putting a bike lane that will be right at 6 Ellsworth and Middlefield or down Middlefield. That’s kind of ominous too. So, that was the 7 point I’d like to make, thank you. 8 9 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. 10 11 Ms. Dao: Next is Robert Chen. 12 13 Mr. Robert Chen: [unintelligible] Good evening, [unintelligible] Commissioners for this… give us 14 this chance to speak about our situations over there. I’m an Ellsworth resident for almost one 15 decade over there. 16 17 First of all, yeah I wish our street is as wide as shown on the architect… architecture… 18 architect’s slides. Unfortunately, it’s not, okay. I would like to speak… give you the two 19 accidents. I, my family experienced it. One was my son, he was in high school. In one early 20 winter morning, he was biking to Palo Alto High. When we he passed behind the parking spot of Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 210     _______________________ 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 the apartments. One car back up almost hit him and he tried to avoid and he fall on the ground. 2 That’s one accident over there right in the… behind… in the open space over there. Another 3 accident is in… I remember… and this accident that occurred before 2017. Before this current 4 owner bought in. Another accident I personally had in one evening, I think it was almost dark, I 5 tried to get out of Ellsworth but because I have to pull forward to the sidewalk in order to look 6 around to make sure there’s no cars go through on Middlefield because the cars driving over 7 there. They don’t notice… a lot of times they don’t notice there is a street over there driving 8 over there on high speed. So, I almost bumped into a guy. He is walking or he or she I don’t 9 remember. They… he or she is walking on the sidewalk. That… thank god I didn’t hit anybody, 10 but the guy he bump… he patted my car in the front. Okay, those two accidents, my personal 11 experience. 12 13 So, with that said I’m, as a resident… community members over there I’m strongly against the 14 [unintelligible] of the parking lot from the apartment and against the change of the PC 2343 15 zoning ordinance. 16 17 Another regarding the tree, the other members… other community members said, I would say 18 the violation against the tree… tree requirement over City should not be encouraged, should be 19 tolerated. Nor in order should we repeat respected, especially in China… especially in the US. 20 Not in China, sorry. Yeah, I’m from China, yeah. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 211     _______________________ 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 2 Okay, per the PC Zoning Ordinance, the… actually the earth was not… the parking lot is used by 3 then to combined to use to increase the buildable units for the apartments development. In 4 addition, it made open space as a safety buffer… safety traffic buffer between Middlefield Road 5 and the neighborhood, including part of the apartments. So, per the PC Zoning, approval of 6 those both the City and the apartment developer are [unintelligible] that Ellsworth Street 7 would potentially be widened in the future. Both parties recognize that Ellsworth Street is just 8 too narrow, even for the 1950’s standards. 9 10 With so many public safety concerns expressed by the community members who had many 11 years of living first hand, driving experience in and out Ellsworth Street. It would be safe for the 12 City, I would say, to keep the PC Zoning unchanged to avoid future problems such as car 13 accidents. People getting injured which might cause the City to be sued in the future. 14 15 Chair Summa: Excuse me, your time is up. Could you just wind it up quickly, please? 16 17 Mr. Chen: Okay. 18 19 Chair Summa: Thanks. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 212     _______________________ 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. Chen: In conclusion, yeah I would be strongly against this change to the PC Zoning. Thank 2 you for your listening. 3 4 Chair Summa: Thank you. 5 6 Ms. Dao: Next is Susan Light. 7 8 Ms. Susan Light: Good evening, my name is Susan Light and I’ve lived at Ellsworth for almost 11 9 years. My concern is about the accuracy of the traffic report since it ignores the fact that 10 making a right turn onto Ellsworth from Middlefield when there was a car trying to leave 11 Ellsworth is impossible. Cars aren’t made of elastic and so in making a right turn there needs to 12 be several feet for that car to make the 90-degree angle. If one is heading south on Middlefield, 13 there are two northbound lanes so the car can turn the 90 degrees and get… and make the 14 turn. But it can’t be done if someone is heading north on Middlefield and the width of the 15 sidewalk is less than the length of the car. It’s just simple geometry. So, if I’m making the right 16 turn, I honestly hold my breath and hope that the driver behind me sees my turn signal and 17 brake lights so I won’t be rear-ended. This is just all about safety. If there was a car exiting the 18 street, I have to wait for that car to either leave or back up to give me the room to make the 90- 19 degree angle turn. Since it's not physically possible to turn into the right lane if there’s a car 20 that’s trying to exit. This was not mentioned in the traffic report, so I have to wonder what Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 213     _______________________ 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 other questions that they or either or conclusions were incorrect in the traffic report. Thank 2 you. 3 4 Chair Summa: Thank you. 5 6 Ms. Dao: Next is Karen Mangum. 7 8 Ms. Karen Mangum: Good evening everyone. I am not a resident of Ellsworth but I do visit 9 frequently and my visits are in the middle of the day. Generally, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 10 p.m. On multiple occasions that parking lot during the middle of the day has had at least two 11 cars in it. One notable occasion it had three cars, a workmen’s pick up truck and both a FedEx 12 and a UPS truck. So, assertions that it’s underutilized I think really are not quite valid because 13 anytime that I go by there are some types of vehicle in those eight parking spaces and I did 14 notice when the chain link fence had been back into. There were two creases in the metal of 15 the fence where it had been back in and it had obviously been pushed. And I have also seen, I 16 guess it’s the apartment owner’s cars, I don’t know, but parked parallel to the fence because 17 they needed the space. So, these are all valid concerns. 18 19 Also, valid concerns, as everyone has mentioned, are the safety getting in and out. That steep 20 decline from Middlefield downward onto Ellsworth Place is not normal and as you sit at Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 214     _______________________ 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 Middlefield… for me it’s mostly making a left turn. It’s kind of… you know have to have some 2 faith going down. When I exit, ii have to put my front wheels up onto the sidewalk in order to 3 see clear enough to get out. These are all very, very valid concerns for safety. 4 5 For my own personal upbringing, my family are attorneys and there are two PCs intact right 6 now. PC 1810 from 1958 and PC 2343 from 1967 and as I understand it, unless the law is made 7 invalid. It is still applicable and PC 2343 specially mentions that all of instances mentioned in 8 18.10 are still active. I don’t understand why we can’t say there was a mistake made. This 9 cannot be an R-1 zoning. It’s PC, it’s twice PC, there’s an 18.10 and a 2343. It doesn’t make 10 sense to me why it could just be invalidated and the ownership of the road, as has been 11 explained to me, is very confusing. Who owns the road? How can a chunk of road be attached 12 to one parcel where all of the rest of the road is not attached to any of the parcels? There are 13 some very confusing elements in this whole thing and I really do agree the elements like this 14 need to be decided before you can really make a valid argument for breaking up the PC 2343 15 into an R-1 and as I understand now, upzoning the apartment side. 16 17 So, as other people have made presentations regarding safety, I agree with those, but I also 18 think that you Members need to really examine the foundational law aspects of the PC 18.10 19 from 1958 and PC 2343 from 1967 and those still stand. Thank you. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 215     _______________________ 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 Summa: Thank you. 2 3 Ms. Dao: Next is Mariah Slattery. 4 5 Ms. Mariah Slattery: Thank you, Commissioners, others. I come to support a friend who lives on 6 Ellsworth and I read some of the information about the situation. And I’ve been to visit Kristen 7 in the past and certainly noticed the side of the street and didn’t know anything about it but I’ll 8 be very brief. I took a trip there today. There no one else on the street. Traffic on Middlefield 9 was not heavy. There were children and I had to… I first noticed when Ms. Summa… 10 Commissioner Summa [note - Chair Summa] mentioned sitting in your car and not being able 11 to see onto Middlefield. And that’s been mentioned many times, but I think it’s a really 12 important thing to consider in terms of actually narrowing the street making it more and more 13 difficult. 14 15 I wanted to say that it’s a shame what happened with the person… the gentlemen who bought 16 this property and has a need for it and it’s a shame that things were missed and anyway, thank 17 you very much for your time. 18 19 Chair Summa: Thank you. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 216     _______________________ 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. Dao: Yes. 2 3 Chair Summa: We have more? 4 5 Ms. Dao: Yes, we have three on Zoom. First is MJ Wolf. You can unmute yourself, you have 5- 6 minutes. 7 8 Ms. MJ Wolf: Yes, can you hear me? Okay, anyway, within Palo Alto, there’s a history of 9 removing… is there a history of removing a portion of a PC? Because by removing the parking 10 lot from the PC, the density for the Sutter Arms Apartments is increased and qualifying it from 11 an RM-20 to an RM-30. And this sets a precedence that opens up the door for additional multi- 12 family property owners that are rated RM-20 to go a sell-off portions of their parking lots to 13 qualify for the RM-30 density. And I do not want to see this precedence that results in a lot of 14 more lots being sold off. 15 16 Another thing is as been mentioned, the parking lot has always been used by the postal service 17 and the delivery trucks. And there’s no other available space for these trucks to park and I 18 won’t go into that because it’s already been addressed. I don’t think this is legal though, the 19 proposal. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 217     _______________________ 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 Regarding the tree that was removed, since this was an oak tree. Will Sutter Arms be adding 2 oak trees to the Sutter Arms landscape? They say the will be native trees but I know that over 3 the past year, the landscaping was redone on the Sutter Arms and that’s… and this included 4 removing some of the olive trees, which I don’t believe are native, and maybe adding some 5 western redbuds. But these are not going to make up for the canopy that was given by the oak 6 tree that was removed and it does not appear that any additional trees will be added to the 7 Sutter Arms landscape. Since there’s no enforcement with the Safeway landscape along San 8 Carlos and Middlefield, will there be any enforcement of the proposed landscape at Sutter 9 Arms? 10 11 And finally, thank you Commissioner Summa [note – Chair Summa] for visiting the site. I invite 12 all of the Commissioners to visit the proposing [note - video skipped] upward slope and I’ve 13 ridden that slop many times on my bicycle. It’s extremely dangerous to enter Middlefield from 14 Ellsworth on a bicycle and probably a car but especially a bicycle because of that slope. 15 Because… and then there’s the drivers and bicycling… bicycles typically stop the vehicle over 16 the sidewalk in order to check for approaching cars from the south. In addition to normal traffic 17 on Middlefield approaching from the south and a bus stop on the bridge. There are vehicles 18 turning right onto Middlefield from the Kim Grant Tennis Academy and the Winter Lodge. All of 19 these factors, including the Key’s School, can make for a very precarious situation during Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 218     _______________________ 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 commute and when the tennis and skating activities are open. Thank you, that’s all I have to 2 say. 3 4 Chair Summa: Thank you. 5 6 Ms. Dao: Next is Yevgeny Khasin. 7 8 Mr. Yevgeny Khasin: Hello, good evening. I’m a resident of the street and a lot… house to the 9 left and I just got an innocent question follow a philanthropist so the applicant presented. So, I 10 have an example of… I got a piano delivered to my property and in this case, it wasn’t about the 11 standard UPS delivery truck. It was really full-size, big truck that was almost about the size of a 12 fire engine and it was delivered up to my property and then he obviously had to get back 13 somehow. So, the only option for him… for the driver to get out with his truck is to back up all 14 the way and make a circulation at the parking lot. So, I just wondered if there would be a 15 property there standing and about this size of a truck. I wonder if he would be able to make a 16 U-turn there or mostly probably the only option would have just to back up all the way to 17 Middlefield Street with this size of a truck and this is just an example, right? Deliveries happen 18 with furniture and appliances and this size… full size of real big trucks are a [unintelligible] 19 option, possible option. So, I just wonder if its… if it would be possible which I personally doubt. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 219     _______________________ 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 I don’t see any by the plan that was presented if it's possible any other than just backing up to 2 Middlefield. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Summa: Thank you. Is this our final speaker? 5 6 Ms. Dao: Yes, our last speaker is Ardan Michael Blum. 7 8 Chair Summa: Thank you. 9 10 Mr. Ardan Michael Blum: Hello? Yes, can you hear me? 11 12 Ms. Dao: Yes. 13 14 Mr. Blum: Outstanding. If we look at Palo Alto as a whole and not the self-entitled people that 15 have just been going on and on about their little street. There are some major, dangerous 16 places that are totally unrelated to this location on Alma. All of the avenues, all of the small 17 streets that go out of Alma go out to Alma are highly dangerous. Now using that model in mind, 18 all that is needed for the current case are mirrors, lots of them. Possibly camera-related images 19 where you have a camera that relies an image. Now all over Palo Alto, we have cell towers. I 20 mean it’s like a Monopoly board for the cell towers. Nobody raises up even the slightest Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 220     _______________________ 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 opposition or very, very few people do so. So, there should be no problem whatsoever, and by 2 the way for the record, until proven it’s a public road that we’re talking about. It’s not at all a 3 private road until proven and for the record if it’s a private road. Then the charges for the 4 cameras go to the resident who claims that it’s a private road I would assume. But this whole 5 story should be switched into a completely different mode, and I’ll end on this note, which is 6 use technology, thank you. 7 8 Chair Summa: Thank you very much and I’ve had a request from the Commission to take a quick 9 break and so we’ll come back in about 6 minutes. Thank you very much. 10 11 [The Commission took a short break] 12 13 Chair Summa: Let’s get started again and what we’d like to do first is ask the applicant to take 14 advantage of the rebuttal period if you would like to. It’s listed as 3 minutes. 15 16 Mr. Hayes: Okay, alright, thank you, Chair Summa. I… the City has not recognized this PC for 17 over 56 years and even as recently as 2019 when they changed the zoning from the RM-15… 18 the RM-12 I mean. The PC didn’t even come into the equation, so I think we’ve lost sight of the 19 issue which is there’s a mistake that has been made where people have relied upon information Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 221     _______________________ 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 from the City. And they’ve suffered financial hardship and there’s consequences potentially 2 with that sort of thing. S 3 4 So, I want to talk about just a few things that drivers on Middlefield pulling into the driveway. 5 You bet that occurs up and down Middlefield. It’s a normal course of driving and you tend to 6 slow down and so slowing down will also increase safety. So, we think that the existing 7 condition is one that’s usual. 8 9 In terms of density, it’s really interesting. They’re making an argument about our density kind of 10 being this big violation. In… with the original PC in 1967, with 12 units on that parcel, the 11 density, when it was RM-15. That’s what the zoning was at the time lets say when they did the 12 PC. Well, the density didn’t comply with the RM-15 because our density is like a 20 DUA so the 13 density didn’t comply when they did the first PC and that’s part of the reason they’re doing a PC 14 is that you don’t always follow the standard zoning requirements. 15 16 Our attorney has written a list of public benefits, I won’t talk about that, but in terms of safety 17 again. The parking lot… the City has reviewed our traffic engineer’s report and really had no 18 questions. Again, to improve safety you slow things down. The sight triangle, if you think about 19 having eight cars parked there today. Those eight cars are about where Mr. Handa’s 4… the 20 back of those eight cars will be or are 4-feet from the easement line. That’s where Mr. Handa is Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 222     _______________________ 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 proposing to provide his pavers. Right now, you’re going to have eight cars, which is 75-feet of 2 vehicle potentially if the neighbors are saying that cars park there. They’ve got a worse 3 situation today with sight lines than they will when our house is pushed back 24-feet and 4 everything’s lowered to 3-feet. I mean how can you see Middlefield at all if you’ve got 5 ½-foot 5 tall cars extending all the way out to much closer to Middlefield than our house ever would and 6 our fences are at 3-feet? Nitin wanted to say… I’m sorry Nitin. Thank you, is this over? 7 8 Chair Summa: Pardon me? 9 10 Mr. Hayes: I saw the red light come on. Can I have more time? 11 12 Chair Summa: You can finish if you want to. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: I would like to give some time to Nitin. 15 16 Chair Summa: Sure. 17 18 Mr. Handa: One of the questions that came up was whether whatever we are proposing for a 19 building a single-story home, how do we ensure that I end up building that? Willing to give a Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 223     _______________________ 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 commitment for that, willing to give an affidavit that what we are proposing is what we will be 2 building. So, whatever, a written affidavit, a legal affidavit is required, I’m willing to do that. 3 4 Secondly, the fence on both sides, especially on Middlefield side, is going to be 3-foot, not 4- 5 foot. Somebody mentioned 4-foot. We have reduced it to 3-foot and also very important thing 6 is the gap we are keeping between the horizontal planks. 3-inch gap between each horizontal 7 plan which gives a clear vision to the other side of Middlefield. That’s it. 8 9 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. I will bring it back to the Commission now for discussion 10 and I’m… am I seeing any lights? 11 12 Commissioner Templeton: I’ll raise my hand, Chair. 13 14 Chair Summa: Okay, I think the order is Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Akin and 15 Commissioner Templeton. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, Chair. So, in… I’m just going to ask some questions in this 18 round and reserve comments for a future round. So, one… I’m… obviously we’ve heard a lot of 19 discussion tonight and I want to thank both the applicant team and the all the neighbors, both 20 here and joining us on Zoom for contributing to this dialog. It’s really important to us to hear Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 224     _______________________ 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 your voices and to understand multiple perspectives as we wrestle with these issues. So, I 2 appreciate everybody’s participation. 3 4 I’m... a couple of things I was… I heard that I was curious about. We’ve heard from the applicant 5 about their intent for what house they would develop on this… on the Ellsworth parcel and 6 we’ve heard some concerns that once they… once we rezone to R-1 there’s really no 7 enforcement mechanism to ensure for example that while we’ve heard that they don’t intend 8 to build a basement. If they applied for a house with a basement under R-1 the City wouldn’t 9 really have the discretion to say no. So, one question I had is right now we’ve got this PC 2343 10 zoning that applies to the whole property and what we’re proposing to do is actually scale that 11 back. So, as I understand it, it will continue to apply to the Middlefield property where 12 incidentally it allowed in 1967 12 units and that’s the exact number of units. So, that’s going to 13 be modified, that the coverage of PC is going to be modified and if I’m understanding correctly 14 in the development plan there’s actually going to be some modifications as to the Middlefield 15 property. Such as the requirement of the four on-site tandem spaces and possibly the delivery 16 space. So, I’m wondering if it is a possible alternative to an R-1 zoning of the Ellsworth property 17 to retain the 2343 zoning for the entirety of this land mass but to provide in a new 18 development plan that 702 could develop with a single-family home and these would be some 19 limitations. No basement, 35-foot triangle site space, the 18-inches of pavers at the front and 20 then widening to I’m not sure we got a dimension once they hit the sidewalk but whatever that Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 225     _______________________ 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 is. So, I’m wondering if that’s a vehicle we could use to ensure that the vision that we’re hearing 2 from the applicant and that everyone is hearing from the applicant is what could be developed 3 on that location. You know, subject to approval of development plan and subsequently Building 4 Permits. So, that’s the first question. 5 6 Mr. Sauls: So, overall the answers yes, you know that could be another alternative as to… it 7 would still be considered as a rezoning but it would be instead of PC 2343 and R-1. It would be 8 PC whatever the number would be with those additional restrictions and land uses provided for 9 in that document and that development plan. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, so that’s something I would like us to be thinking about 12 and I’d like the applicant team to be thinking about to whether there’s any reason that that 13 might not suit their needs. 14 15 Second question I had really has to do with the access to and from Ellsworth. And now this is an 16 existing situation and apparently, it’s existed this way since whenever the apartment was built. 17 Sometimes I guess shortly after 1967, but so I’ve really got two questions because I’m really 18 focused on the portion of Ellsworth that’s before us tonight which is just the part that is sitting 19 on the parcel 702. Right, the rest of Ellsworth travels back from that, that’s not before us. 20 We’re not here to look at improvements to that existing condition, but as to this portion of Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 226     _______________________ 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 Ellsworth that is part of 702 and meets Middlefield. I’m looking at Packet Page 42, which is… it’s 2 an aerial photo from the Hexagon report and what I am seeing… what I appear to be seeing is 3 shrubbery, I’m guessing it’s shrubbery, not trees, but it could be trees, right up against the 4 sidewalk sort of framing Ellsworth Place where it meets the sidewalk. And so, I think that 5 those… that were sight-blocking vegetation on both sides of Ellsworth. I read in the letter from 6 the counsel dated June 8th that the… actually the vegetation… it’s not clear to me if the 7 vegetation on both sides has been removed or just on the 702, but at least I think that has 8 already been done, if not on both sides. So, I wanted to find out from staff first is there… am I 9 looking at that aerial right? That there was historically vegetation on both sides of Ellsworth 10 right up behind the sidewalk? 11 12 Ms. French: There were photos that were provided that showed vegetation shrubs that were 13 taller than 3-feet right there at the edge on 702. There… I believe there’s just the tree there 14 that’s showing on Dewey’s parcel in that triangle. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. 17 18 Ms. French: The rest of it is low ground cover on Dewey’s parcel. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 227     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: Alright, so one thought I had and again, hearing the residents of 2 Ellsworth Place talk about the challenges of really entering from Middlefield. That the right turn 3 motion onto Middlefield and I think the… sorry, right turn motion onto Ellsworth from 4 Middlefield and also, the right turn motion from Ellsworth onto Middlefield, so those two 5 motions. Part of what I’m seeing is this is like it’s a straight line 20-feet whereas in normal 6 development, I think even my house, there’s kind of a flare to the apron right where… like at 7 my house I think… well, I’m not sure I have it but a lot of places have a little flare out. And I’m 8 wondering if this is something that staff and the applicant have discussed and those flares 9 incidentally they’re not super wide. You know, what I was thinking here is because I think it’s 10 like a standard flare site might be 26-feet wide at the beginning of the mouth. So, you’re 11 looking at kind of a small triangle within this clear sight area that is 3-feet on the 702 side. It’s 3- 12 feet and then you know, it’s basically a triangle that pinches to zero and then it would also be 13 start at 3-feet on the Middlefield property owner side. And so, I’m wondering if that… and if 14 you put those wedges in and they were paved. Then that provides a softening of this 15 experience that the Ellsworth residents are experiencing and of course, the apartment 16 dwellings on Middlefield will benefit from that as will the resident of 702 because they get to 17 enjoy that same enhanced safety. So, I’m really… I’m sorry it’s a long way to explain it but I was 18 wondering if staff has had dialog with the applicant… with the two property owners about that 19 possibility of it would be a… it would actually I guess have to be… because this is not a public Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 228     _______________________ 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 street. It would have to be sort of included in the easements that were granted to serve 2 everybody up the street. 3 4 Ms. French: Staff did have conversations when this concept of widening with pavers came up. 5 You know, the question is, is that asphalt, what is that? What about widening the easement 6 there to capture that area? I put on the screen just a Public Works engineering’s diagram of one 7 of their specs that showed the flare at about two feet from if you were to say that’s a 20-foot 8 wide Ellsworth and then it expands two feet on each side at the sidewalk edge on Middlefield. 9 That gives it 24-feet if you were to have the flange there, the widened apron per this particular 10 spec I found in the course of a few minutes. There may be other designs that are in our Public 11 Works (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, thank you. 14 15 Ms. French: [unintelligible] 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, thank you, Ms. French. So, I’m interested… I want to hear from 18 the other Commissioners first, but ultimately I’m interested in this idea and I’d like to 19 eventually hear from the applicant whether this is something they’d be amendable to; or as it is 20 entirely possible, am I not thinking of something that really makes this attenable for some Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 229     _______________________ 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 reason? For example, if could marginally effect the square footage of the house evening 2 planned for 702. I don’t know think it’s many square feet but if you’re right… if you’re bumping 3 up against the max. It could make it lose a couple square feet so I’d like to hear from the 4 applicants eventually on that. So, those are my initial questions, thanks. 5 6 Chair Summa: Commissioner Akin. 7 8 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, we may have to come back for another round, but I’m… I would like 9 to see the project go forward because I would like to see the additional housing developed. 10 However, what I’m hearing suggests to me that we’re getting insufficient public benefit to 11 offset the public cost. So, that leads me to the question of how much additional flexibility the 12 applicants might have. One concrete example is as I walked the property the space that’s to the 13 south of I believe it’s 2905 Middlefield could be employed to widen Ellsworth all the way out to 14 Middlefield. There’s no crucial vegetation there that I noticed. It would mean sacrificing a rear 15 yard but currently, there’s no significant landscaping there. I believe there was a tree that 16 looked like an olive to me but not a protected tree. 17 18 And I touched on the question of second stories and basements. Specifically, to think about are 19 there ways to reduce the footprint of the house that’s proposed for lot 702 and by doing so, 20 one additional option might open up for providing easements that would both widen Ellsworth Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 230     _______________________ 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 and provide better access for deliveries and services. It’s beyond our scope to do this sort of 2 design on the fly, so the question I have is whether the applicants would be interested in 3 considering additional design and coming back to the City with other proposals. That’s it, thank 4 you. 5 6 Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I agree in part with both my colleagues have said about 9 understanding the scope would be helpful here. And I’ve gone back and read what we’ve asked 10 to do, and we have not been asked to approve a project. We have not been asked to approve a 11 housing design. We’ve not been asked to approve a driveway expansion, flange, anything else. 12 All we have been asked to do is look at whether or not the person… Mr. Handa has the ability to 13 build a house here as the City stated he did when he purchased it and to me, this is a real risk 14 for the City. We need to understand what we have been asked to do and why and I’m not sure 15 we have entirely understood the scope of the risk for the City and what it means if we deny this 16 applicant. What they were told by the City, an official body, would be possible when they 17 purchased the property? 18 19 So, I’m very concerned about what it means if we aren’t able to deliver on this request and I 20 also think that, despite a plethora of very empathetic comments that we have received from Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 231     _______________________ 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 neighbors, friends, applicants, etc, that many of these comments have been outside the scope 2 of what we’ve been asked to do here because those are the easier arguments. And the 3 argument before us is can we deliver what the City promised would be possible with this 4 property and what are the mechanisms to do that. So, I’m not sure I’m very comfortable with 5 what my colleague Commissioner Hechtman has suggested which is to not deliver that, but to 6 deliver most of the understanding of that because the City already said yes, you’d be able to 7 build. This is an R-1 property. So, I’m really confused, and I love our Staff but this report doesn’t 8 answer a lot of questions. It doesn’t answer what the risk is, it doesn’t answer what you’ve 9 promised, it doesn’t answer a lot of the commentary about safety that has come up with the 10 public. 11 12 On that note, I will just say we know that Middlefield is dangerous, we know. We have lots of 13 collisions on this street and we’re not able to deliver safety improvements because we’re 14 focused on other things. Just like tonight, we’re here in a housing and zoning question and 15 we’re faced with all these transportation thoroughfare safety questions. And those need to be 16 addressed and we didn’t even have a member of the transportation department show up 17 today. So, I’m very frustrated as somebody that is, as you are as well, listening to the 18 comments. The sincere concerns about safety from our residents. This is why we need to have a 19 much more collaborative discussion. However, that’s not before us tonight. As much as I want Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 232     _______________________ 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 to talk about it, and I want to talk about it at every Commission meeting. That’s not what’s 2 before us tonight. 3 4 What’s before us is a very emotionally fraught situation where we have a brand new resident or 5 intended resident facing off with his neighbors because there’s a misunderstanding at the City 6 staff level when there was a discussion prior to purchase. That’s the kind of welcome I want to 7 give our new residents and I know that’s what our neighbors want. We want this all to be 8 resolved peacefully and in a way that works before everybody and that would be the 9 community benefit in my opinion. Is finding a way to resolve this where we can have one more 10 new home and one more new home full of residents and a safer street that provides as much as 11 possible the comfort that they currently have. So, that’s my two thoughts… two cents at this 12 point and like Commissioner Akin said, I’d love to have another round after we hear from 13 everybody. Thank you. 14 15 Chair Summa: Great, thank you. We will have another round I’m sure. Commissioner Lu. 16 17 Commissioner Lu: Yes, I will leave more comments for another round. I definitely agree with 18 Commissioner Templeton and I’m also receptive to some of the proposed compromises you 19 mentioned Commissioner Hechtman. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 233     _______________________ 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 Maybe a couple of quick questions. Can the staff give more comments on visibility and safety? 2 There’s a small blurb in the packet but like, of the balance of concerns we’ve heard tonight; can 3 you give your assessment of them? 4 5 Ms. French: Well, we did share the report prepared by the applicant’s consultant with the 6 Office of Transportation Staff. And so, they reviewed that study and agreed with the findings 7 and that’s the comments that we received from Office of Transportation. I’m not a 8 transportation engineer so we rely on our transportation staff to provide the peer review of 9 what was prepared by a professional transportation engineer. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: Can I interject here? I’m so sorry Commissioner Lu but can I interject 12 (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lu: Yeah, definitely. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: Why did transportation not show up tonight when we have all these 17 known issues that are intermingled with this application? Were they informed about these 18 issues? 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 234     _______________________ 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: They were aware of them, this was on the Agenda. I… it’s not a question I can 2 answer. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: Well, you don’t have to answer. I think it’s enough that I asked it but 5 [note – video skipped] [unintelligible]. If we can schedule things that are housing and 6 transportation related and intertwined like this on days when they can be available, please? 7 Thank you. 8 9 Commissioner Lu: I agree with that. I think the ultimate balance of the safety improvements or 10 also negative aspects are subtle and not really clear to me. One more question, is there any 11 summary of what actually happens with the apartment tenants? Do they have any 12 compensation? Do they have any perspective that we’ve gathered overall? 13 14 Ms. French: Oh, Staff has not interviewed the apartment tenants at 2901. We did have 15 conversations with the apartment manager out on site but did not have individual 16 conversations with apartment tenants. 17 18 Commissioner Lu: Okay, would the applicants maybe have context on that, that they could 19 share? 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 235     _______________________ 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 Summa: If the applicant would like to answer Commissioner Lu, please feel free to do so. 2 3 [unknown speaker from the audience:] [unintelligible] 4 5 Commissioner Lu: Oh, the question was firstly just what happens with the apartment tenants? 6 Do they get any compensation? What really changes for them and do they have a fair 7 perspective or opinion on this? 8 9 Mr. Hayes: I suppose… Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, in talking with my client. I would 10 assume that if the residents of the apartment building had any concerns or issues. They would 11 have shown up tonight but there’s no compensation for them as part of this and the guest 12 parking is more convenient on Sutter than it is on Ellsworth. 13 14 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu, if you would like to ask any member of the public to answer 15 these questions, I think it would be helpful. 16 17 Commissioner Lu: Yes, I’m sorry, I forgot your name but would happy to hear from you. 18 19 Ms. Van Fleet: [from the audience] I’m Kristen, can you hear me [unintelligible]? 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 236     _______________________ 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 Summa: No, you have to come to the microphone so we can get you on the recording also 2 for posterity. 3 4 Ms. Van Fleet: Alright, having friends at the apartments, I know that they’re afraid that their 5 rent is going to get raised or they’ll be evicted. If you’ve read the book Evicted, you would 6 understand the situations our renters have. I know people that have been priced out of those 7 apartments when they were with the former owner. So, I don’t think you’re going to get 8 anything out of them. I’ve talked to a few of them so far and that’s how I know a little bit, but I 9 can’t give names or anything at this point and they want their interests protected. So, I don’t 10 know, I mean I love that you’re looking out for them. I think they would too, but also realize 11 what you could possibly open up in their lives by asking such questions. So, I’ll just caution you 12 on that and read the book Evicted. 13 14 Commissioner Lu: Sure, yeah we’ll (interrupted) 15 16 Mr. Richard Dewey: [from the audience] Thanks, I appreciate that. I’m Richard Dewey, I just… 17 I’m offended by the comment and the reaction that somehow there’s going to be retribution. 18 We take good pride in our project, we think we have good relationships with those folks. I was 19 told one of them wrote a positive letter for this, whether it was sent or not, I don’t know but I Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 237     _______________________ 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 was told she did. So, I just… I’m sorry, we’ve been sitting here about 2 ½-3 hours and I’m a 2 little… I didn’t take that well so thank you. 3 4 Commissioner Lu: Thank you and that’s… yeah. 5 6 Chair Summa: Okay, I will take a minute to make some comments and then I think we’re going 7 to have at least one more round on this for sure. And I want to start out by asking… thanking 8 everybody for coming tonight and acknowledging what a difficult situation this is because on 9 the one hand, we have people that live on a beautiful little street that’s very… when I visited it 10 was very private. It’s a really nice place to live. It has a history and it has some issues because of 11 the nature of the street and the physicality of the street and stuff. And we have a… someone 12 who owns properties, spent good money on it, but I don’t see the issue as delivering a result in 13 that regard to the property owner. I see the issue is the PC process has always been troubled in 14 this community because of the public benefit required and the community’s feeling that the 15 public benefit was not reliably delivered or vanished over time. I know the PCs are all supposed 16 to be checked I believe by our Code every 3 years. I doubt that they are and maybe that’s an 17 aspect of institutional memory in a City and those sorts of things. 18 19 But I will say one thing that really troubles me about this situation is we have an opportunity 20 because the applicant wants to open the… wants to amend the PC, to make things better and Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 238     _______________________ 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 the neighbors, they feel it’s going to make things worse. And that’s what I think we don’t want 2 to do while also respecting both of the property owners. 3 4 So, I also… so I have… I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with all my colleagues, even 5 though they didn’t say the same sorts of things because… and I will say that Chair… 6 Commissioner Templeton put her finger on it. This staff report left more questions for me. I 7 answered maybe… I asked maybe a third of the questions I had and I’m sure I could have 8 thought of more. This staff report didn’t answer enough questions and I realize some of these 9 questions are maybe sort of proprietary information of the property… existing property owners 10 but one really glaringly large thing to me is the status of Ellsworth Street. And the reason is one 11 of the big things is the County thinks it’s a street and it looks like every other street in Palo Alto. 12 Except it’s older which is an aspect of it being an old part of Palo Alto and it was… that tract was 13 developed before it was in the City and there no Development Standards applied. I mean it’s 14 why my block in College Terrace has… I kid you not, my one block has three different lots that 15 are L-shaped around two sides of another lot. And it’s just how… and one of them is my house 16 is in the crotch of one of the L’s but it’s just how things are in older neighborhoods and it’s why 17 it’s very important as we move forward this… with this, I think to really understand what the 18 actual facts are about Ellsworth, and to understand the easements. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 239     _______________________ 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 Currently, there are… one of the speakers said there are… two of the properties have submitted 2 to a title company to look at all of this. I think we needed to know that before we could make 3 these decisions and I also think we needed to know that before kind of the design of this 4 property got underway. 5 6 I am very troubled by the concept of a corner lot that this… one of the streets that creates a 7 corner is contained by the lot itself and how that affects setbacks and use of the land. And I’m 8 very worried that if we grant the amendment today, we will have done so without considering 9 all these details and I just really struggled. 10 11 I mean I even struggled with… there was sort of a… I forget what packet page but we… staff 12 showed it as a slide. There was sort of a zoning comparison table but it wasn’t a real zoning 13 comparison table because it didn’t go through all the Development Standards and compare 14 them. And I don’t… if the view triangle is correct, if that is really the realistic way people need 15 to see when they’re coming out of there. I don’t know why there should be a 3-foot fence. I 16 know I’m shorter than a lot of people but I’m sort of standard size, low end of standard and it 17 was really hard for me to see if… until I got my front wheels full on the sidewalk. So, I think we 18 need to think more creatively about the fronts of both properties since we do have some 19 control as they are in the special 24-foot setback. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 240     _______________________ 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 But I also would like to caution us to go slowly with this because there’s a lot of money on both 2 sides. I think there’s 15 or 13 properties or maybe 12 on Ellsworth, those are all property 3 owners too. Regardless of whether the owners live in their houses or maybe some of them are 4 tenants. 5 6 I just, in general, I don’t feel we have the information we need to make this decision now and I 7 also think that we don’t know anything… we know the map had a mistake on it. And I will say 8 that each page of our Zoning Map has a disclaimer on them stating that you can’t use this 9 because there could be mistakes. Mistakes are made in development a lot in the City and we 10 try to resolve them as best we can. And the reason is because it’s super complicated and some 11 of the documents kind of get lost in history. And it’s really hard and I think everybody tried their 12 very best up until now. I will comment all sides involved and our staff for its great work but I 13 just think we need to do more and resolve some of these issues. 14 15 I’m particularly concerned that the County, which is a body of government that supersedes our 16 own because it’s broader. Just like the State supersedes the County and the County supersedes 17 the City. That they maintain this is a City street. 18 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 241     _______________________ 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 So, I’m going to leave it at that because that was kind of a broad overview of my concerns 2 about this project for everyone involved. And I will go back to a second round and if… I don’t 3 know who would like to speak. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton: I have my hand up, Chair. 6 7 Chair Summa: Go ahead, Commissioner Templeton. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I’m inclined to agree with you that we would be in a 10 good… better position… the best position that we have in front of us tonight is probably to ask 11 staff to come back with a more complete staff report that answers the open questions. I’d like 12 to hear what the other Commissioners think as well, but you know I also want to through that 13 out there because we have all these really good questions that have come up that aren’t on this 14 specific item. The fence is another good one. We listed a few before, but we need to have the 15 ability to engage with staff on these questions because for me, in my mind, I’m like well maybe 16 the 3-foot fence is a discussion when we have an actual plan in front of us to approve versus at 17 this point. But maybe it is a transportation safety question, and we don’t know because we 18 don’t have the ability to interact with staff on that. So, that’s just another reason it might be 19 better to come back. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 242     _______________________ 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 And as far as additional proposals, I know we’re throwing out ideas. In addition to the ones 2 we’ve heard from the other Commissioners tonight, I would also like to propose that… this is an 3 extreme proposal but it should be on the table to easily be tossed out if you guys don’t want to 4 do to. But if there is an impasse, then the neighbors on the street might want to consider 5 purchasing that property back. If they… if it’s critical to how their neighborhood functions and 6 we can’t let someone else own the property and make decisions about that parcel then that 7 might be an alternative. Just wanted to throw that out there as the least good alternative but at 8 least an alternative. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, Chair. So, let me start by saying that I am supportive of 13 finding a path that yields a new single-family home on 702 Ellsworth. I’m not sure that R-1 14 zoning is the best way to go about it and I’m eventually going to ask the applicant if they’re 15 open to considering basically folding that into an amendment to the existing PC. So, it would 16 still be PC zoning that would accommodate really everything that we’re seeing in these plans. 17 Folded into a new PC which will have as I understand it from Mr. Sauls a new number. Right, 18 just like 1810 was the original, that was replaced by 2343. 2343 would now be replaced by 19 some new PC number. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 243     _______________________ 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 So, but I do… I am supportive of it. I do think that there’s community benefit. It’s listed in our 2 staff report, it’s listed in the letter from the counsel, and to me one of the biggest community 3 benefits… and again, the community benefit is not the local community. It’s not people within 4 300-feet or 500-feet. It’s the community of Palo Alto and if anything is clear to those of us on 5 the Commission and I think residents of the City who’ve just gone through the trauma of 6 adopting a new Housing Element. One of the biggest things the City needs, one of the biggest 7 benefits to the City is to provide more housing units and this applicant seeks to do that. 8 9 Additionally, what I’m seeing is that while perhaps some refinement is necessary, this 10 application is seeking to improve a bad situation in terms of traffic safety at the beginning of 11 Ellsworth. The part that’s controlled by this property and I do see… now that’s more of a local 12 benefit because not that many people go down Ellsworth. The residents obviously and their 13 guests but that I see as a benefit too and so I’m pretty satisfied that an adequate showing of 14 benefit can be made. 15 16 I am also satisfied that this… at least this first leg of Ellsworth that is located on 702 is not a 17 public street. There are only two ways that you make a public street. One is you offer it for 18 dedication and that offer is accepted. The other one is where it’s either not offered or offered 19 but not accepted. The government nonetheless may over time maintain and repair it and treat 20 it like a City street and my impression from the staff report is that neither of those scenarios is Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 244     _______________________ 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 true here. So, it’s private property and these owners behind it… behind Ellsworth have some 2 rights to cross it and it sounds like part of this proposal is to crystalize those rights. So, I don’t 3 think that that particular issue should be a hindrance to us to finding a solution or finding a 4 path to achieve the request embodied in the application. 5 6 I also find that the sole purpose of the function of 702 as envisioned by the City Council in its 7 adoption of 2343 is to provide guest parking, period. It was not provided to… as a defecto cul- 8 de-sac for the residents of Ellsworth farther down. It was not provided as convenient overflow 9 overnight parking for the apartment residents. It was required because at the time City Code 10 required some proportion of guest parking and that requirement is no longer there. So, I don’t 11 see the removal of that guest parking consistent with our current Codes as taking away 12 something that anyone was entitled to because I’m not seeing that there is much if any, true 13 guest parking on that site. And it seems from what we’re hearing is most of the guest parking, 14 when there are guests for the apartments and I’m sure there are, is happening over on Sutter. 15 16 On the two-story versus the one-story and the basement, I guess the only thing striking me, 17 first of all, there’s been some concerns expressed about the basement and we’ve heard those 18 in other contexts many times. And so, I’m not really wanting to push on that, but in the two- 19 story versus one-story, the thing that is occurring to me, and while the design is not before us, 20 it could be if this turns into a Development Plan Amendment to the PC is that the benefit to the Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 245     _______________________ 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 owner of the one-story is that a two-story… well, first of all, I think because of the constraints of 2 the site and its size. They already have a constraint on square footage. So, they… they’re 3 building I think it’s - I wrote it down here, 1,690 or 1,600 and something square feet. If you go 4 two-story, you’re going to take up some amount of that square footage in the stairwell and so 5 maybe it’s only 100-square feet but that’s the equivalent of a 10 by 10 room. And that’s one of 6 the concerns I have given that the house won’t be particularly large. Although it will be on the 7 larger side compared to the Ellsworth neighbors. It’s not very big and that could make a 8 significant difference, and I also feel like it’s not the responsibility of 702 to fix the access issue 9 that has always existed with a 20-foot wide road. I think that they’ve taken steps to ameliorate 10 it beyond maybe what the Code requires, but perhaps it’s a benefit to them because it’s part of 11 the benefit that they’re offering up. So, I… that’s the thought I had about sort of pushing too 12 hard on the two-story. 13 14 Just two more quick points. One is I’m… we’re sensitive to the issue of trees but that’s not really 15 before us. A tree cut down in 2018 after or after apart consultation with the City’s arborist and 16 to the extent a mistake was made, so be it; but we’re not here to adjudicate that, but 17 nonetheless, we see it as part of the development plan that would be approved by this 18 application. The planting of replacement trees, which it’s my understanding from staff, would 19 have been the result of the process had the City arborist at the time given the correct advice Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 246     _______________________ 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 and the process occurred; which is a replacement of the canopy at the appropriate ratio which I 2 think I heard is four to one and they’re replacing at six to one. 3 4 And the… I kind of want to conclude on this and that is just the… it’s kind of the thrust of State 5 Law and our local ordinances now is really the promotion of housing to some extent at the 6 expense of parking. Right, we see… and we had a recent item before us that we were looking at 7 where… in the NVCAP where we were looking at no parking requirements as a possibility. Right, 8 residential with no parking requirements and so here, to the extent that we’re in a sense 9 looking at trading some guest parking, what is designated guest parking, for a house. The trend 10 seems to be to allow that replacement so those will be my comments. 11 12 I would like to ask actually at this point to hear from the applicants on two questions. Number 13 one, and I think we have to hear from both of them because they’re both affected by this. One, 14 are they open to an examination of whether this process could be better accomplished in a PC 15 rezone, understanding that that would take more time. They would not get a recommendation 16 from the Commission tonight, but rather maybe a recommendation that we continue to a time 17 that staff would tell us. And number two, I’d like to hear from each from each of the applicants 18 about their thoughts or concerns about the possibility of folding into that path, if we do it, this 19 concept of providing a flare where their property meets Middlefield to allow a little more traffic Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 247     _______________________ 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 safety on the entry and exit to Ellsworth. So, I’d like to hear from the applicants on those if 2 they’re willing to answer. 3 4 Mr. Handa: So, I think I would really need to understand what are the time consequences 5 around it and what are the other consequences around it? I think that’s very important. We 6 have already lost so much time, right? I’ve mentioned initially we intend to get my son to the 7 high school. We lost that time, losing more time, so that would be very important to know. 8 9 And then the flare part again, I don’t really understand the technicality of it. How it will work 10 out, I probably missed that point. I need to see it on a drawing what you are proposing and we 11 can go from there. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, thank you. 14 15 Mr. Handa: Sure. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you and somebody from Mr. Dewey? 18 19 Ms. Cara Silver: Thank you, Cara Silver, I’m an attorney for the Dewey applicant and I thought 20 I’d just reference one question. That is the ability to fold the R-1 into the PC. I think that was Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 248     _______________________ 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 referenced in the staff report as an option and it could be feasible if we can address the time 2 concerns that Mr. Handa has. Although, it really is difficult to have two separate property 3 owners with two very separate sets of issues in a single PC. I respect the enforceability issue. I 4 think that’s what you’re trying to get at and I think there is a way to deal with the enforcement. 5 Perhaps through the dedication of the easement. Mr. Handa is going to have to dedicate the 6 easement to the public and perhaps that agreement could then attach the requirements for his 7 property. And then of course all of the obligations for the Dewey property can be codified in 8 the PC amendment. 9 10 And then as to the flare, we believe… we looked at the plans, we believe that the flare would be 11 on public right of way and so that would be something that obviously the City would have to 12 approve. There is an existing flare on the sidewalk, and we think it’s about 1 ½ -feet rather than 13 2-feet on each side. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman: So, I did hear from I think both of the property owners an interest in 16 getting a sense from Staff on timing if this were… if we were to continue this tonight. So, that 17 staff could explore with both property owners and their consultants a slightly different path 18 that would maybe put a little more firmness on some of the proposals from the owner of 702. 19 Staff have a sense given its workload and what would be involved in those discussions of when 20 we might… when it might come back to us? Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 249     _______________________ 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 2 Ms. French: Well, if there’s a report to be written or versus returning with more information in 3 a slideshow effect. Our next meeting on July 12th is the Sobrato project so, to the extent that 4 we’ve spent three hours on this, I don’t know how many more hours we need for this once 5 there’s more discussion. I wouldn’t say it’s a good idea to bring this back before July 26th. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so applicants you’re hearing that it could be a month before 8 you come back and again, I’m… I don’t know what my fellow Commissioners are going to do. 9 They may sort of take the option away by just not wanting to approve or deny… recommend 10 approval or denial tonight. So, let’s see how that plays out but thanks for that information and 11 your input on those ideas. 12 13 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman, I have a question for you. Would you like to hear from 14 any of the residents how that works for them or? Having a PC that has the addition of a single- 15 family home added to it. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: I don’t believe so, I mean I’m… I think I understand the residents’ 18 perspective whether it’s a rezoning to R-1 or a rezoning to a PC that allows the house that’s 19 been described in the discussions. I think I understand because I think they were reacting to 20 that in all of their comments tonight. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 250     _______________________ 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 2 Chair Summa: Okay. 3 4 Commissioner Hechtman: Thanks. 5 6 Chair Summa: Commissioner Lu. 7 8 Commissioner Lu: I would pitch that we actually can make some decisions tonight. I think 9 there’s kind of a more narrow reading of the motion and the staff recommendation; which is 10 basically asking should housing be allowed on this lot or lots like this and some of the questions 11 around safety or public benefit. My understanding is that Council cares deeply about those 12 issues and would be a better and ultimate judge of those issues anyways. 13 14 And so, on the more narrow question of should housing actually be allowed on lots like this? I 15 think the answer is definitely yes. It’s really important that in general, we can build on top of 16 surface parking and that’s roughly the kind of housing we want in our Housing Element. Like 17 infill is more sustainable, infill especially with single-family is rare and nice to have. I think the 18 lot is underutilized like having one or two or sometimes three cars is certainly much less 19 valuable than potentially having a family that can live there full time. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 251     _______________________ 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 So, I think it’s really important to recognize the safety concerns, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a 2 motion either way if that moves forward, given that Council will ultimately decide if the safety 3 and public benefit is appropriate. 4 5 Chair Summa: I don’t see any lights, so I think of course the Council will, but the Council does 6 expect us to consider these issues as well. So, I don’t think for me the issue is not a matter of 7 whether there is another unit… dwelling unit which is now on 702, or it could be more than one 8 dwelling unit frankly. It could be two small units, but the issue is opening the PC Amendment 9 and doing it in this way right? I mean typically we don’t even… we don’t ever look at single- 10 family homes unless they’re… it’s an appeal. It’s not in our purview and it’s not specifically our 11 area of expertise. So, I think designing it on the fly is difficult, to say the least for us and the 12 question is if we change it… if we vote to change it tonight to R-1. We lose control over what 13 happens there, and I agree with some of the comments from my colleagues that this… the 14 safety situations and the configuration of the street were not created by this applicant request. 15 So, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use this opportunity to improve conditions and I think 16 that’s why Commissioner Hechtman asked about a much… a more significant flare. And I would 17 say that would… I think the fence would need to be rethought, the 3-foot fence, for the same 18 reason. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 252     _______________________ 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 So, I… but I am really still hesitant about… and the staff hasn’t commented very much about 2 this, but the County’s belief this is a City-owned street and the history of all of that. And I’m 3 also concerned if 2901 will now be subject to 18.38.150, especially little letter c, which really 4 changes how 2901 would relate to 702. And I know that 702 can’t remove the access for the 5 neighbors on Ellsworth but they’re interested in making things a little bit better. 6 7 And I’m concerned that we’re not seeing a public benefit really by granting this amendment 8 and that we aren’t getting any affordability in our housing that’s being created. But I’m… I mean 9 I think… I’m not against the… Mr. Dewey providing legal parking on his parcel if he’s willing to 10 do so. I mean I think that’s a fine use and having then this little parcel. 11 12 I’m concerned about the precedence we’re creating by allowing corner lots that basically 13 contain their own side street on their… in their lot and the possible… I don’t know if there’s any 14 other lot like that in the City. Maybe Staff would know, and I also don’t know if that creates a 15 precedent for people to create situations like that. 16 17 And I don’t know if this will embolden other PCs that really, really need their parking, big 18 mixed-use commercial PCs that really need their parking, to ask for their parking to be 19 eliminated also. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 253     _______________________ 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 Those are… my concerns are big policy concerns and unfortunately, they conflict with both of 2 the applicant’s desire to resolve this very quickly so I find it a very hard issue. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: Did you see Mr. Yang’s hand was up, Chair? 5 6 Chair Summa: Go ahead. 7 8 Mr. Yang: So, I just wanted to address the question about the Ellsworth Place being a public 9 street or a City-owned street. That’s something that we looked into and based on the records 10 that we found. We didn’t find any evidence of that and as Commissioner Hechtman noted, 11 there is a clear process for the dedication of a public street. And it requires acceptance by the 12 City and we weren’t able to find any evidence of that sort of acceptance by the City. There are 13 still a few documents that we’re trying to make legible to confirm every possible avenue, but 14 we haven’t seen that in what we’ve seen. And in addition, it’s not been a street that the City 15 has maintained or acted like it has owned. 16 17 Chair Summa: So, I’m not… I guess you’re trying to enhance the, through digital means, the 18 readability of certain documents. So, that… I mean that sort of reinforces my concern that 19 we’re working in the dark a little bit here and, you know, we know that mistakes can be made, 20 and documents can be lost and that sort of thing so. One of the applicants showed us a Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 254     _______________________ 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 document that did seem to suggest in ’49 or ’47 or something like that. That the City adopted 2 the street so I just want to be really careful about it because I think we could… that… I know the 3 applicants would like us to resolve this as quickly as possible. But I also think there’s some 4 value, Commissioner Templeton mentioned this, in continuing this and getting a little bit more 5 data. Commissioner Templeton, did you want to speak? 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: I did briefly. You brought up the idea of affordable housing. We’re 8 just… just want to clarify, we’re talking about one privately owned unit and I don’t think 9 affordable housing is an issue in this case, although we all want more of it. I just don’t want to 10 muddy the waters there. Do you differ or does staff differ on that? 11 12 Mr. Sauls: I believe that the Chair was mostly just trying to distinguish I think maybe the current 13 PC process and she obviously can kind of confirm or provide additional information. 14 15 Chair Summa: Well, I’m also… yes and I’m also kind of concerned regardless of what we 16 recommend. That the Council… in opening up the PC I think there’s a certain amount of liability 17 that Mr. Dewey might… that comes with that because the Council could say sure we’ll let you 18 do this, but now 20 percent your housing has to be inclusionary below-market rate. I don’t 19 know that they will do that and that’s why I asked also about c under that clause because I Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 255     _______________________ 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 don’t know if… and I’m not representing the applicant, but these are possible things that could 2 happen through this process of opening up a PC. I think (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: That’s a really good point, I mean like right now it’s set the way it is. 5 If we modify it, who knows what all could be modified, is that what you’re getting at? 6 7 Chair Summa: Yeah. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, it’s a really good point. I just was… I was thinking more about 10 Mr. Handa but for the other applicant that makes… that’s a very good comment. There is a risk 11 in opening it up. 12 13 Chair Summa: And that being said, I’m very sorry that the maps were wrong in the first place 14 and I understand the parcel reports were wrong. And that’s already been correct but there’s a 15 lot of mistakes in those kinds of documents. Mr. Sauls, did you…? No, okay. 16 17 Commissioner Lu: Just a few thoughts. I am not sure if this is really setting a bad precedent 18 given just how much of an edge case like so many parts of this are and I think we will have 19 opportunities to weigh in on other PC changes. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 256     _______________________ 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 I think the question of the street is tricky but I’m not sure if it radically changes my analysis of 2 should housing be allowed to be built in a lot like that. And I kind of think of it like ADUs where 3 there’s probably a curve ball in terms of our requirements, but when we look back maybe years 4 from now we’d say in general it was good to just encourage and allow ADUs. I think there’s just 5 inherit value in having single-family housing that is a little more modest and might not cost 6 many many many millions of dollars and so we should encourage that to the extent that it’s 7 reasonable. 8 9 Yeah, and I definitely don’t think we should advocate any of the safety or convenience concerns 10 but I’m just also not sure how much worse those actually are; which is why I don’t have a strong 11 take and would be comfortable leaving that forward for Council. 12 13 I guess I’d also ask staff are there any other mechanisms for enforceability of some of these 14 changes? Are there contracts, deed restrictions, like anything that we’ve done in the past? 15 16 Mr. Sauls: Maybe Commissioner Hechtman and Chair Summa remember we have a pretty poor 17 example of one we’ve done in the past where we required it on a Parcel Map. A condition on a 18 Parcel Map about how high a structure could be built, and that was something that was 19 probably one of the only times that was done in the entire City; which prevented … prevents a 20 homeowner still from being able to develop a home, that based on the size of their lot they Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 257     _______________________ 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 could build a two-story home or something more typical. That’s an edge case again, but it is not 2 common that obviously, we have those. 3 4 Commissioner Lu: Yeah, makes sense, I don’t want to create wonky edge cases for us either. 5 6 Ms. French: I’ll jump in and just say other things that we’ve seen through planning have 7 included covenants in Development Agreements. You know, it’s not typical to have… use a 8 Development Agreement process for a single-family home. Covenants more often have been 9 placed, but are usually related to historic preservation and this kind of thing. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: Mr. Yang’s hand is up again. 12 13 Chair Summa: Thank you. 14 15 Mr. Yang: So, I just wanted to jump in, again back to the street ownership issue. The 1949 16 document refers to the dedication of Middlefield Road and that’s the sort of document that we 17 would expect to see for Ellsworth Place, were it ever actually dedicated and it’s not something 18 that we’ve found. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 258     _______________________ 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 Summa: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I guess… I feel like we should try to get to a 2 motion and I’m wondering if anybody would be willing to try. I mean alternative number two of 3 the alternative actions is basically what you’re interested in Commissioner Hechtman. I don’t 4 know if you… which is to find a way to allow development of residential use on 702, but not 5 doing the zone change to R-1. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I actually hadn’t focused on that alternative 8 and I guess I’m wondering if staff having heard the discussion tonight and for my part at least, 9 an interest in being able to secure some of the proposals that we’ve heard on the 702 side. 10 Such as the 35-foot triangle which I think can be secured inside of a PC but you can’t really 11 impose requirements on straight rezoning to R-1. Whether Staff would have enough 12 information to work with the applicant, as this moves to Council, to sort of refine things. And 13 that I think might better serve Mr. Handa’s concerns about speeding this along to the extent we 14 can to… I don’t know if we can get you in… I don’t know how it works getting… where you have 15 to be at the start of the school year. So, you know, no commitments there but certainly that’s a 16 faster path than to go away and come back here on July 26th. So, I guess I’m going to ask Staff 17 what you need to hear from us if we were supportive of alternative two to give you sufficient 18 direction to move this forward to Council? 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 259     _______________________ 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: I mean we put alternative two there. It’s a viable option as far as staff is concerned 2 to move the project forward. We don’t have a lot more research we would do. We’ve done a lot 3 of research on this, but certainly having more conversations with the applicants as to what 4 could be presented to Council related to option two, if you were going that direction. I’m not 5 sure what we would bring back to you on the 26th. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: Well no, if we did alternative two, so I’m looking at the possibility of 8 making a motion for alternative two which would move forward with the development 9 proposal but not as an R-1. Rather as a new PC, which hasn’t really been flushed out in this staff 10 report. I wouldn’t expect it to come back to us. The expectation would be this is our 11 recommendation to the Council, and by the time it gets to the Council. Staff will have worked 12 with the applicant to for example, if the development plan for 702 is to include a no basement 13 requirement, which you can do in the context of a PC. Then there’d be a plan that the Council 14 would see with a line to the house that said no basement. Something like that, right and in that 15 time, you could explore with the transportation department and the applicant whether there’s 16 some additional flaring that could enhance the safety and be acceptable to the applicant; or 17 acceptable or not to the applicants, that transportation thought was desirable for the enhanced 18 safety. Again, not only for the people down Ellsworth but for the occupants of the applicant. 19 The apartment on one side and the future house on the other. So, do you think you have Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 260     _______________________ 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 enough… have you heard enough from all the Commissioners that you could shape that 2 conversation and produce something to the Council? 3 4 Ms. French: I think we have and as always with our staff reports to Council we can say the 5 Planning and Transportation Commission recommends X and this is another alternative to X 6 and this is more research if we have more research to do. So, I mean I think if it’s the pleasure 7 of the Commission with a motion to proceed along the time you’re stating, then it doesn’t have 8 to come back to the Planning Commission. 9 10 Mr. Yang: So, to clarify, the development plan that is approved and attached to a PC is typically 11 like a simple plan set. It would show the elevations and you would… we would be approving the 12 specific in a motion if to move forward and go to the Council is anything that… if there was 13 something that the Commission wanted to see that wasn’t included in the plan… in the 14 drawings that were presented today; like the flare outs for example or if there was something 15 else. Then we would need to know that and that would be included in what goes to the Council. 16 17 Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I’m really concerned that we would be moving ahead 20 with something that we don’t even know if the applicant wants if we were to take that action Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 261     _______________________ 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 today. It’s a new consideration that they haven’t thought about and we haven’t thought about, 2 Staff hasn’t thought about and we’d be forwarding something very half-baked to Council. So, 3 are you concerned about that? 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Who’s the question to? 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: The proposer, Commissioner Hechtman. That would be you. 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright, I didn’t want to presume. Well, I guess I’m not 10 particularly concerned because staff listed it as one of our options on Packet Page 17, 11 alternative two, which is really what we’d be doing. Again, I think I’ve heard from more than 12 one Commissioner some concern that straight R-1 zoning doesn’t… we lose control. I think 13 that’s the way one of the other Commissioners put it and so alternative two would avoid that 14 issue. And of course, if the… when I asked the applicant I think I heard from their attorney not a 15 strong objection to being folded in, but some problems that I think could be worked out in the 16 dialog between the applicant and staff in terms of too much tying of the properties owned by 17 separate people together. Right, those things I think can be worked out on the road to the 18 Council and then I think I can identify as our Counsel Yang suggested, anything that’s not in the 19 plans that we’ve seen. Some of these things that we’re trying to lock in, that we would like… at Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 262     _______________________ 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 least have staff examine as this travels to Council. So, I’m comfortable moving forward with a 2 motion. 3 4 Chair Summa: However, to address Commissioner Templeton’s concern, I think it should come 5 back to us for a quick view before we recommend it because we want to make sure we know 6 what we’re recommending to Council. That would… if you get a second, I would be willing to 7 make a couple of amendments and it sounds like staff needs a little for specificity on your flare 8 idea. I would put it more broadly as ‘address visibility issues at Middlefield’. And I think there’s 9 still a few questions to be answered but I think staff could do that and come back to us about 10 setbacks and PCs so. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman: Shall I try a motion or are there other Commissioners who want to 13 make a comment and then we’ll see if we get a second and a vote? 14 15 Commissioner Lu: I think I’d be happy to second your motion actually, but I think… I’m not sure 16 if we definitely need to hear this again. I assume good intent from someone who’s building a 17 home to actually live in and I assume staff can figure this out. So, I don’t personally feel like we 18 need to see this again, but otherwise, I’ll second or sorry, you haven’t made a motion. Yeah, 19 sorry. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 263     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: Shall I make a motion or Commissioner Akin, you have your hand up? 2 3 Commissioner Akin: Yes, while I’m not opposed to the idea of going with alternative two and I 4 don’t believe we actually need to see it again, what I want to make sure is that the concerns 5 that have been expressed by the residents are actually incorporated as part of the discussion 6 for the version that eventually reaches Council. And what mechanism we use to do that is 7 unclear to me so I might ask for suggestions. 8 9 Ms. French: Are you asking staff or the (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Summa: I think he was asking you two. 12 13 Ms. French: Okay, certainly forwarding to Council, if this motion should continue, by diagrams, 14 by lists capturing… and, you know, there are minutes. There’s all that summarizing what the 15 neighbor’s concerns remain to be, what the possible solutions are. Graphics showing flare 16 standards, a home that has no basement, etc. 17 18 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, we’re not… we’re all tempted to design this as we go and we have to 19 resist that, but nevertheless, those ideas are things that should be forwarded in some manner 20 to Council. I find the basement thing amusing because as basement space doesn’t count against Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 264     _______________________ 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 your Floor Area Ratio, that’s a way to get a lot of space in a comparatively small footprint and 2 for those of you who have lived on busy roads. Bedrooms in basements are cool and quiet 3 whereas bedrooms imminently facing traffic on the scale of Middlefield are anything but. So, 4 there are a lot advantages there that I think an applicant might consider if they were 5 encouraged to do so. We’re… we seem to be putting a lot of the burden on Mr. Handa here, but 6 I think Mr. Dewey might have valuable contributions to make as well. That certainly can be 7 negotiated as part of the Amendment to the PC but it won’t be unless someone brings it up as 8 part of the process. It doesn’t need to be accomplished by revisiting the discussion here, but it 9 needs to be accomplished to Council somehow. 10 11 Chair Summa: That was a pretty compelling comment and I do think that the… one of the 12 advantages of keeping it a PC but allowing for housing where the eight parking spots were. That 13 it takes away concerns about the corner lot precedent or certainly takes away mine because we 14 don’t have that issue at all anymore. The residents on Ellsworth already have an easement that 15 is sufficient, and I don’t think there’s any intention to take that away. And so, I think if we can 16 get to a motion that contains all these, I think we’re in a better place. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: May I make another comment, Chair? 19 20 Chair Summa: Yes, please. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 265     _______________________ 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 2 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I just want to weigh in that I’m not on board with a lot of 3 these restrictions we’ve been talking about. I don’t think… as Commissioner Akin said, I don’t 4 think we’ve really thought through the whole basement thing. It was just an idea that was a 5 complaint from somebody who wasn’t the owner. We really need to understand what we’re 6 going to be requiring this homeowner to do, or this would-be homeowner to do. So, I’m really 7 concerned about it and then in addition to that, I’m… we’re really passing the buck if we’re 8 going to take this situation as we found it, which we’ve spent 3 ½ hours on and pass it along 9 down to Council without resolving these issues first. I’m very concerned about that and I don’t 10 think it’s right so I won’t be supporting a motion that wouldn’t bring it back before us, thank 11 you. 12 13 Chair Summa: Well, I would rather see it again too, but I have to tell you, I don’t think a 14 majority of us feel that way and so it’s one thing I can let go of to move this process forward for 15 all the parties involved. Especially if some of my esteemed colleagues trust the process and I 16 don’t think we’re telling Mr. Handa to put in a basement. We’re saying he shouldn’t be 17 restricted from putting in a basement, should he care to put in a basement, and it solves 18 another problem for me is that I think the setbacks on this property are insufficient. And that 19 has to do with the fact that it’s a corner and that the easement of Ellsworth is a road. So, I think 20 that… I think having smaller setbacks on what is actually, truthfully a substandard property Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 266     _______________________ 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 because there is road there, is of great benefit to the people and on Ellsworth. And I think 2 having a quieter living space as part of their house when they live on Middlefield would be 3 good. Particularly, since they’re not going to be able to have any high fence, because of the 4 visibility issues. 5 6 So, I’m willing to let go of it coming back here because I know that a majority of us do not feel 7 that way. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: I was just making a pitch to see if they’d change their minds. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: If I could make a motion, Chair? 12 13 Chair Summa: Please. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman: Alright. 16 17 Chair Summa: Please do. 18 19 MOTION #1 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 267     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: I move that the PTC recommend to the City Council what’s described 2 in alternative two of our staff report at Packet Page 17, an amendment of PC 2343 to add 3 single-family residential use to the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses of the PC 4 Zone; and the single-family residence would then be added to the development plan for the PC; 5 and in that development plan, as part of this motion, just to state the items that we would 6 expect to see in the development plan and all of these I’m about to list are items that the 7 property owners here have already indicated their willingness to do and it’s their proposal to do 8 them. Pavers as shown on the plans that we’ve received in various locations on both sides of 9 Ellsworth Place and in particular on the 702 side, that 18-inch width extending all the way from 10 the Middlefield to the point it connects with the widened part. Rather than the gap that was in 11 an earlier drawing; so the pavers. Four new tenant parking spaces on the Middlefield parcel, 12 two tandems as show in the plans. A delivery spot on the Middlefield… parking spot on the 13 Middlefield parcel, again as shown in the plans. The Ellsworth home would be indicated in the 14 development plan as a single-story, no basement. Again, as the applicant has said that that is 15 what they want to build. The 35-foot site triangles that are shown in the Staff Report. Six new 16 trees on the Middlefield parcel and then one item that neither of the property 17 owner/applicants has committed to that I’m proposing and I would like staff investigate with 18 transportation and the applicant and that is increasing the flares on Ellsworth where it meets 19 Middlefield. That may involve some City right of way but also may involve some land owned by Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 268     _______________________ 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 the Dewey company on one side and some land owned by Mr. Handa on the other. So, that 2 would be my motion. 3 4 Chair Summa: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Templeton, you have your hand up. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I just wanted to clarify, I thought you said Chair that we weren’t 7 restricting the basement and this motion says it is. So, what is… can you clarify that’s your 8 intention? 9 10 Chair Summa: Yeah, I was going to ask for some amendments. I was waiting to see if there was 11 a second. 12 13 Commissioner Lu: I was considering seconding but I (interrupted) 14 15 [note – several folks started talking at once] 16 17 Commissioner Lu: Specific and I don’t know if that [unintelligible], sorry. 18 19 Chair Summa: Mr. Sauls? 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 269     _______________________ 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. Sauls: I was just going to say if I may and Ms. French and Mr. Yang can correct me if I’m 2 wrong but with development plans, I think as Mr. Yang was mentioning before. It’s very specific 3 with the PC to what is shown in the drawings, and deviations or changes in the future to that 4 are subject either to that PC process again, and some potentially to a Minor Architectural 5 Review process. At least that’s how we establish it in our Code so if the current proposal 6 doesn’t include a basement, that may or may not require an additional PC Amendment in the 7 future to include something like that, but it wouldn’t immediately say the same thing as it can 8 never happen. It might just be another process. 9 10 Mr. Yang: So, that’s correct. Unless the direction is for the PC to say no basement is permitted 11 then the… a basement, if it’s not built originally, could come back for an amendment to add a 12 basement but there would be a process required for that. 13 14 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 15 16 Chair Summa: I’m wondering Commissioner Hechtman if it would be easier to say not with the 17 Development Standards currently being proposed but with these things in mind; addressing 18 visibility; setbacks. I mean I think you’re… I can’t guess what people are thinking but I think 19 what we want to give them is more flexibility to do what would be a project there with less 20 impact in terms of setbacks. I don’t think heights are particularly the issue, as there are two- Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 270     _______________________ 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 story houses on Ellsworth, but what we want to do is address the visibility at Middlefield which 2 is very important to you and I’m not even sure I want to be so prescriptive. We want to see 3 something different come back that everybody sitting out there wants and is happy with. And it 4 may not be, at this point, limited by… it may not be that… that may not be the outcome if we 5 limit it by some of the conditions that were already agreed upon because we’re going down a 6 different process. Does that make any sense to anyone? 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT DENIED 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, but my understanding is Mr. Handa I think submitted… tried to 11 submit a Building Permit application for a fully designed house back in January. So, he knows 12 what he wants to build and what he wants to build apparently… because we haven’t seen a 13 plan set, right, because that wasn’t really part of the R-1 concept that was the primary staff 14 recommendation. What he wants to build is a single-family house of a certain size, certain 15 dimensions, all… it’s all laid out and it doesn’t have a basement. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: Why do we have to restrict it to that though? What about the next 18 owner? What about the future design? It’s just weird. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 271     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: Because in a PC Zone, that house that he’s already proposed is going 2 to be part of the development plan and so maybe there’s a different way to reference it rather 3 than me saying no basement or no one-story. Maybe I just say pursuant to that plan dated such 4 and such, which again wasn’t presented to us, but staff has it. Right, because Mr. Yang’s point is 5 if that’s our approval, pursuant to that plan, that single-story with no basement, and somebody 6 in the future wants… that’s what the PC allows. Special rules of the PC allow that particular 7 house, and if somebody wants to come back and change it. Add a basement, add a second story 8 in the future then that… it’s really addressed in the alternative number two. Future changes to 9 the structure would require architectural review or in the event of a significant change, a 10 Zoning Amendment. And so, I’m really just trying to set that up in the easiest way I can to get 11 Mr. Handa really the house he’s proposed. That he’s ready to build and ready to commit to as 12 he tried to do in January. 13 14 Chair Summa: So, but we… I have not reviewed the plans for… those plans. I reviewed what we 15 got here, so now I think… so, I think it does have to come back to us then. So, we can see what 16 they come up with but I don’t want to just say build exactly what was in this proposal or exactly 17 what was in the first proposal because I don’t know what that is now. 18 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 272     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: Well, so how many… oh, I don’t want to ask a rhetorical question. 2 Single-family home plans never come to the PTC. They don’t even go the ARB is my 3 understanding. 4 5 Chair Summa: It’s part of a PC. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: In R-1. Yeah, exactly. 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman: Right. 10 11 Chair Summa: So, I believe I was the one that said this is not in our purview but as a PC it would 12 and there’s no restriction from having a single-family unit on a PC. It’s perfectly… but then I 13 think it should come back to us and if… and then we can look at it and very quickly move it 14 along. I don’t think it has to be a process as long as this one. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, well I guess my thought is we’re not equipped to review 17 architectural plans even if they did come back to us. That would be something more for the 18 ARB, but so I’ve made a motion and I’m… it hasn’t been seconded yet. The motion does not 19 include bringing it back to us. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 273     _______________________ 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 Summa: Let’s just move this along and ask if there’s a second for your motion. 2 3 MOTION AMENDED 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: So, I’d like to modify my motion before the second though, to refer… 6 rather than to… specifically refer to single-family with no basement, to refer to the plan set that 7 the… Mr. Handa has submitted, whatever the date of that is that staff can fill in. That is the 8 house that he’s proposing to build that is one story with no basement, so that is my motion. 9 10 Chair Summa: Is there a second? 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Commissioner Lu: I’m still trying to think through the specificity, but I will second. 15 16 Chair Summa: Any other discussion or should we vote? Go ahead. 17 18 Commissioner Akin: I’m just concerned once again that we have a number of specific objections 19 that have been raised by the other folks who are affected by this change and we haven’t Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 274     _______________________ 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 addressed those concerns. Nor, as far as I can tell, have we provided a mechanism by which 2 they can be addressed so that concerns me. 3 4 Commissioner Hechtman: So, let me ask Commissioner Akin, is there an amendment to my 5 motion that you could conceive of that would inform the Council that we heard these concerns 6 from the neighbors and are concerned that they be addressed? Is there amendment that you 7 could suggest that would cure that defect? 8 9 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, that’s one way to approach it. I’m not sure that it is the optimal way 10 but if I had my druthers, what I’d like is to see that this sort of thing be worked at the staff level 11 before it get to this body or to Council. So, that there’s more general agreement on the plans 12 that have been submitted. It’s not a good use of time for either us or for Council to debate at 13 such a high level of specificity and I think it’s not a good use of the applicant’s time either. I 14 mean the question of exactly what the design of the house should be needs to be pretty fluid 15 for a while and feedback from staff and from the policy-setting organizations sometimes has 16 pretty drastic implications for what an applicant chooses to build. I don’t want to cut off that 17 flexibility too early. 18 19 Chair Summa: I have to say I agree with that and I think that this doesn’t address… doing this 20 exact project with the addition of the flares, which is a very good idea, does not address some Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 275     _______________________ 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 of the concerns that we had and some of the people sitting in the audience today about this. It 2 just says do the other… do the house that was… the thing that was here in this staff report 3 which I believe was kind of a compromise maybe. I could be wrong, but I think we need more 4 flexibility moving forward and this is very restrictive to me. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: May I contribute a comment? 7 8 Chair Summa: I think Commissioner Lu was next. 9 10 Commissioner Lu: Oh no, sorry. Cari’s [note – Commissioner Templeton] next, I tried to [note – 11 audio cut off]. 12 13 Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton, go ahead. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Akin and what I want to add 16 here is in discussing how to move this forward. We also have to think about the risks of moving 17 it forward in this way and how it might backfire. I am very concerned about this approach 18 potentially backfiring when it gets to Council if we don’t send them something that is high 19 quality, well thought out and addresses a lot of these open questions and concerns. What could Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 276     _______________________ 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 happen? I mean it could just get outright denied, so just think about the options here. Thank 2 you. 3 4 Commissioner Lu: Would it be helpful if we, in the motion, recommend that staff I guess kind of 5 go point by point through the safety and convenience concerns that were listed and have a 6 clear perspective on what the ultimate conclusion is on (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Summa: I think… I mean I think you’re well intended but I think that we need… I think it’s 9 too much specificity for this motion. And I think maybe what we should do is vote on this 10 motion and then move on… if it doesn’t prevail move on to another motion and (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Lu: [off mic] Sure. 13 14 Chair Summa: Unless anybody has any other comments at this time? Is that okay with 15 everybody if we vote? Okay, let’s conduct the vote please Ms. Dao. 16 17 VOTE 18 19 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin? 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 277     _______________________ 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 Akin: No. 2 3 Ms. Dao: Chair Summa? 4 5 Chair Summa: No. 6 7 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu? 8 9 Commissioner Lu: Yes. 10 11 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Templeton? 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: No. 14 15 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman? 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes. 18 19 Ms. Dao: Motion fails 3-2. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 278     _______________________ 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 MOTION #1 FAILED 2(Hechtman, Lu) – 3(Akin, Summa, Templeton) -2(Chang Reckdahl absent) 2 3 Chair Summa: Thank you very much. Would anybody like to speak to their no motion? Would 4 anybody like to try another motion and I guess maybe I have a question for our legal staff here. 5 Can we move this forward as a concept of allowing a single-family home on that portion of PC… 6 I forget its number all of a sudden… 2343 I think and leave the precise Development Standards 7 at this point open. Have it come back to us so we can review it briefly before it goes to Council 8 with the understanding that staff and everybody in the room has been listening very hard for a 9 very long time this evening and is that an acceptable kind of motion for you… for staff to work 10 with? 11 12 Mr. Yang: Yes, that’s possible. The motion could also be to have the plans reviewed by the ARB 13 and then have it go to Council. 14 15 Chair Summa: Okay. Commissioner Templeton. 16 17 MOTION #2 18 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 279     _______________________ 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: I was thinking maybe we could move to continue this till our next 2 meeting and at which time staff will be able to respond to the questions that were brought up 3 in our meeting. 4 5 Chair Summa: That would be fine with me if you would like to make that motion. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: I would. 8 9 Chair Summa: Okay. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: I think this would limit us going into the 3 ½ hour part again, but still 12 get us the answers we need. 13 14 Chair Summa: So, do you want to state that? We have Ms. Dao taking down the motion. 15 16 MOTION #2 RESTATED 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: Sure, that’s very nice. Whoever’s doing that, thank you. I move that 19 we continue this item till the next PTC meeting which I believe is like July 12th, 11th, something 20 like that and at which time Staff will be prepared to respond to the open items brought by Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 280     _______________________ 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 Commissioners and I think we repeated everything that happened in public comment, is that 2 right? That we… is it okay to limit it to Commissioners? Let me know if we need to change that. 3 Open it as brought up by the Commissioners so yeah, I think that’s it. 4 5 Chair Summa: Can I say we… items brought up by interested [note – video skipped]. Can Staff 6 work with that? 7 8 Ms. French: So, this would not be a staff report, this would be just to continue the item with no 9 new staff report because (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: Correct. 12 13 Ms. French: Because it’s July 12th and then have transportation present because some of these 14 things were regarding transportation safety and such. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 17 18 Ms. French: And certainly, if we do unearth a map that has more specificity or clarification for 19 the subdivision. We can share that in a PowerPoint and then we have the plans that they had 20 submitted back in January but modification since then showing pavement etc. along the sides Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 281     _______________________ 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 of the road. That would be more developed since January. One thing I might add is we did 2 analyze the plans in January as if they were R-1 Zoned. This would no longer be the case if it’s a 3 PC Zone. So, the analysis, we could compare it to what would be an R-1 Zone (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, we’d need both, so we have one already and you could do an 6 analysis that was for the other version. Would be that in a slide or something or? 7 8 Chair Summa: I think we’re talking about a meeting that could have a lot of new information 9 would not be continuing this meeting. I don’t know, doesn’t staff… does staff feel that way? 10 11 Ms. French: The analysis of the home, that would be new information but the other things 12 we’ve already researched and know that it’s not owned by the City. There’s other things that 13 have been asked but the pictures to be seen by the Commission is what’s requested. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: Mr. Yang (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Akin: Point of clarification. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton: Oh, hold on. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 282     _______________________ 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 Akin: Pardon me, point of clarification for me as a new Commissioner. So, would 2 there be public comment at the continuation? I presume not. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: It depends on what kind of information staff provides. If they give a 5 new staff report, we’ll reopen public comment very likely, is that right Chair? 6 7 Chair Summa: I think we should let staff answer that. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: Okay. 10 11 Ms. French: It’s the pleasure of the Commission. You could close the public hearing portion of 12 the evening and leave the response to the Commissioner and items the public raised that were 13 focused on a certain thing. Such as safety if it’s not as broad as (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: My intention in making the motion was to minimize the follow-up 16 only to what staff is answering that they weren’t able to answer tonight, but I don’t know what 17 that means beyond that. Mr. Yang? 18 19 Chair Summa: I think we can keep the public hearing open for people that didn’t speak this 20 evening so for new public speakers. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 283     _______________________ 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 2 Commissioner Templeton: Sure. 3 4 Chair Summa: That’s one way to do it. Would you… I don’t think that needs to be in the motion, 5 does it? 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: I don’t think so. I don’t know if you saw Chair, Mr. Yang has been 8 trying to be online. I don’t know if he has a comment. 9 10 Mr. Yang: I did not have anything to add on top of what Ms. French said so thank you. 11 12 Chair Summa: Do I have a second? 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Commissioner Akin: I’ll second. 17 18 Chair Summa: Are there any other comments from my colleagues? Commissioner Hechtman. 19 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 284     _______________________ 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 Hechtman: So, I guess I’m feeling a little dense because maybe I’m the only one 2 in the room that doesn’t know what the open items are that were brought up by the 3 Commission and concerned parties. For example, I heard… you know we had an hour and a half 4 plus of testimony from the neighbors and I heard a lot of concerns. I heard a concern for 5 example that they’re losing their turnaround place when that guest parking goes away. Is that 6 an open item that staff has to come back with a response to, and if they do, then is that not 7 new information that the people who raised that issue should want to have… should have an 8 opportunity to react. Right, they raised an issue, staff has not provided a response. How is it the 9 public who raised the issue don’t have an opportunity to react to that so? 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: The same way that in this meeting when they answer a question, 12 comments have already been taken, but that’s fine, whatever. I don’t care if we open up the 13 comments more or not. That’s, to me, less important than hearing the answers so we can just… 14 the Chair can decide about the comments. I… I don’t have a (interrupted) 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: So, what are the questions that you’re… that we’re wanting 17 answered? 18 19 Commissioner Templeton: Well, for example, there were many things that were commented on 20 that were out of scope. It would be nice for staff to be able to say whether or not that tree was Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 285     _______________________ 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 improperly removed is out of the scope of this discussion. Whether or not people enjoy turning 2 around on the potential homeowner’s…property owner’s site, is that relevant to our 3 discussion? Right, these are all things that potentially will help us either focus or broaden the 4 scope. And it’s uncertain because everybody brought up a lot of questions and we’re weighing 5 in on one thing and we… even look at the motions that have come up tonight. There are a lot of 6 things that may or may not be out of scope and we’re not even agreed on that. So, if we can get 7 a decision by staff on what’s in and what’s out and for the things that are in, some clarification. 8 I think that would be super helpful to me so that’s where I’m going with this motion and it’s 9 okay if you disagreed. You don’t have to support it, but I would love your support. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, well I’m just looking for clarification because I don’t know… if I 12 don’t know what the open items are. I’m (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Templeton: The fence, the sight line, the (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman, would you like the maker to list the open items in the 17 motion? Would that clarify for you? 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: Well, I’m wondering if that would provide the best direction to staff 20 and not… I don’t want to just put the pressure on Commissioner Templeton. I think this could Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 286     _______________________ 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 be a collaborative effort among the Commissioners identifying whatever’s in their head as an 2 open item that would be brought back. And so that way we would know that staff has clear 3 direction and we don’t have a surprise in two weeks when, incidentally I won’t be here, staff 4 comes back. They have given us 12 open items, which they think is the universe of open items 5 but one or more of us has other open items that they didn’t respond to. So, I think it would be a 6 good idea to list them. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton: I would refer you to the transcript of tonight’s meeting. I mean I 9 don’t know what to say. Like if you have additional questions, please send them in writing to 10 the staff. 11 12 Chair Summa: Does staff find the open items phrase troubling or do they feel they can hone in 13 on the biggest concerns from interested parties and realize they’ve already dismissed those? 14 You’ve already proven they’re not an issue or address them because I feel like… I hate to… I 15 would never want to rush a decision like this, but I think we need to make a motion and vote on 16 it here. So, if staff is okay with it? 17 18 Ms. French: Well, we won’t have a transcript to thoroughly read before the next meeting I don’t 19 think, before July 12th. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 287     _______________________ 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: We’ll have one immediately right now on YouTube. Like that’s 2 unlikely, it won’t be an official transcript, but come on. What I’m trying to say is there were a 3 number of points brought up and we can list them if you’d like me to do it. I can go review the 4 recording instead of watching the next action item and get a list, but we move… vote on this 5 now and it’s okay. I know I’m really tired, I’ve had a very long day so if I’m sounding more curt 6 than usual, please don’t take it personally anybody. I’m just… I’m very tired so this was my 7 attempt. I’m happy to withdraw if somebody has a better motion. 8 9 Chair Summa: I think we should just call the vote, please. 10 11 VOTE 12 13 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Templeton? 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 16 17 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman? 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: No. 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 288     _______________________ 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. Dao: Chair Summa? 2 3 Chair Summa: Yes. 4 5 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Lu? 6 7 Commissioner Lu: No. 8 9 Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin? 10 11 Commissioner Akin: Yes. 12 13 Ms. Dao: Motion… sorry (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: Passed 3-2. 16 17 Ms. Dao: It passed 3-2. 18 19 MOTION PASSED 3(Akin, Summa, Templeton) -2 (Hechtman, Lu) – 2 (Chang, Reckdahl absent) 20 Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 289     _______________________ 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 Summa: Thank you very much, so that concludes that item for this evening. I want to 2 thank everybody for hanging in there so long and I want to ask my colleagues if they want jump 3 right into parklets or if they need to stretch their legs? [note – video skipped] 4 5 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lu. Failed 3-2-0-2 (Chang, Reckdahl 6 absent) 7 Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Akin. Passed 3-2-0-2 (Chang, Reckdahl 8 absent) Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 290     _______________________ 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 Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 2 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 3 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 4 5 Chair Doria Summa 6 Vice-Chair Bryna Chang 7 Commissioner Allen Akin 8 Commissioner Bart Hechtman 9 Commissioner George Lu 10 Commissioner Keith Reckdahl 11 Commissioner Carolyn Templeton 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item 3 Attachment E PTC 6.28.2023 Item 2 verbatim 2901 Middlefield-702 Ellsworth     Packet Pg. 291     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment F: Development Plans Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Commissioners for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “2901 Middlefield Road” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Item 3 Attachment F - Development Plans     Packet Pg. 292     CEQA EXEMPTIONS USED FOR PC2343 AMENDMENT Existing Facilities Exemption Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. This exemption is used for the 2901-2905 Middlefield Road PC: There are no changes to the private structures, no expansion of the multifamily residential use (no additional uses beyond multifamily residential). Common Sense Exemption 15061(b)(3) (3) The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This exemption is used for both PCs. The lots area already in place and zoning and underlying land use designation has reflected multifamily residential use at 2901 Middlefield Road and single family residential use at 702 Ellsworth Place. Class 3 Exemption: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (15303) This exemption allows: either one single family unit or a second unit, or a duplex or similar multi-family use with up to 4 units (whereas in urbanized areas additional units are allowed, up to 3 single-family or 6 multifamily units). This exemption is used for the 702 Ellsworth Place PC: One single-family unit is proposed on an existing parcel with underlying land use designation of single family residential. Item 3 Attachment G CEQA EXEMPTIONS USED FOR PC2343 AMENDMENT     Packet Pg. 293     Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Staff maintains that the project is eligible for the Categorical Exemptions since none of the exceptions apply (e.g. this is not a ‘particularly sensitive’ environment designated locally or by the State or Federal governments, and this project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances). Item 3 Attachment G CEQA EXEMPTIONS USED FOR PC2343 AMENDMENT     Packet Pg. 294     Item 3 Attachment H 702 ELLSWORTH HOUSE     Packet Pg. 295     Item 3 Attachment H 702 ELLSWORTH HOUSE     Packet Pg. 296     Item 3 Attachment H 702 ELLSWORTH HOUSE     Packet Pg. 297     Item 3 Attachment H 702 ELLSWORTH HOUSE     Packet Pg. 298     Item 3 Attachment H 702 ELLSWORTH HOUSE     Packet Pg. 299     Item 3 Attachment H 702 ELLSWORTH HOUSE     Packet Pg. 300     1 July 26, 2023 Ms. Amy French Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Revised Project Description and Submittal- 702 Ellsworth Place - PC Amendment to PC 2343 Dear Ms. French, Following direction from the Planning Commission given at its June 28th and July 12th public hearings on the above referenced project, this letter supersedes and replaces the project description stated in my February 1, 2023 letter and encloses Hayes Group Architect’s corresponding revised submittal package for 2901-2905 Middlefield and 702 Ellsworth Place - PC Amendment to PC 2343. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of our client, RLD Land, LLC and the property owner Nitin Handa of the Handa Development Group. A. BACKGROUND Two properties are included in existing PC2343 and comprise 26,386 SF. The 2901-2905 Middlefield property is 19,893 SF and is owned by RLD Land, LLC. The 702 Ellsworth property is 6,493 SF and is owned by Handa Development Group. An approximately 20 ft wide by 100 ft long portion of a private dead-end street commonly known as Ellsworth Place bisects the two parcels and falls entirely on 702 Ellsworth Place. This private street provides access from Middlefield Road not only to the 2901-2905 Middlefield apartments but to the eleven single- family homes and two duplexes that also abut it. The development plan for PC 2343 was approved in 1967 and included an apartment development consisting of twelve multi-family apartments: 4 studio units, 4 one-bedroom units Item 3 Attachment I Letter dated July 26 2023     Packet Pg. 301     2 and 4 two-bedroom units. The existing apartment development is substantially the same as when it was approved in 1967. The apartment building and twelve covered parking spaces reside entirely on the 2901-2905 property. The vacant 702 Ellsworth property, across Ellsworth Place, accommodates eight additional guest parking spaces, defined by unsightly asphalt and wheel stops on the otherwise parcel of dirt and weeds. At one time, prior to PC 2343’s existence, there was a single-family home on 702 Ellsworth Place. The home has since been demolished. Th tenant guest parking on 702 Ellsworth Place is no longer needed nor is it required by the City of Palo Alto. Since the 1967 development plan was approved, the City has reduced the requirements for multi-family housing projects to encourage more use of public transit and bicycles and to facilitate multi-family housing projects. The current parking requirements for the twelve apartment units is sixteen spaces total: 2 guest spaces for each of the four two-bedroom units and one space for each of the four one bedroom and four studio units. Additional guest parking is no longer required. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application proposes to amend PC 2343 as shown in the enclosed revised Development Plan dated July 26,2023 to: (1) Remove the 702 Ellsworth parcel and its associated eight guest parking spaces from PC 2343 and rezone it R-1 to allow for construction of a modest 1690 square foot single story single family home in conformance with the R-1 development standards and applicable special setbacks; (2) Restripe existing paved areas on the remaining 2901-2905 Middlefield parcel to add four new tenant parking spaces for a total of 16 parking spaces to accommodate all current required parking on the 2901-2905 Middlefield parcel; (3) Provide a new temporary delivery/ loading space within the existing paved areas on the 2901-2905 Middlefield parcel although not otherwise required by Code; (4) Grant the owners of the parcels fronting Ellsworth Place an access easement over the 100 ft long 20-foot wide portion of Ellsworth Place that falls within the 702 Ellsworth parcel plus the additional width described in (5) below; Item 3 Attachment I Letter dated July 26 2023     Packet Pg. 302     3 (5) Increase the paved width of Ellsworth Place by 4 feet accomplished by restricting a 2’-6” wide by approximately 37 foot strip of land parallel to Ellsworth Place on the 2901-05 Middlefield parcel and a 1’-6” wide by approximately 42 foot strip of land parallel to Ellsworth Place on the 702 Ellsworth Place parcel to hardscape matching the surface the Ellsworth Place; (6) Widen the curb cut approach at Ellsworth/Middlefield by 4 feet to a total of 28 feet at the street flare; (7) Create an enhanced 35-foot sight triangle at Ellsworth/Middlefield by pushing the 702 Ellsworth fence along Middlefield four (4) feet in from the back edge of the sidewalk (and further into the 702 property), restricting the fence height to 3 feet and limiting and clearing all vegetation to one foot height or less between the fence and the street curb (with the exception of tree trunks). On the 702 Ellsworth side, these restrictions would be enforced in a deed restriction for the benefit of the City that would be recorded against the 702 Ellsworth property. On the 2901-2905 Middlefield side they would be enforced via the amended PC development plan; and (8) Reduce vehicle trips on Ellsworth Place by removing the 8 guest parking spaces at 702 Ellsworth Place and accommodating all current City required parking for the 12-unit apartment complex onsite, and moving the trash pickup for the apartment complex to the Sutter entrance. C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEVIATIONS At its July 12th hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend that the City Council approve the Amendment to PC-2343 to remove 702 Ellsworth from PC-2343 with the following conditions1: 1. Require the following for PC-2343: a) Width of Ellsworth Pl easement be widened to 26 ft (in the distances that are currently proposed as 24’) 1 This is the exact language of the motion transmitted to the applicant by Planning Manager Amy French immediately following the hearing on July 12th. Item 3 Attachment I Letter dated July 26 2023     Packet Pg. 303     4 b) New width of the easement for the first 100 ft be granted to all the neighbors on Ellsworth c) curb cut at Middlefield be widened to 30 ft at street flare e) 4 additional parking spaces be provided at 2901 Middlefield f) temporary loading zone for delivery vehicles be provided at 2901 Middlefield g) garbage pick-up and enclosure for 2901 Middlefield be moved from Ellsworth to Sutter h) 24 ft special setback be observed for Middlefield, creek setback be observed according to stability requirements i) Setback from Ellsworth be determined on based on safety by discretion of Director and standard 6’ setback from Ellsworth 2. Create a new PC for 702 Ellsworth and come back to PTC after trial of above a) Width of Ellsworth Pl easement be widened to 26 ft (in the distances that are currently proposed as 24’) b) New width of the easement for the first 100 ft be granted to all the neighbors on Ellsworth c) curb cut at Middlefield be widened to 30 ft at street flare d) sight triangle not to be obstructed by plants, fences or other objects taller than 1 ft; reintroduce fence at 3ft as temporary for people to experience e) 24 ft special setback be observed for Middlefield, creek setback be observed according to stability requirements f) Setback from Ellsworth be determined on based on safety by discretion of Director and standard 6’ setback from Ellsworth The revised project description set forth above in Section B incorporates all of the above Planning Commission recommendations with the following exceptions: i. The 26 foot paved width described above in 1b and 2a (versus the 24 foot paved width offered by the property owners) is not justified. As explained by City staff, the City’s private street width requirements are not triggered by this project because this is not a subdivision proposal; it is modification to an existing development that would result in replacing 8 parking spaces with one single family home. Moreover, traffic consultant Hexagon has concluded that the existing 20 ft paved width of Ellsworth Place is safe in its current condition and would not require widening to accommodate the project. Item 3 Attachment I Letter dated July 26 2023     Packet Pg. 304     5 Additionally, burdening the subject properties with this extra paved width would not meaningfully improve safety conditions. Accordingly, there is no nexus or rough proportionality between the impact of this proposed change and the additional width requested by the Planning Commission. For the foregoing reasons, the expanded width of Ellsworth Place offered by the property owners remains at 24 feet as described in Section B(5) above. ii. The recommended 30 ft flare described above in 2b and 2c also is not feasible or justified for the same reasons described above in (i). In addition, adding this extra width at the flare would bring the curb cut one foot closer to the existing fire hydrant and utility box which could pose safety impacts. Accordingly, the expanded width of the flare offered by the property owners remains at 28 feet as described in Section B (6) above. iii. The recommended separate PC for 702 Ellsworth described in 2 is not justified or compatible with the surrounding R-1 zoning for the other single-family homes on Ellsworth Place. Further, it would require any simple remodel of the home or site plan to undergo a discretionary PC amendment which would be unduly burdensome for a single family home. We are not aware of any PC in the City that provides for one single lot to be developed with a single-family home. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.010 specifically states that the purpose of the PC zoning is for projects “requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts.” Here, the proposed single-family home on 702 Ellsworth is perfectly attainable within the R-1 regulations and special setback development standards set forth in 2e and f above. The site triangle and additional Ellsworth Place and curb cut width requirements described in 2a-d (as modified above and below by i, ii and v) are proposed to be enforced by an easement and deed restriction. Unlike a PC development plan which can be amended or rescinded by the public process set forth in the PC Ordinance, an easement can only be modified by written agreement from all grantees of the easement, which in this case would be all owners of the parcels fronting Ellsworth, and the deed restriction benefitting the City could only be modified by the City Council. Accordingly, the proposed legal mechanisms to document and enforce the easement, width and site triangle restrictions and requirements on 702 Ellsworth would likely prove much more difficult to modify or rescind than setting them forth in a PC. Item 3 Attachment I Letter dated July 26 2023     Packet Pg. 305     6 iv. The recommended setbacks described in 1h and I are not applicable to or justified for 2901-2905 Middlefield as this is an existing developed site with no new proposed development other than striping current paved areas for parking and a temporary delivery and loading space. v. The recommended 1 ft fence height described in 2d would effectively deprive any single family home constructed on 702 Ellsworth of a privacy fence in the only area of the property sufficient to accommodate backyard uses integral to single family home uses. Accordingly, the project description continues to be a maximum 3 ft high fence that is set back 4 ft from the edge of the sidewalk as described in B(7) above. We look forward to seeing this application advance to the City Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval of the revised project description set forth in this letter and depicted on the enclosed revised Development Plan. Please call me at (650) 365-0600 x115 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: RLD Land, LLC. Handa Development Group Ms. Camas Steinmetz, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Item 3 Attachment I Letter dated July 26 2023     Packet Pg. 306     2901‐2905 Middlefield Road/702 Ellsworth Place: Mock up/Demonstration  Photos documenting 24’ (blue line) and 26’ (orange) proposals; property line adjoining Handa and  Dewey. The white dashed lines shows the existing Ellsworth Place easement boundary.      The white dashed line is the property line that separates Dewey and Handa properties  Item 3 Attachment J Applicants' Photos of installations Ellsworth Place     Packet Pg. 307     Curb cut flare expansions for 24’ width (blue) and 26’ width (orange)       Mock up of 3 foot fence on Handa parcel    Item 3 Attachment J Applicants' Photos of installations Ellsworth Place     Packet Pg. 308     Photographs by City staff: Ellsworth Intersection with Middlefield Road Item 3 Attachment K Photographs by City staff     Packet Pg. 309     Item 3 Attachment K Photographs by City staff     Packet Pg. 310     From:Kristen Van Fleet To:French, Amy; Sauls, Garrett; Ellner, Robin; William Ross; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Glanckopf, Annette; Furman, Sheri Subject:Ellsworth Place Story Poles - Applications 23PLN-27, 23PLN-00027, 23PLN-00025 Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 4:20:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Regarding Applications 23PLN-27, 23PLN-00027, 23PLN-00025 To whom it may concern, Several Ellsworth Place residents have complained to me about the placement of the story pole fence. It is too high or not set back far enough from the sidewalk. Something has to change with it quickly. We also wonder if the fence is in the correct place per the recommendations of the Transportation Department. Not sure who to report this situation to, I spoke with Robin Ellner earlier today, and she transferred me to Garrett Sauls to leave a message, which I did. I'm also aware that one of my neighbors has already filed a code enforcement case for this fence. I've spoken with our attorney William Ross about this and he said to send this information to the Planning Department. He is Cc'd on this email. Let me know how you want the complaints/comments submitted going forward. (There are many!) Here are two photos showing how far a car must be into the sidewalk in order to see to the left (creek side) when pulling out of Ellsworth Place. More neighbors will get photos to me over the weekend. Photo of Andrea's sedan-style car. She is approx. 6-feet tall and still has to pull the driver's side window past the temporary orange fence in order to see to Matadero Creek. Item 3 Attachment L Ellsworth Place Story Poles - Applications 23PLN-27, 23PLN-0     Packet Pg. 311     This is mine and my husband's car, which is a Forerunner and it still requires putting the front end of the car about halfway into the sidewalk in order to have a clear line of sight to the creek. Item 3 Attachment L Ellsworth Place Story Poles - Applications 23PLN-27, 23PLN-0     Packet Pg. 312     We've asked for an asphalt approach which would probably solve both the need for a car to pull into the sidewalk and also bring attention to pedestrians and cyclists on the sidewalk that a road is here. Thank you for looking into this. Sincerely, Kristen Van Fleet 650-646-8677 Item 3 Attachment L Ellsworth Place Story Poles - Applications 23PLN-27, 23PLN-0     Packet Pg. 313     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 10 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 9, 2023 Report #: 2307-1781 TITLE LEGISLATIVE: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitate the Installation of Electrification Equipment for Residential Development RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) which contains changes to the PAMC to further facilitate the installation of electrification equipment in residential neighborhoods. These code changes are added to the draft ordinance modifying six Title 18 chapters that the PTC recommended on December 14, 2022, which has not yet been presented to City Council in 2023. Modifications from the December 14, 2022 ordinance are shown as double-underline/ double-strikethrough text. Links to the staff report and meeting minutes from the PTC meeting of December 14, 2022 are provided in the footnote below1. BACKGROUND The City’s barrier reduction strategy for sustainability and climate action includes updating the City’s ordinances to ensure the success of electrification programs, such as the new Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Pilot Program that is now underway. Staff’s proposal to facilitate the 1 Links to PTC December 14, 2022 PTC staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-12.14.2022-title-18- zoning.pdf Meeting minutes – verbatim: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-12.14.2022-verbatim-minutes.pdf Meeting minutes – summary: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-12.14.2022-summary-minutes.pdf Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 314     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 10 placement of such equipment without requiring and reviewing individual noise reports requires modification of the noise ordinance (Title 9) as well as sections of Title 18, as described in this report. ADU-Associated Noise-Producing Equipment On June 5, 2023, the City Council adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance (Ordinance 5585), modifying the placement of noise-producing equipment for ADUs only, as follows: (i) Noise-producing equipment such as air conditioners, water heaters, and similar service equipment that exclusively serves an ADU/JADU may be located anywhere on the site, provided they maintain the underlying front yard setback requirements of the property and, if the property is a corner lot, a 10-foot street-side setback. shall be located outside of the setbacks for the ADU/JADU. All such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided that a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the city’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. All service equipment must meet the city’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code. Prior PTC Review of Electrification Equipment Ordinance On December 14, 2022, staff presented the PTC with a draft ordinance that proposed to facilitate adoption of electrification equipment following adoption of the City’s updated Green Building Code. The draft changes were to Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density Residential), 18.12 (R-1 Zones), 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential Zones), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), and 18.54 (Parking Facilities Design Standards). The PTC recommended some adjustments to the ordinance on December 14, 2022. These adjustments have been incorporated into the attached ordinance and are also noted with double- underline/double-strikethrough text. PTC recommended the staff prepared ordinance with modifications: •Allow a 4-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for lots with a conforming front yard setback and 2-feet into the front yard setback for lots with a non- conforming front yard setback. So, that would be 2-feet from the existing structure for those non- conforming situations. •Amend the Home Improvement Exception Sections to include electrification equipment. •Add the following clause at the end of 18.10.040 H (3), 18.10.040 L (3) and 18.13.040 B (1)(d) and that language is after the word insulation “due to noise generation below applicable maximums”. Discussion of Noise in Prior PTC Review Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 315     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 10 PTC report has extensive background information, including the City’s policies on noise. With respect to noise, the December 14, 2022 draft ordinance simply required compliance with the City’s noise ordinance. The staff report report noted that staff was considering two approaches to addressing noise-producing electrification equipment within property setbacks: (1) The Planning Director could maintain a list of equipment types and appropriate decibel levels within a range or threshold for maximum decibel level for noise- producing equipment placed within property setbacks. (2) Staff could ask applicants to demonstrate that the equipment will not exceed a certain noise level and that sufficient fire access will be provided (i.e. a three-foot clearance around buildings). The report also noted staff’s concern about the placement of multiple pieces of equipment and the potential for cumulative noise and increasing the ambient noise level in a neighborhood. The report also stated the current practice for when noise reports are required: • No noise reports are required with the electrification projects for single- and two- family residential projects. • Housing projects of three units or more require discretionary review and therefore, environmental review is required, and noise reports may be requested. Consultant Assistance In early 2023, staff determined that additional study was necessary before approaching City Council with the draft ordinance the PTC recommended in December 2022. Staff was concerned that most of the electrification equipment on the market appear to operate at noise levels in excess of what is permitted under the City‘s existing noise ordinance. Staff retained a noise consultant to assist staff work toward a solution with respect to the Noise Ordinance standards. Staff and the consultant studied the concept of ‘presumed compliance’, where setbacks would be established for the installation of electrification equipment based upon noise levels. The consultant has prepared the attached documents (Attachments B, C, and D). The consultants prepared a presentation (Attachment C) to assist staff in explaining this subject and proposal. The consultant-prepared spreadsheet (Attachment D) shows the equipment studied. The table in Attachment B, Table 1, would establish the required setbacks for noise-producing electrification equipment. The introduction in the consultant’s document, Attachment B, states: The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code allows for noise-producing electrification equipment, such as heat pump water heaters and heat pump HVAC equipment, to be placed in the rear and side yard setbacks. The Planning and Development Services Department has determined setback requirements for locating noise-producing electrification equipment to meet the Noise Ordinance limit of 40 dBA and 50 dBA, Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 316     Item No. 4. Page 4 of 10 where applicable, at the property line. The figures illustrate the minimum setback requirements given the manufacturers’ dBA for the equipment. As the manufacturer’s dBA for the equipment increases, the setback would increase as shown in Table 1. Staff has italicized the first sentence here, to highlight that Council has not yet adopted the PTC- recommended ordinance allowing placement in setbacks. Utility Incentives In 2022, the City Council approved utility incentives for the installation of electrification equipment in residential neighborhoods. This prompted the City Council to request the removal of code barriers to accomplish a successful sustainability program to replace gas-powered equipment with electric equipment. The incentive program requires a change to the Noise Ordinance to facilitate these installations. In October 2022, Council approved an Advanced Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot program, with a goal of installing 1000 heat pump water heaters within one year. This program promotes heat pump water heater installation in single family homes through a turnkey installation service by a City-provided contractor, with a low up-front cost and an option for on-bill financing; alternatively, customers may opt for the $2300 rebate if they choose their own installation contractor. The replacement of residential gas appliances such as water heaters with electric heat pump alternatives is a key action in the City’s Sustainability/Climate Action Plan to meet the City’s aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal. Over the next year, Utilities anticipate rolling out additional residential electrification incentives to promote the replacement of gas furnaces with heat pump heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment as well as launching a whole home electrification pilot program. A change to the Noise Ordinance will facilitate the adoption of electrification equipment in residential neighborhoods. In addition to utility incentives, state and federal incentives are also available to accelerate the adoption of electrification equipment in order to meet climate goals. The TECH Clean California program currently offers a rebate of $1000 per unit for new heat pump HVAC systems in single family homes. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act offers a 30% federal tax credit for residential electrification upgrades, including an annual maximum of $2000 each for heat pump water heater and heat pump HVAC installation. Spreadsheet of Residential Projects To provide relevant data for this study, the Chief Building Officials prepared a spreadsheet (Attachment E) inclusive of all residential projects that included either heat pump or air conditioning units or both. This spreadsheet included all building permit projects issued between January 1, 2022 and June 13, 2023. Staff included the manufacturers, model number, and dbA level, if these were able to be extracted from the permitting information. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 317     Item No. 4. Page 5 of 10 Comprehensive Plan Policies on Noise The December 14, 2022 PTC report provided a review of the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding noise, which are relevant policies2 for this discussion. Noise is addressed in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and staff has used Comprehensive Plan policies as well as the municipal code to guide decisions on issuing building permits. The Comprehensive Plan addresses diverse noise sources and provides the policy foundation for much more rigorous requirements established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan regulate the placement of future “sensitive receptors”—homes, schools, medical clinics, and the like—in compatible noise environments and acknowledge the importance of quiet environments in public open spaces and conservation areas. This section of the Comprehensive Plan also guides the analysis and design of proposed new development to avoid creating new noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors. In addition, this section supports the City’s ongoing efforts to coordinate with regional, State and federal authorities on noise issues of concern to the Palo Alto community, such as overflights into and out of Bay Area airports and the proposed high speed rail project. Noise Contours in Comp Plan v. Local Ambient Noise The below map excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan shows CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), which is a weighted average of noise level over time used to compare the noisiness of neighborhoods. This is not the same as “local ambient noise,” which is more specifically defined in the Noise Ordinance. 2 Policies on noise from Comp Plan, link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development- services/file-migration/historic/long-range- planning/resources/compplan_2017_04_naturalenviro_pdf_w_links.pdf Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 318     Item No. 4. Page 6 of 10 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 319     Item No. 4. Page 7 of 10 Noise Ordinance The City’s noise ordinance Chapter 9.10, Section 9.10.030 sets a permissible noise limit in residential zones of 6 dBA over the local ambient noise levels, and Section 9.10.020 defines ‘local ambient’. The existing noise ordinance of the City of Palo Alto limits noise levels caused by stationary noise sources. The existing noise ordinance requires that ambient noise levels first be established through noise measurements, and then, defines an exceedance if noise levels would exceed ambient noise levels by more than 6 dBA. Selected definitions from PAMC 9.10.020 relevant to Table 1 compliance (a) "Sound level," expressed in decibels (dB), means a logarithmic indication of the ratio between the acoustic energy present at a given location and the lowest amount of acoustic energy audible to sensitive human ears and weighted by frequency to account for characteristics of human hearing, as given in the American National Standards Institute Standard S1.1, "Acoustic Terminology," paragraph 2.9, or successor reference. All references to dB in this chapter utilize the A-level weighting scale, abbreviated dBA, measured as set forth in this section. (b) "Precision sound level meter" means a device for measuring sound level in decibel units within the performance specifications in the American National Standards Institute Standard S1.4, "Specification for Sound Level Meters." (c) "Noise level" means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak sound level, produced by a source or group of sources as measured with a precision sound level meter. In order to measure a noise level, the controls of the precision sound level meter should be arranged to the setting appropriate to the type of noise being measured. (d) "Local ambient" means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting. The minimum sound level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, and in the same location as the measurement of the noise level of the source or sources at issue. However, for purposes of this chapter, in no case shall the local ambient be considered or determined to be less than: (1) Thirty dBA for interior noise in Section 9.10.030(b); (2) Forty dBA in all other sections. If a significant portion of the local ambient is produced by one or more individual identifiable sources which would otherwise be operating continuously during the six-minute measurement period and contributing significantly to the ambient sound level, determination of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these separate identifiable noise sources silent. Excerpt from PAMC 9.10.030 re residential property noise limits This code section states, in pertinent part: Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 320     Item No. 4. Page 8 of 10 (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. (b) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, or device, or any combination of same, on multi-family residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient three feet from any wall, floor, or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property, when the windows and doors of the dwelling unit are closed, except within the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located. Additional information from Section 9.10.030 is provided in the Discussion section of this report. Home Improvement Exceptions PAMC sections 18.10.110 and 18.12.120 enable a discretionary review process for exceptions to the development standards of these chapters. The process is the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process, allowing staff to approve a home improvement or minor addition to an existing single-family or two-family home, or accessory structure in the RE, R-1, RMD, or R-2 districts. There are required findings for the PDS Director to tentatively approve or deny these exceptions, and a Director’s Hearing may be requested to contest the Director’s action; HIE decisions following Director’s Hearing actions may be appealed to Council. The exceptions are limited to a list described in subsection c of 18.12.120. The attached ordinance adds ‘Electrification equipment’ to the list of exceptions in subsection c, to enable further flexibility in placement of such equipment, subject to the approval findings. In the areas of Palo Alto with local ambient noise level above 50dBA, the equipment noise level can be up to and including the level of the local ambient, for presumed compliance at a three- foot setback from rear and interior side property lines, and ten feet from the street side yard property line, but not in the front setback. DISCUSSION Draft Ordinance Title 9 Changes In addition to the changes recommended by the PTC on December 14, 2022, the attached ordinance modifies Chapter 9.10. While the PTC’s purview does not include recommendations on changes to other PAMC titles beyond Titles 18 and 21, the PTC’s feedback is sought because these changes will affect the placement of noise-producing electrification equipment in residential zones. The draft ordinance modifies Title 9 to: (1) Establish a table with minimum setbacks for placement of electrification equipment based on local ambient noise and the noise level of the equipment. This table would be used to determine compliance for electrification equipment in lieu of individualized noise studies. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 321     Item No. 4. Page 9 of 10 (2) Raise the local ambient noise level noted in PAMC Chapter 9.10 to a minimum 50 dBa for the ‘flats’ area and 40 dBA in the foothills area. Note, as of the preparation of this report and ordinance, these terms have not yet been fully defined. (2) Change the noise ordinance to allow for limited exceedances of the current limit of 6dBa above the ambient level - to a limit of 8dBA above. Proposed Noise Thresholds In addition to the consultant’s Table 1 showing setbacks, the consultant prepared two graphs intended to replace the standard currently set forth in the City’s noise ordinance for residential zone districts. These graphs, referenced in the proposed ordinance, show the relationship between the source levels of the equipment and the necessary setbacks to meet the noise limits. They show the setback gradient for equipment producing noise above ambient noise levels of 40 dBA (the ambient noise level encountered in the foothills area of Palo Alto) and 50 dBA (found in other areas in Palo Alto). A two-tier noise level threshold is proposed to simplify the process for documenting ambient noise levels and defining an exceedance. The thresholds account for the ambient noise environment in various areas of Palo Alto and establish a standalone threshold to simplify the application of the ordinance. Foothills For the Palo Alto foothills area, the relatively low ambient noise environment requires a more conservative threshold to ensure that the installation of new equipment facilitated by these zoning code changes would not result in a substantial permanent increase ambient noise levels. After a review of ambient noise data and the regulatory criteria established by neighboring communities having a similar location and noise source characteristics (Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills), 40 dBA was selected as the noise level threshold that would be applied to equipment installed in the foothills. Palo Alto ‘Flats’ The second noise level tier would be applied in the non-foothills areas of Palo Alto, or ‘flats’ areas where ambient noise levels are higher because of the proximity to major transportation noise sources traversing the areas including highways and major arterial roadways. To ensure that the installation of new equipment facilitated by these zoning code changes would not result in a substantial permanent increase ambient noise levels in the Palo Alto flats, 50 dBA was selected. The 50 dBA noise limit is consistent with other nearby communities including East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, Menlo Park, and Sunnyvale. Increased Exceedance of Local Ambient – Good Neighbor Placement The consultant’s document notes that good neighbor placement of equipment and sound baffling may not work to allow the installation to meet the existing standard of 6 dbA above Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 322     Item No. 4. Page 10 of 10 ambient. The handout (Attachment B) notes that owners seeking to install electrification equipment are advised to: • Select the quietest equipment possible and utilize the manufacturer’s noise control packages where applicable • Place equipment as far as possible from adjacent property lines or in areas shielded by structures or noise barriers. Note that acoustical enclosures may not be feasible noise control options as air-flow requirements, building setbacks, or other constraints may limit their effectiveness. • Orient the equipment take advantage of the directionality of the noise source (i.e., point the noise source away from receptors. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Attachment B: Electric Noise Equipment Handout Attachment C: Noise Ordinance Update Attachment D: Equipment Noise Level for Palo Alto Attachment E: Spreadsheet of installations AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 323     Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density Residential), 18.12 (R-1, Single Family Residence District), 18.13 (Multifamily Residential Zones), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), and 18.54 (Parking Facilities Design Standards) and Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitate Adoption of Electrification Equipment Required by the 2022 Green Building Code and Local Amendments The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.04.030 Definitions (a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. [. . .] (49) (reserved) “Electrification Equipment” means one or more devices that use electric energy to serve a dwelling unit’s needs for heating and cooling, water heating, cooking, and electric vehicle charging. In addition, ancillary equipment such as an electric panel, photovoltaic equipment, and energy storage systems that are deployed to support such devices shall be considered Electrification Equipment. [. . .] SECTION 2. Section 18.10.040 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.10 (RE, R2, RMD Low-Density Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.10.040 Development Standards [. . .] (h) Location of Noise-Producing Equipment and Electrification Equipment (1) Electrification equipment and any associated housing, screening, insulation, or bollards necessary to enable compliance with the applicable regulations, including Chapter 9.10 of this Code, shall provide a minimum three foot interior side and rear yard setback and a minimum ten foot street sideyard Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 324     Not Yet Approved setback. Except as otherwise provided in this Title EVSE and energy storage systems, electrification equipment shall not be located in the required front yard setback and shall at all times provide sufficient clearance for fire safety purposes. All other noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment, gas powered generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment shall be located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may, however, be located up to 6 feet into the street sideyard setback. All such noise-producing equipment, including electrification equipment, shall be insulated and housed, except that the Planning Director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided the equipment is located within the building envelope and where that a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. Any replacement of such equipment shall conform to this section where feasible; replacement of equipment for which permits were obtained prior to these restrictions is allowable in the same location, provided the replacement equipment complies with the City’s noise ordinance. All service equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of this code. (2) Where existing improvements comply with front setback requirements, EVSE may encroach up to four feet into the required front setback. Where existing improvements do not comply with front setback requirements, EVSE may encroach into the otherwise required front setback by two feet beyond the existing improvement. EVSE and energy storage systems and associated equipment and safety bollards may be located within required on-site parking spaces, as further described in PAMC Chapter 18.54 Section 18.54.020. (3) The Planning Director may publish administrative regulations to further implement this subsection (h), including a list of equipment or technologies that may presumptively be installed without housing and insulation due to noise generation below applicable maximums. [. . .] SECTION 3. Sections 18.12.040 (Site Development Standards), 18.12.050 (Permitted Encroachments, Projections, and Exceptions), and Section 18.12.120 (Home Improvement Exception) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single- Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 325     Not Yet Approved PAMC are amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.12.040 Site Development Standards [. . .] (l) Location of Noise-Producing Equipment and Electrification Equipment (1) Electrification equipment and any associated housing, screening, insulation, or bollards necessary to enable compliance with the applicable regulations, including Chapter 9.10 of this Code, shall provide a minimum three foot interior side and rear yard setback and a minimum ten foot street sideyard setback. Except as otherwise provided in this Title for EVSE and energy storage systems, electrification equipment shall not be located in the required front yard setback and shall at all times provide sufficient clearance for fire safety purposes. All other noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment, gas powered generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment shall be located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may, however, be located up to 6 feet into the street sideyard setback. All such noise-producing equipment, including electrification equipment, shall be insulated and housed, except that the Planning Director may permit installation without housing and insulation, provided the equipment is located within the building envelope and where that a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. Any replacement of such equipment shall conform to this section where feasible, except the Director may allow replacement of existing equipment in a non-complying location, if such equipment had prior building permit(s), with equipment that meets the City’s Noise Ordinance. All service equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of this code. (2) Where existing improvements comply with front setback requirements, EVSE may encroach up to four feet into the required front setback. Where existing improvements do not comply with front setback requirements, EVSE may encroach into the otherwise required front setback by two feet beyond the existing improvement. EVSE and energy storage systems and associated equipment and safety bollards may be located within required on-site Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 326     Not Yet Approved parking spaces, as further described in PAMC Chapter 18.54 Section 18.54.020. (3) The Planning Director may publish administrative regulations to further implement this subsection (l), including a list of equipment or technologies that may presumptively be installed without housing and insulation due to noise generation below applicable maximums. [. . .] 18.12.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions [. . .] (a) Setback/Yard Encroachments and Projections [. . .] (3) Allowed Projections [. . .] (F) Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs and Associated Electrification Equipment (i) Pools, spas, and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed fourteen feet, provided that a minimum setback of six feet from the property line shall be maintained. (ii) No swimming pool, hot tub, spa, or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard. (iii) Electrification equipment for pools, spas, hot tubs, and swimming pools subject to meeting the standards for set forth in Table 1 of Section 9.10.030. [. . .] 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exceptions [. . .] (c) Limits of Home Improvement Exception Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 327     Not Yet Approved A home improvement exception may be granted only for one or more of the following, not to exceed the specified limits: [. . .] (16) To allow electrification equipment to: (A) encroach further into the setbacks otherwise established in the district for accessory structures, as long as the equipment complies with the standards set forth in Table 1 of Section 9.10.030; and/or (B) exceed the noise ordinance standard by two decibels (i.e. up to 8 dbA above local ambient level). [. . .] SECTION 4. Section 18.13.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential Zones – RM20, RM30, RM40) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.13.040 Development Standards [. . .] (b) Setbacks, Daylight Planes and Height - Additional Requirements and Exceptions (1) Setbacks (A) Required parking spaces shall not be located in a required front yard, nor in the first ten feet (10') adjoining the street property line of a required street side yard. (B) Projections into yards are permitted only to the extent allowed by Section 18.40.070 of this code. (C)Electrification equipment and any associated housing, screening, insulation, or bollards necessary to enable compliance with the applicable regulations, including Chapter 9.10 of this Code, shall provide a minimum three foot interior side and rear yard setback and a minimum ten foot street sideyard setback. Except as otherwise provided in this Title for EVSE and energy storage systems, electrification equipment shall not be located in the required front yard setback and shall at all times provide sufficient clearance for fire safety purposes. All electrification equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of this code. (D) Where existing improvements comply with front setback requirements, EVSE may encroach up to four feet into the required front setback. Where existing improvements do not comply with front setback requirements, EVSE may encroach into the otherwise required front setback by two feet beyond the existing improvement. Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 328     Not Yet Approved (E) The Planning Director may publish administrative regulations to further implement subsection (b)(1)(C), including a list of equipment or technologies that may presumptively be installed within setbacks without housing and insulation due to noise generation below applicable maximums. [. . .] SECTION 5. Sections 18.40.060 (Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.40.060 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Except as otherwise prescribed by district regulations or other provisions of this title, use and development of required yards shall be limited to the following: [. . .] (f) Electrification equipment for residential uses only: When installed in a required yard, electrification equipment and any associated housing, screening, insulation, or bollards necessary to enable compliance with the applicable regulations, including Chapter 9.10 of this Code, shall provide a minimum three foot interior side and rear yard setback and a minimum ten foot street sideyard setback. Except as otherwise provided in this Title for EVSE and energy storage systems, electrification equipment shall not be located in the required front yard setback and shall at all times provide sufficient clearance for fire safety purposes. EVSE, energy storage systems, and safety bollards may encroach two feet into a 20-foot standard front setback. SECTION 6. Section 18.40.260 (Visual Screening and Landscaping) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping [. . .] (b) Requirements [. . .] Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 329     Not Yet Approved (2) For all project types: (A) All areas not covered by structures, service yards, walkways, driveways, and parking spaces shall be landscaped with ground cover, shrubs, and/or trees. (B) Rooftop equipment shall be screened by a parapet or enclosure. Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge or a minimum of 100 feet from the property line, whichever is closer. Roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from ground-level public view (when viewed from the sidewalk on the opposite side of a street), by a roof screen or proper placement. See Section 18.40.090 (height limit exceptions) for further restrictions. (C) A minimum ten-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided adjacent to any façade abutting a low density residential district (R-1, R-2, or RMD) or abutting railroad tracks. (D) All exterior mechanical and other types of equipment, whether installed on the ground or attached to a building roof or walls, shall be obscured from public view when viewed from the abutting opposite sidewalk, except for residentially used EVSE and energy storage systems and associated bollards. [. . .] SECTION 7. Section 18.54.020 (Vehicle Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking) of Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 18.54.020 Vehicle Parking Facilities (a) Parking Facility Design Parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with the following regulations: (1) Requirements for dimensions of parking facilities at, above, and below grade are contained in this section and in Figures 1-6 and Tables 3-6 of Section 18.54.070. (2) Stalls and aisles shall be designed such that columns, walls, or other obstructions do not interfere with normal vehicle parking maneuvers. All required stall and aisle widths shall be designed to be clear of such obstructions except as otherwise provided in subsection (a)(4) below. (3) The required stall widths shown in Table 3 of Section 18.54.070 shall be increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a wall, whether on one or both sides. The director may require that the required stall widths be increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 330     Not Yet Approved immediately adjacent to a post, where such post limits turning movements into or out of the stall. (4) For property owners or tenants seeking to install EVSE, the required stall widths shown in Table 3 of Section 18.54.070 may be reduced by no more than eighteen inches below the code-required minimum dimensions in order to accommodate EVSE or associated electrical utility equipment. For parking lots and garages other than for one- and two-family use, tThis reduction may be applied to 10% of the total required parking stalls, or two stalls, whichever is greater. The director may approve a reduction in width for a greater number of stalls through a director’s adjustment pursuant to Section 18.52.050. For one- and two-family residential garages and carports, 18-inch reductions are allowed for both stall width and depth to enable electrification equipment and protective bollards, as long as (i) the reduced width is not continuous along the side of the stall, to provide a six-foot length near the middle of the stall for opening two vehicular side doors, and (ii) the proposed garage has an interior clearance depth of 20 feet in compliance with 18.54.020 (b)(2) or an existing substandard garage has a depth of at least 19 feet-six inches. For a garage depth less than 19 feet-six inches but greater than 18 feet, such equipment may be installed on the back wall of the garage at a location at least four feet above the finished floor. [. . .] (b) Off-Street Parking Stalls (1) Each off-street parking stall shall consist of a rectangular area not less than eight and one-half (8.5) feet wide by seventeen and one-half (17.5) feet long (uni-class stall), or as otherwise prescribed for angled parking by Table 3 in Section 18.54.070. (2) Garages and carports for single-family and two-family development shall provide a minimum interior clearance of ten (10) feet wide by twenty (20) feet long for a single car and a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide by twenty (20) feet long for two cars to allow sufficient clearance, except as otherwise provided in subsection (a)(4) above. SECTION 8. Section 9.10.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 9.10.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms are defined as follows: [. . .] Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 331     Not Yet Approved (d) “Local ambient” means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a six- minute period as measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting. The minimum sound level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, and in the same location as the measurement of the noise level of the source or sources at issue. However, for purposes of this chapter, in no case shall the local ambient be considered or determined to be less than: (1) Thirty dBA for interior noise in Section 9.10.030(b); (2) Forty dBA in the Palo Alto Foothills areas; (3) Fifty dBA in all other sections. If a significant portion of the local ambient is produced by one or more individual identifiable sources which would otherwise be operating continuously during the six-minute measurement period and contributing significantly to the ambient sound level, determination of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these separate identifiable noise sources silent. SECTION 9. Section 9.10.030 (Residential Property Noise Limits) of Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck-through, and omissions noted with bracketed ellipses): 9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane, except as modified in (c) below. (b) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, or device, or any combination of same, on multi-family residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient three feet from any wall, floor, or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property, when the windows and doors of the dwelling unit are closed, except within the dwelling unit in which the noise source or sources may be located. (c) In 40 to 50 dBA local ambient noise level environments, electrification equipment, as defined in Title 18, shall be deemed to comply with this Section 9.10.030 if the equipment is placed at the setbacks established in Table 1 – Setback Requirements. (i)Heat pump condenser units shall be allowed to emit noise at 8dB above the local ambient noise level if the unit(s) are set back at least 10 feet from a rear or interior side property line. (ii)Electrification equipment in areas with local ambient noise over 50 dBA shall be subject to generally applicable noise standards. // Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 332     Not Yet Approved Table 1 – Setback Requirements Equipment Sound Level (dBA) in 40 dBA Area Equipment Sound Level (dBA) in 50 dBA Area Minimum Setback from Receiving Property Line (ft.) 43 53 4 44 54 5 46 56 6 47 57 7 49 59 8 50 60 9 51 61 10 52 62 12 53 63 13 54 64 15 55 65 17 56 66 19 57 67 22 58 68 24 59 69 27 60 70 30 SECTION 10. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 11. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed modifications, which retain existing noise standards in Chapter 9.10, will not result in a significant impact on the physical environment. Additionally, the activity regulated by the ordinance is exempt under CEQA Guideline 15301 because it involves the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, and mechanical equipment, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former uses. SECTION 12. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 333     Not Yet Approved PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment Item 4 Attachment A Draft Electrification Title 18 & Title 9 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 334     PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 Residential Electrification Equipment: Noise Standards and Placement Guidelines The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code allows for noise-producing electrification equipment, such as heat pump water heaters and heat pump HVAC equipment, to be placed in the rear and side yard setbacks. The Planning and Development Services Department has determined setback requirements for locating noise- producing electrification equipment to meet the Noise Ordinance limit of 40 dBA and 50 dBA, where applicable, at the property line. The figures illustrate the minimum setback requirements given the manufacturers dBA for the equipment. As the manufacturer’s dBA for the equipment increases, the setback would increase as shown in Table 1. *Figures not drawn to scale Table 1 – Setback Requirements Equipment Sound Level (dBA) in 40 dBA Area Equipment Sound Level (dBA) in 50 dBA Area Setback from Receiving Property Line (ft.) 43 53 4 Item 4 Attachment B Draft Palo Alto Elec Noise Equip Handout     Packet Pg. 335     Draft: June, 2023 44 54 5 46 56 6 47 57 7 49 59 8 50 60 9 51 61 10 52 62 12 53 63 13 54 64 15 55 65 17 56 66 19 57 67 22 58 68 24 59 69 27 60 70 30 All noise producing electrification equipment will need to maintain a 36-inch separation between structures. If the proposed electrification equipment exceeds the dBA listed in Table 1, then the setback shall be determined by the Planning Department upon consultation with a professional noise consultant. Further, if installing multiple units, the applicant shall provide a certified noise consultant report verifying compliance with the setback requirements. EQUIPMENT PLACEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS To further promote good neighbor relations, staff recommends the following measures: •Select the quietest equipment possible and utilize the manufacturer’s noise control packages where applicable. •Place equipment as far as possible from adjacent property lines or in areas shielded by structures or noise barriers. Note that acoustical enclosures may not be feasible noise control options as air- flow requirements, building setbacks, or other constraints may limit their effectiveness. •Orient the equipment take advantage of the directionality of the noise source (i.e., point the noise source away from receptors). BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING APPROVAL (2 COPIES OF EACH) 1. Site plan – Showing property lines, building footprint, location of electrification unit(s), and setback to side and rear property lines measured from the face of the unit. The site plan shall have the model number(s) of the proposed units and the nominal size of the unit (i.e. tons). 2. Manufacturer’s Specifications (Product Data) – Provide the title page and page showing the noise rating of the unit. For variable speed units, the highest noise rating of the unit will be used. Brochures or other marketing materials are not acceptable. Item 4 Attachment B Draft Palo Alto Elec Noise Equip Handout     Packet Pg. 336     Zoning Code Changes to Facilitate Residential Electrification - Noise Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. June 23, 2023 Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 337     Outline •Regulatory Background •Equipment and Noise Levels •Estimated Setbacks to 40 and 50 dBA Limits •Setback Recommendations Based on Limits Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 338     Regulatory Background •Palo Alto Noise Ordinance 9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. (b)No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal, or device, or anycombination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six (6) dB above the local ambient atany point outside the property plane. •Surrounding Community’s Noise Standards (Nighttime) •East Palo Alto – 50 dBA •Los Altos – 50 dBA •Los Alto Hills – 40 dBA •Menlo Park – 50 dBA •Mt. View – 50 dBA •Portola Valley – 40 dBA •Sunnyvale – 50 dBA Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 339     Equipment and Noise Levels •Equipment Types: •Heat Pumps •Heat Pump Water Heaters •https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2021/01/24/will-you-save-money-with-a-heat-pump-water-heater•Heat Pump Pool Heater •Energy Storage Systems •Electric Vehicle Charging Stations •Equipment Noise Levels at 3 feet: •Heat Pumps – 46-75 dBA •Avg./Med. – 56-58 dBA •Heat Pump Water Heaters – 37-58 dBA •Heat Pump Pool Heater – 55-65 dBA •Energy Storage Systems - < 40 dBA •Electric Vehicle Charging Stations - < 40 dBA Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 340     Estimated Setbacks to 40 and 50 dBA Limits Sound Pressure Levels of Heat Pumps Minimum Distance to 40 dBA Limit Minimum Distance to 50 dBA Limit Under 40 dBA 3 feet or less 1 foot or less 40 to 50 dBA 3 to 10 feet 1 to 3 feet 50 to 55 dBA 10 to 20 feet 3 to 6 feet 55 to 60 dBA 20 to 30 feet 6 to 10 feet 60 to 65 dBA 30 to 55 feet 10 to 20 feet 65 to 70 dBA 55 to 100 feet 20 to 30 feet Above 70 dBA More than 100 feet More than 30 feet Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 341     Setback Recommendations Based on Limits •If a threshold of 40 dBA is used: •Equipment 50 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 10 feet from property line •Equipment 60 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 30 feet from property line •Equipment 65 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 55 feet from property line •Equipment over 65 dBA shall require a noise study to verify thresholds are met •If a threshold of 50 dBA is used: •Equipment 50 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 3 feet from property line •Equipment 55 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 6 feet from property line •Equipment 60 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 10 feet from property line •Equipment 65 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 20 feet from property line •Equipment 70 dBA or less permitted at a minimum of 30 feet from property line •Equipment over 70 dBA shall require a noise study to verify thresholds are met Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 342     42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 So u n d P r e s s u r e L e v e l o f E q u i p m e n t a t 3 f e e t , d B A Distance from Receiving Property Line, feet Allowable Equipment Noise Level to Meet 40 dBA Limit at Property Line At 4 feet, the maximum allowable sound pressure level for equipment would be 43 dBA Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 343     52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 So u n d P r e s s u r e L e v e l o f E q u i p m e n t a t 3 f e e t , d B A Distance from Receiving Property Line, feet Allowable Equipment Noise Level to Meet 50 dBA Limit at Property Line At 4 feet, the maximum allowable sound pressure level for equipment would be 53 dBA Item 4 Attachment C Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Update     Packet Pg. 344     Summary of Confirmed Levels from Equipment List SPL at 1m (3ft) Manufacturer Unit/Model Indoor Levels Outdoor Levels Rinnai SENSEI 48-49 52-53 LG LMU240HV 50-54 LMU36CHV 52-55 LMU363HV 51-54 LMU481HV 53-55 LA120HSV5/ LSU120HSV5 21-41 47-51 LS090HFV5 21-41 47-51 Goodman GSXC18 Mitsubishi PVFY-P12NAMU-E1 27-35 PVFY-P48NAMU-E 35-43 PVFY-P36NAMU-E1 35-43 PVA-A36AA7 32-40 52-53 PUZ-A36NKA7(-BS)49-51 PVA-A42AA7/ PUZ-A42NKA7(-BS)34-42 52-53 PUY-A42NKA7(-BS)34-45 52 PUMY-P36NKMU3(-BS)49-53 MXZ-2C20NA 50-54 MXZ-2C20NA2 50-54 MXZ-3C24NA 51-55 MXZ-3C24NA2 51-55 MXZ-3C24NA3-U1 51-55 MXZ-3C30NA2 52-56 MXZ-3C30NA3 52-56 MXZ-4C36NA2-U1 54-56 MXZ-5C42NA2 56-58 MXZ-5C42NAHZ2 50-54 MXZ-8C60NA 58-59 MXZ-8C60NA2 58-59 MXZ-8C48NA 51-54 MXZ-8C48NA2 51-54 MXZ-SM48NAM-U1 51-54 MXZ-SM60NAM-U1 58-59 MLZ-KP18NA/ SUZ-KA18NA2 26-48 54-55 MUZ-WR12NA 51 SVZ-KP24NA/ SUZ-KA24NAHZ 33-41 52-53 SVZ-KP36NA/ SUZ-KA36NAHZ 35-42 52-53 SVZ-KP36NA/ SUZ-KA36NA2 35-43 55 SUZ-KA18NA(H)2 26-48 54-55 SUZ-KA36NA2 54-55 MSZ-GL18NA/ MUZ-GL18NA-U1 28-49 54-55 MSZ-GL12NA/ MUZ-GL12NA 19-45 49-51 MSZ-GL15NA/ MUZ-GL15NA 26-49 49-51 MSZ-GL42NA 41-53 55 MSZ-GL09NA/ MUZ-GL09NA 19-43 48-50 MSZ-GL06NA 19-43 MSZ-FS09NA 40-42 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 345     MSZ-FS06NA 40-42 MSZ-FS15NA/ MUZ-FS15NA 25-46 51-55 MSZ-JP12WA/ MUZ-JP12WA 22-45 49-51 MSZ-WR09NA/ MUZ-WR09NA 22-43 48-50 Carrier 38MARBQ12AA3 56 38MARBQ24AA3 62 38MARBQ30AA3 61.5 38MARBQ36AA3 61.5 38MA*R 52.5-60.5 38MURA 54-62 38MPRAQ24AA3 62 38MGRQ30D 62 38MGRQ18B3 62 38MGRQ48E 64 38MBRBQ48AA3 62.9 34SCA5 65 24VNA6 25VNA8 25HBC5 25VNA448A**3 25HHA4 25TPA7 40MAQ/ 38MAQ 27-46 55.5-63 40MBAAQ24XA3 35.8-45.2 50VT-C N4H424GKG FX4D Bryant 40MBDQ 38 57.3 288BNV 226A 284ANV 214DNA024P00 224ANS 214DNA036P00 214A 214D 38MARB 54-62 38MURA 54-62 Samsung AR09JSALBWKXCV/ AR09JSALBWKNCV 29 53 AM060MXMDCH/AA 58-60 AC024KNZDCH/AA 35-41 AC024JXADCH/AA 50 Daikin FTX18NMVJU/ RX18NMVJU 54 FTKB12AXVJU/ RKB12AXVJU 32-42 48 2MX18AXVJU 51-56 2MXS18NMVJUA 50-51 Blueridge BMY917C 54.5 Lennox XC16 Elite Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 346     EL18XPV-036 EL16XP1 Elite ML14XP1 Merit MLB048 65 MLA018 56-59 16HPX Merit 67-75 MPB mini-split 62-63 RUUD Professional Ultra Hybrid 49 American Standard 4A6L6030A1 (Silver 15 models) Silver 16 models 4A619036A100H (Platinum 19 models) 4A6V8036A100 (Platinum 18 models) 4A6L9036A1000A 45-54 Gree GMV5 series 48-67 GMV VRF 56 FLEXX24/36HP230V1A 55 GMV-60WL/C-T(U)63 RHEEM Professional Prestige ProTerra Hybrid 49 RIWH09AVSA/ ROSH09AVSA 23-43 47-48 Fujitsu ARU18RLF 27-32 18RLFCD 27-32 52-55 48LMAS1 55 24GLXM 55 Payne FMC4X2400AL 54 Tempstar NH4A448AKA Trane 4TWR7036B-SUB-1C-EN TOSOT TU36-24WADU 60-62 TU36-24AADU 49 Bosch IDS BOVA15 Climate 500 22.5-47.5 53-63 Voltex AL Smart Hybrid Electric 45 DuctlessAire 13 SEER Ductless Mini Split 35-50 55-60 Pioneer Diamante Ultra 27-39 50-52 DC Inverter + heat pump 32-50 50-58 Sanco2 water heater 37 Heat Pump Summary: Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 347     SWL Sound Power Max SPL at 3 feet Distance to 40 dBA Distance to 50 dBA 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 68-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 52 12 40.0 4 49.5 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 56 18 40.4 6 50.0 56 18 40.4 6 50.0 56 18 40.4 6 50.0 58 23 40.3 8 49.5 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 59 26 40.2 9 49.5 59 26 40.2 9 49.5 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 59 26 40.2 9 49.5 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 50 10 39.5 3 50.0 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 348     55 17 39.9 6 49.0 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 50 10 39.5 3 50.0 56 18 40.4 6 50.0 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 61.5 34 40.4 11 50.2 61.5 34 40.4 11 50.2 60.5 31 40.2 10 50.0 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 64 46 40.3 15 50.0 62.9 40 40.4 13 50.2 65 51 40.4 17 49.9 51-68 57 21 40.1 7 49.6 55-73 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 68-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 56-72 61 32 40.4 11 49.7 69-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 71-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 73-75 64 46 40.3 15 50.0 68-79 68 72 40.4 23 50.3 64.7-70 59 26 40.2 9 49.5 57.3 21 40.4 7 49.9 57-73 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 70-75 64 46 40.3 15 50.0 56-72 61 32 40.4 11 49.7 76 65 51 40.4 17 49.9 69-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 77 66 57 40.4 18 50.4 72-77 66 57 40.4 18 50.4 68-79 68 72 40.4 23 50.3 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 53 13 40.3 5 48.6 60 29 40.3 10 49.5 50 10 39.5 3 50.0 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 48 8 39.5 3 48.0 56 18 40.4 6 50.0 51 11 39.7 4 48.5 54.5 16 40.0 5 50.1 74-78 67 64 40.4 21 50.1 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 349     61 50 10 39.5 71 60 29 40.3 10 49.5 76 65 51 40.4 17 49.9 65 51 40.4 17 49.9 59 26 40.2 9 49.5 75 161 40.4 51 50.4 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 49 9 39.5 3 49.0 69-75 64 46 40.3 15 50.0 69-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 43-57 46 6 40.0 2 49.5 56-74 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 67 64 40.4 21 50.1 56 18 40.4 6 50.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 49 9 39.5 3 49.0 48 8 39.5 3 48.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 55 17 39.9 6 49.0 54 15 40.0 5 49.6 70 59 26 40.2 9 49.5 72 61 32 40.4 11 49.7 62 36 40.4 12 50.0 59-80 69 81 40.4 26 50.2 63 41 40.3 13 50.3 60 29 40.3 10 49.5 52 12 40.0 4 49.5 58 23 40.3 8 49.5 37 3 37.0 1 46.5 min 46 6 2 max 75 161 51 median 56 18 6 average 58 28 9 Max SPL for equipment to meet thresholds at 4ft:43 dBA 53 dBA Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 350     Allowable Equipment Noise Level to Meet 40 dBA Limit at Property Line 10095908580757065605550454035302520151050 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Distance from Receiving Property Line, feet So u n d P r e s s u r e L e v e l o f E q u i p m e n t , d B A At 4 feet,the maximum allowable sound pressure level for equipment would be 43 dBA Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 351     Allowable Equipment Noise Level to Meet 50 dBA Limit at Property Line 1009590858075706560555045403530252015105052 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 Distance from Receiving Property Line, feet So u n d P r e s s u r e L e v e l o f E q u i p m e n t , d B A At 4 feet,the maximum allowable sound pressure level for equipment would be 53 dBA Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 352     Summary Table Sound Pressure Levels Min Dist to 40 dBA, feet Min Distance to 50 dBA, feet under 40 dBA 3 1 40-50 dBA 3 to 10 1 to 3 50-55 dBA 10 to 20 3 to 6 55-60 dBA 20 to 30 6 to 10 60-65 dBA 30 to 55 10 to 20 65-70 dBA 55 to 100 20 to 30 above 70 dBA more than 100 more than 30 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 353     Detailed Table - by feet Manufacturer's Sound Pressure Level (Measured at a Nominal 3 feet) Distance from Receiving Property Line, feet SPL to meet 40 dBA, dBA SPL to meet 50 dBA, dBA 4 42.5 52.5 5 44.4 54.4 6 46.0 56.0 7 47.4 57.4 8 48.5 58.5 9 49.5 59.5 10 50.5 60.5 11 51.3 61.3 12 52.0 62.0 13 52.7 62.7 14 53.4 63.4 15 54.0 64.0 16 54.5 64.5 17 55.1 65.1 18 55.6 65.6 19 56.0 66.0 20 56.5 66.5 21 56.9 66.9 22 57.3 67.3 23 57.7 67.7 24 58.1 68.1 25 58.4 68.4 26 58.8 68.8 27 59.1 69.1 28 59.4 69.4 29 59.7 69.7 30 60.0 70.0 31 60.3 70.3 32 60.6 70.6 33 60.8 70.8 34 61.1 71.1 35 61.3 71.3 36 61.6 71.6 37 61.8 71.8 38 62.1 72.1 39 62.3 72.3 40 62.5 72.5 41 62.7 72.7 42 62.9 72.9 43 63.1 73.1 44 63.3 73.3 45 63.5 73.5 46 63.7 73.7 47 63.9 73.9 48 64.1 74.1 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 354     49 64.3 74.3 50 64.4 74.4 51 64.6 74.6 52 64.8 74.8 53 64.9 74.9 54 65.1 75.1 55 65.3 75.3 56 65.4 75.4 57 65.6 75.6 58 65.7 75.7 59 65.9 75.9 60 66.0 76.0 61 66.2 76.2 62 66.3 76.3 63 66.4 76.4 64 66.6 76.6 65 66.7 76.7 66 66.8 76.8 67 67.0 77.0 68 67.1 77.1 69 67.2 77.2 70 67.4 77.4 71 67.5 77.5 72 67.6 77.6 73 67.7 77.7 74 67.8 77.8 75 68.0 78.0 76 68.1 78.1 77 68.2 78.2 78 68.3 78.3 79 68.4 78.4 80 68.5 78.5 81 68.6 78.6 82 68.7 78.7 83 68.8 78.8 84 68.9 78.9 85 69.0 79.0 86 69.1 79.1 87 69.2 79.2 88 69.3 79.3 89 69.4 79.4 90 69.5 79.5 91 69.6 79.6 92 69.7 79.7 93 69.8 79.8 94 69.9 79.9 95 70.0 80.0 96 70.1 80.1 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 355     97 70.2 80.2 98 70.3 80.3 99 70.4 80.4 100 70.5 80.5 Item 4 Attachment D Copy of Equipment Noise Level Info for Palo Alto     Packet Pg. 356     DATE OPENED RECORD ID RECORD STATUS DATE ADDR FULL LINE#Heat Pump System WH Heat Pump 4/30/2019 19000-01025 1/20/2022 877 ASPEN WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 4/19/2021 21BLD-00894 12/13/2022 2742 LOUIS RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/14/2021 21BLD-01170 6/13/2023 1881 FULTON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/19/2021 21BLD-01192 2/7/2023 1280 WILSON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 7/2/2021 21BLD-01669 3/23/2022 916 COLORADO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 7/8/2021 21BLD-01691 3/23/2022 916 COLORADO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 8/2/2021 21BLD-01940 2/10/2023 2290 GREER RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 8/18/2021 21BLD-02069 5/10/2022 1201 PARKINSON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 8/24/2021 21BLD-02140 3/9/2022 4206 DARLINGTON CT, UNIT B, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 9/16/2021 21BLD-02320 4/25/2023 531 CENTER DR Yes No 9/17/2021 21BLD-02339 8/19/2022 609 OREGON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 9/22/2021 21BLD-02385 2/2/2022 1144 FOREST AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 9/22/2021 21BLD-02386 2/7/2022 1144 FOREST AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 9/27/2021 21BLD-02434 6/21/2022 340 COLERIDGE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 357     9/27/2021 21BLD-02435 6/21/2022 340 COLERIDGE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 9/28/2021 21BLD-02443 5/5/2022 575 N CALIFORNIA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 11/18/2021 21BLD-02912 8/1/2022 4049 ORME ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 11/22/2021 21BLD-02944 1/27/2023 776 ROSEWOOD DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 12/10/2021 21BLD-03113 1/31/2023 4186 OLD ADOBE RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94022 Yes Yes 12/10/2021 21BLD-03115 1/31/2023 4186 OLD ADOBE RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94022 Yes Yes 12/15/2021 21BLD-03148 1/24/2023 2920 COWPER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 2/18/2022 22BLD-00502 7/13/2022 3224 GREER RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 2/18/2022 22BLD-00503 7/13/2022 3224 GREER RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 3/7/2022 22BLD-00652 8/1/2022 230 FERNANDO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/17/2022 22BLD-00773 6/7/2023 265 COLERIDGE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 4/13/2022 22BLD-00992 9/6/2022 425 MIDDLEFIELD RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 4/13/2022 22BLD-00993 9/6/2022 425 MIDDLEFIELD RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 4/29/2022 22BLD-01150 4/28/2023 780 TALISMAN CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 5/12/2022 22BLD-01273 3/22/2023 67 TULIP LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 358     6/29/2022 22BLD-01683 10/12/2022 1062 LOS ROBLES AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 6/30/2022 22BLD-01700 4/6/2023 947 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 7/22/2022 22BLD-01882 10/20/2022 2251 BOWDOIN ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 8/18/2022 22BLD-02107 12/14/2022 3093 STELLING DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 8/29/2022 22BLD-02191 5/2/2023 1960 WEBSTER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 8/29/2022 22BLD-02192 5/2/2023 1960 WEBSTER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 8/30/2022 22BLD-02198 4/12/2023 2323 BYRON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 9/16/2022 22BLD-02320 3/15/2023 2712 COWPER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 9/19/2022 22BLD-02348 1/17/2023 2708 GASPAR CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 11/4/2022 22BLD-02787 5/17/2023 3884 MAGNOLIA DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 11/14/2022 22BLD-02836 5/25/2023 4161 VERDOSA DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes 12/13/2022 22BLD-03092 3/29/2023 787 SOUTHAMPTON DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 10/20/2021 21BLD-02655 5/11/2022 2090 YALE ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 359     8/24/2022 22BLD-02158 1/10/2023 869 E MEADOW DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 10/14/2022 22BLD-02562 2/6/2023 230 IRIS WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 10/18/2022 22BLD-02598 1/23/2023 138 WALTER HAYS DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 7/24/2020 20000-01392 12/7/2022 775 MAYVIEW AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/24/2021 21BLD-01246 3/31/2022 910 CALIFORNIA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 6/14/2021 21BLD-01453 1/24/2022 611 WILDWOOD LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 9/3/2021 21BLD-02237 4/18/2023 4077 BEN LOMOND DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 9/9/2021 21BLD-02273 2/2/2022 3292 MURRAY WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 9/28/2021 21BLD-02447 11/30/2022 630 LINCOLN AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 11/3/2021 21BLD-02777 1/27/2023 4030 BEN LOMOND DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 11/30/2021 21BLD-03007 1/30/2023 3321 THOMAS DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 12/1/2021 21BLD-03029 12/22/2022 1265 WILSON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 360     12/3/2021 21BLD-03042 10/8/2022 435 SHERIDAN AV, UNIT 210, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/5/2022 22BLD-00017 1/28/2022 826 LOMA VERDE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 1/5/2022 22BLD-00023 3/22/2022 4130 AMARANTA CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/6/2022 22BLD-00029 5/2/2022 505 E CHARLESTON RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/13/2022 22BLD-00089 1/18/2023 740 LA PARA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/19/2022 22BLD-00132 3/10/2023 768 MONTROSE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 1/20/2022 22BLD-00143 1/19/2023 746 LOS ROBLES AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/24/2022 22BLD-00197 1/18/2023 2491 AZTEC WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 1/25/2022 22BLD-00215 2/9/2022 161 CALIFORNIA AV, UNIT K200, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/26/2022 22BLD-00255 7/25/2022 641 LYTTON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 1/27/2022 22BLD-00258 8/8/2022 625 LYTTON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 2/1/2022 22BLD-00308 1/18/2023 670 SAN ANTONIO RD, UNIT 19, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 2/7/2022 22BLD-00369 2/13/2023 4295 PONCE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 2/11/2022 22BLD-00420 1/20/2023 1127 HOPKINS AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 No Yes 2/11/2022 22BLD-00425 6/20/2022 1029 RAMONA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 No Yes 2/15/2022 22BLD-00447 5/12/2022 740 GAILEN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 361     2/15/2022 22BLD-00463 1/31/2023 244 WEBSTER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 2/23/2022 22BLD-00526 2/1/2023 4006 BEN LOMOND DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/3/2022 22BLD-00633 7/12/2022 4055 MANZANA LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/4/2022 22BLD-00635 4/28/2022 387 ELY PL, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/7/2022 22BLD-00648 5/4/2022 784 ROSEWOOD DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 3/7/2022 22BLD-00649 4/26/2022 747 HOLLY OAK DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 3/14/2022 22BLD-00727 5/25/2022 1557 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/22/2022 22BLD-00807 7/28/2022 2484 RAMONA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/24/2022 22BLD-00839 5/13/2022 4250 POMONA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/28/2022 22BLD-00854 6/13/2022 1440 HAMILTON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 4/11/2022 22BLD-00974 8/25/2022 1161 HARRIET ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 4/13/2022 22BLD-00991 8/8/2022 3422 JANICE WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 4/19/2022 22BLD-01065 6/6/2023 737 LOMA VERDE AV, UNIT 10, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 4/20/2022 22BLD-01069 7/12/2022 349 IRIS WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 4/25/2022 22BLD-01099 8/12/2022 3895 MUMFORD PL, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 4/27/2022 22BLD-01122 5/5/2023 780 UNIVERSITY AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 362     4/27/2022 22BLD-01138 3/28/2023 1405 SKYLINE BL, PALO ALTO, CA 94304 Yes No 5/2/2022 22BLD-01159 6/2/2023 411 MAUREEN AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/3/2022 22BLD-01173 10/28/2022 3743 LAGUNA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/3/2022 22BLD-01176 10/28/2022 925 CLARA DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/10/2022 22BLD-01238 6/23/2022 595 E MEADOW DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/16/2022 22BLD-01312 8/18/2022 2789 BRYANT ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/17/2022 22BLD-01326 12/8/2022 251 PARKSIDE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/23/2022 22BLD-01383 10/13/2022 2310 HANOVER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/23/2022 22BLD-01384 4/19/2023 360 IRIS WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/23/2022 22BLD-01389 12/29/2022 580 NEWELL RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/25/2022 22BLD-01402 12/21/2022 892 BRUCE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/25/2022 22BLD-01407 2/27/2023 800 HIGH ST, UNIT 314, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 5/25/2022 22BLD-01409 8/18/2022 771 GAILEN AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/27/2022 22BLD-01428 2/1/2023 365 FOREST AV, UNIT 4E, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 6/8/2022 22BLD-01512 8/26/2022 520 E CHARLESTON RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 6/13/2022 22BLD-01546 9/13/2022 3089 COUNTRY CLUB CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94304 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 363     6/13/2022 22BLD-01555 9/2/2022 2674 SOUTH CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 6/14/2022 22BLD-01567 8/4/2022 788 BARRON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes 6/14/2022 22BLD-01569 9/14/2022 3740 EGRET LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 6/17/2022 22BLD-01593 6/27/2022 185 FOREST AV, UNIT 2C, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 6/20/2022 22BLD-01599 2/13/2023 4123 BRIARWOOD WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 7/6/2022 22BLD-01732 8/18/2022 111 GREENMEADOW WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 7/7/2022 22BLD-01757 9/7/2022 173 CREEKSIDE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 7/19/2022 22BLD-01853 12/13/2022 725 GARLAND DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 7/19/2022 22BLD-01859 9/28/2022 616 FOREST AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 7/20/2022 22BLD-01866 9/30/2022 10 SOMERSET PL, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 7/20/2022 22BLD-01870 2/27/2023 800 HIGH ST, UNIT 315, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 7/26/2022 22BLD-01899 10/24/2022 774 UNIVERSITY AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 8/9/2022 22BLD-02026 8/17/2022 784 ALESTER AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 8/12/2022 22BLD-02046 10/19/2022 1221 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 364     8/16/2022 22BLD-02066 3/14/2023 4058 BEN LOMOND DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 8/22/2022 22BLD-02131 8/30/2022 1611 STANFORD AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 8/30/2022 22BLD-02213 10/27/2022 81 ROOSEVELT CIR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 8/31/2022 22BLD-02230 1/27/2023 4072 SCRIPPS AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 9/7/2022 22BLD-02261 10/10/2022 3391 SOUTH CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 9/13/2022 22BLD-02288 1/30/2023 3136 SOUTH CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 9/22/2022 22BLD-02371 12/2/2022 788 HOLLY OAK DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 9/22/2022 22BLD-02375 12/9/2022 715 WEBSTER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 9/27/2022 22BLD-02412 1/5/2023 4160 OLD TRACE RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 9/28/2022 22BLD-02418 11/2/2022 3673 RAMONA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 10/5/2022 22BLD-02497 12/20/2022 380 MACLANE, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 10/12/2022 22BLD-02546 1/12/2023 3165 MADDUX DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 10/17/2022 22BLD-02581 4/19/2023 2585 PARK BL, UNIT Z104, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 10/19/2022 22BLD-02623 12/8/2022 1017 GUINDA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 10/20/2022 22BLD-02648 10/28/2022 116 Emerson ST, BLDG No Yes Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 365     10/26/2022 22BLD-02690 11/8/2022 3868 MAGNOLIA DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 10/31/2022 22BLD-02729 2/9/2023 474 MONROE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 11/7/2022 22BLD-02796 1/13/2023 976 CELIA DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 11/23/2022 22BLD-02903 12/20/2022 3435 CORK OAK WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 11/29/2022 22BLD-02936 12/13/2022 851 LYTTON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 12/1/2022 22BLD-02956 1/24/2023 328 OXFORD AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 12/5/2022 22BLD-02986 5/26/2023 670 SAN ANTONIO RD, UNIT 6, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 12/13/2022 22BLD-03088 5/5/2023 2575 PARK BL, UNIT S200, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 12/19/2022 22BLD-03169 5/24/2023 200 FULTON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 No Yes 12/23/2022 22BLD-03250 2/7/2023 722 MARION AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 12/28/2022 22BLD-03262 6/6/2023 3757 KLAMATH LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 1/9/2023 23BLD-00040 2/10/2023 942 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 No Yes 1/9/2023 23BLD-00049 2/9/2023 698 MAYBELL AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/9/2023 23BLD-00052 1/31/2023 375 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 1/12/2023 23BLD-00090 4/4/2023 291 PARKSIDE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 366     1/12/2023 23BLD-00096 2/17/2023 777 MORENO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 1/18/2023 23BLD-00127 2/23/2023 2781 ROSS RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 1/23/2023 23BLD-00144 4/26/2023 894 LA PARA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/23/2023 23BLD-00150 3/8/2023 2266 SAINT FRANCIS DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 1/24/2023 23BLD-00163 1/31/2023 808 LA JENNIFER WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/25/2023 23BLD-00184 3/2/2023 488 FERNE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/25/2023 23BLD-00188 5/23/2023 4010 NELSON DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/30/2023 23BLD-00222 6/2/2023 942 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 2/2/2023 23BLD-00252 4/11/2023 428 E CHARLESTON RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 2/7/2023 23BLD-00277 2/23/2023 2068 HARVARD ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 2/7/2023 23BLD-00283 2/23/2023 698 MATADERO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 2/13/2023 23BLD-00340 3/22/2023 168 LOIS LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 2/16/2023 23BLD-00367 5/24/2023 1549 ALMA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 2/22/2023 23BLD-00395 3/17/2023 3359 BRYANT ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes 2/22/2023 23BLD-00397 6/6/2023 7 PHILLIPS RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 3/3/2023 23BLD-00463 5/3/2023 712 MATADERO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes 3/6/2023 23BLD-00476 3/7/2023 4169 OAK HILL AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/7/2023 23BLD-00488 6/8/2023 2131 HARVARD ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 367     3/8/2023 23BLD-00506 4/11/2023 130 MELVILLE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/10/2023 23BLD-00529 4/21/2023 3679 ROSS RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 3/10/2023 23BLD-00530 3/23/2023 3775 WRIGHT PL, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/16/2023 23BLD-00591 4/3/2023 435 SHERIDAN AV, UNIT 103, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/16/2023 23BLD-00593 3/29/2023 3158 GREER RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 3/16/2023 23BLD-00598 3/22/2023 2300 SOUTH CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/20/2023 23BLD-00614 5/17/2023 723 COASTLAND DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 3/20/2023 23BLD-00619 3/22/2023 151 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/21/2023 23BLD-00640 5/23/2023 2730 BRYANT ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/22/2023 23BLD-00650 5/23/2023 153 CALIFORNIA AV, UNIT F203, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/23/2023 23BLD-00656 5/30/2023 3394 SOUTH CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/24/2023 23BLD-00669 4/20/2023 2698 EMERSON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/24/2023 23BLD-00681 6/12/2023 4217 PARK BL, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/27/2023 23BLD-00687 5/1/2023 230 PARKSIDE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/28/2023 23BLD-00710 6/5/2023 926 BAUTISTA CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 3/29/2023 23BLD-00725 5/8/2023 3694 LOUIS RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 3/29/2023 23BLD-00727 4/4/2023 534 GEORGIA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 368     3/30/2023 23BLD-00737 6/6/2023 2150 AMHERST ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/30/2023 23BLD-00741 4/14/2023 474 EVERETT AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/30/2023 23BLD-00742 4/4/2023 742 JOSINA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 4/3/2023 23BLD-00755 4/25/2023 670 SAN ANTONIO RD, UNIT 11, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 4/4/2023 23BLD-00766 4/14/2023 840 HAMILTON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 4/11/2023 23BLD-00828 6/7/2023 2150 HIGH ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 4/14/2023 23BLD-00855 5/1/2023 2141 BYRON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 4/17/2023 23BLD-00877 4/25/2023 2300 SOUTH CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 No Yes 4/24/2023 23BLD-00925 5/16/2023 457 HOMER AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 4/28/2023 23BLD-00979 5/23/2023 2960 OTTERSON CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/8/2023 23BLD-01060 5/18/2023 935 ADDISON AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 5/9/2023 23BLD-01070 5/12/2023 390 MATADERO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/12/2023 23BLD-01113 6/5/2023 223 EDLEE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/15/2023 23BLD-01124 5/19/2023 224 GREENMEADOW WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/17/2023 23BLD-01156 6/1/2023 951 MORENO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 369     5/18/2023 23BLD-01163 5/30/2023 1520 WALNUT DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 No Yes 5/19/2023 23BLD-01186 6/2/2023 728 CHIMALUS DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/19/2023 23BLD-01187 6/13/2023 1655 EL CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/19/2023 23BLD-01188 6/12/2023 3505 LAGUNA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 6/2/2023 23BLD-01327 6/13/2023 908 MORENO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 2/15/2019 19000-00383 4/25/2023 849 WINTERGREEN WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 5/25/2021 21BLD-01268 2/27/2023 3207 ALMA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/25/2021 21BLD-01269 3/3/2023 3209 ALMA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/25/2021 21BLD-01270 3/3/2023 3211 ALMA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 10/6/2021 21BLD-02531 4/27/2022 567 HALE ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 370     1/5/2022 22BLD-00021 7/13/2022 4094 NELSON DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes 2/2/2022 22BLD-00335 9/29/2022 698 WILDWOOD LN, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 4/25/2022 22BLD-01098 6/23/2022 216 CREEKSIDE DR Yes No 4/26/2022 22BLD-01110 2/14/2023 1489 DANA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 9/1/2022 22BLD-02232 1/6/2023 1650 BRYANT ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 10/3/2022 22BLD-02451 11/10/2022 252 EVERETT AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 12/1/2022 22BLD-02955 1/4/2023 2699 RAMONA ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes 12/2/2022 22BLD-02962 3/2/2023 4261 SUZANNE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 12/13/2022 22BLD-03075 3/28/2023 471 NEVADA AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 12/21/2022 22BLD-03206 2/13/2023 3560 BRYANT ST Yes Yes 12/22/2022 22BLD-03236 6/5/2023 1795 PARK BL, BLDG Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 371     1/3/2023 23BLD-00002 5/18/2023 235 FERNE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 1/11/2023 23BLD-00079 5/18/2023 377 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 3/3/2023 23BLD-00465 3/22/2023 1919 TASSO ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No 3/15/2023 23BLD-00573 5/1/2023 850 CHIMALUS DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 3/16/2021 21BLD-00617 2/23/2023 460 MATADERO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 3/24/2021 21BLD-00691 2/7/2023 570 KELLY WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 5/7/2021 21BLD-01094 4/13/2023 882 LOMA VERDE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 8/12/2021 21BLD-02017 4/7/2023 626 GLENBROOK DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 No Yes Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 372     8/30/2021 21BLD-02185 7/21/2022 915 COLORADO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 9/3/2021 21BLD-02234 4/25/2023 1656 CHANNING AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 12/8/2021 21BLD-03084 10/12/2022 3912 GROVE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 1/12/2022 22BLD-00079 1/5/2023 883 LOMA VERDE AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 4/19/2022 22BLD-01041 11/22/2022 2875 EMERSON ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 4/20/2022 22BLD-01078 5/30/2023 746 SAN CARLOS CT, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No 5/25/2022 22BLD-01405 8/1/2022 1820 COWPER ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 6/28/2022 22BLD-01671 4/20/2023 327 WAVERLEY ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes No Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 373     7/28/2022 22BLD-01923 11/29/2022 761 MATADERO AV, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes Yes 8/22/2022 22BLD-02125 6/13/2023 2743 GREER RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 11/3/2022 22BLD-02774 1/30/2023 3093 STELLING DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes Yes 12/19/2022 22BLD-03155 4/21/2023 840 KIPLING ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Yes Yes 1/11/2023 23BLD-00074 3/29/2023 2249 COLUMBIA ST Yes Yes 2/10/2023 23BLD-00326 4/25/2023 875 RORKE WY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Yes No 12/10/2021 21BLD-03116 1/31/2023 4186 OLD ADOBE RD, PALO ALTO, CA 94022 Yes No 10/20/2022 22BLD-02646 12/20/2022 567 SAINT CLAIRE DR, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Yes No Permits issued between  1/1/2022 and 6/13/2023 Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 374     DESCRIPTION HPWH Manufacturer and Model Res: 2-STORY SFR (2630 SF) WITH JADU, HEAT PUMP (A/C) AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER. BUILD (N) DETACHED ADU (390 SF) WITH COVERED ENTRY (36 SF) HEAT PUMP AND 100AMP SUB PANEL. DETACHED ADU (886 SF) TO INCLUDE STUDY, STORAGE, A/C AND GAS TANKLESS WATER HEATER. RUR199e (REU-NP3237W-US) (Rinnai)-53 dbA RUR160e (REU-NP2530W-US) (Rinnai)-52 dbA 2-STORY SFR (2564 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1636 SF) 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE, HEAT PUMP AND TRASH ENCLOSURE. Res: ONE STORY HOUSE 2434SF WITH ATTACHED JADU 382SF. (NEW DETACHED 665 SQ.FT. ADU 21BLD-01691) (DECONSTRUCTION HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 21BLD-01692) Res: DETACHED 665 SQ.FT. ADU. (ONE STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED JADU 21BLD-01669) (DECONSTRUCTION HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 21BLD-01692) BUILD DETACHED ADU (565 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. RES: TWO-STORY WITH BASEMENT AND ATTACHED ONE- CAR GARAGE. (DECONSTRUCTION ONE-STORY RES UNDER 21BLD-02066 AND DECONSTRUCTION OF DET GAR UNDER 21BLD-2067). SANCO₂ Heat Pump Water Heater - 37 dbA DETACHED ADU IN THE REAR YARD (493 SF) CONVERT DETACHED GARAGE TO ADU (367 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, GAS TANKLESS WATER HEATER AND 100 AMP SUBPANEL. RE-ROOF (7 SQS) REPLACE TILE ROOFING, DECK TO REMAIN. CONVERT (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO ADU (298 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP. ***please review from PLAN in 21BLD-02338*** 2-STORY HOUSE ~3258 WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ~200 DETACHED ADU ~723 SF (please refer to plans in main house permit 21bld-02385) NEW SFR (2865 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2805 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (564 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 375     NEW DETACHED ADU (678 SF) WITH COVERED ENTRY (120 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, EVCS AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. 2-STORY SFR (2,229 SF) WITH JADU (257 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. NEW 1,000 SF DETACHED ADU WITH HEAT PUMP EQUIPMENT. (PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM ~2.4kW PERMIT 22BLD-00593. ) RES: SINGLE STORY SFR (3158 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (462 SF), HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. RUUD - Professional Ultra Hybrid, 40, 50, 65 and 80-Gallon Capacities 208-240 Volt / 1 PH Electric - 49 dbA RES: SFR (9,633 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND GREY WATER SYSTEM. RUUD - Professional Ultra Hybrid, 40, 50, 65 and 80-Gallon Capacities 208-240 Volt / 1 PH Electric - 49 dbA DETACHED GUEST HOUSE (1,976 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP. ***please review from PLAN file located in 21BLD- 03113*** SFR (2667 SF) WITH ATTACHED JADU (393 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (222 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. PERFORMANCE PLATINUM Hybrid, 40, 50, 65 and 80-Gallon Capacities 208-240 Volt / 1 PH Electric Res: 2-STORY SFR (2489 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (263 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. DETACHED ADU (1000 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. DETACHED ADU (476 SF) WITH COVERED ENTRY (100 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER. NEW 2-STORY SFR (2,600 SF) WITH CONDITIONED BASEMENT (1,700 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (400 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, OUTDOOR FIREPLACE, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. RES: 2-STORY SFR (4,018 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE, EVCS RES: DETACHED ADU (799 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. BUILD DETACHED ADU (476 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. Rheem - Professional Prestige® ProTerra™ Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard™ - DETACHED ADU 427 SF Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 376     DETACHED ADU (470 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. BLD, PLAN, FIRE, WGW, ELEC, UF, PW. DETACHED ADU 675 SF Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM High Efficiency Condensing Tankless Gas Water Heater SINGLE STORY SFR (2399 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (226 SF) HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. RES: 2-STORY SFR (3070 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (228 SF) HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. BUILD 2-STORY SFR (3515 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2,275 SF) ATTACHED GARAGE (227 SF) HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. CONVERT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ADU (468 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. BUILD SFR (3108 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (455 SF) HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, SOLAR WATER HEATER, PV (5.1 kW) 12 MODULE SYSTEM, EVCS (32 AMP/ LEVEL 2) AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. ICC-SRCC™ Solar Heating and Cooling Listing Number: SRCC-19004 BUILD DETACHED ADU (563 SF) WITH ATTACHED DECK, HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. Rheem - Professional Prestige ProTerra Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard DETACHED ADU (526 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP AND ELECTRIC WATER HEATER. Rheem - PerFORMANCE PLATINUM ProTerra Hybrid Electric with Leakguard DETACHED 1-STORY 515 SF ADU CONSISTING OF (1) BDM (1) BTHRM. ADU TO BE EQUIPED W/ HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER & HEAT PUMP DUCTLESS HVAC UNIT. WORK TO ALSO INCLUDE A 110 AMP SUBPANEL FOR ADU. * NO WORK TO BE CONDUCTED ON THE (E) MAIN SFD.* BUILD N DETACHED ADU 592 SF Grainger - RHEEM Electric Water Heater: 240V AC, 50 gal, 4,500 W, Single Phase, 58.6 in Ht, 21 gph @ 90°F Item 38UN47 Mfr. Model PROE50 T2 RH95 2-STORY SFR WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ ProTerra Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard TWO ADU'S UNDER ONE DETACHED STRUCTURE 846 SF Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM Hybrid Electric Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 377     2-STORY SFR (2818 SF) WITH ATTACHED ADU (799 SF) ATTACHED GARAGE (266 SF) HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. Res: 2-STORY SFR (2,309 SF) WITH ADU (498 SF) WITH HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AND 400A SERVICE. RHEEM - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM Hybrid Electrc Res: 2-Story SFR (2332 SF) with JADU (499 SF), Garage (220 SF), heat pump, heat pump water heater, 400A service. Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM Hybrid Electrc CHANGE OUT 4 TON 16 SEER AC ON THE RIGHT SIDE YARD, COIL, AND 9 SUPPLY DUCTS. REPLACE EXISTING GAS FURNACE WITH NEW HEAT PUMP SYSTEM. NEW DUCTWORK IN FIRST FLOOR CRAWLSPACE AREA, USE EXISTING DUCT WORK FOR WORK ON SECOND FLOOR. INSTALL DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT W/ ELECTRICAL REPLACE FURNACE WITH A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM INSTALL (2) MINI-SPLIT SYSTEM ASSOCIATED INDOOR UNITS INSTALL HEAT PUMP IN THE REAR YARD 2 MINI-SPLIT SYSTEMS Minisplit install. Carrier, Ductless Multi-Zone 48K Heat Pump Condenser (Up To Five Zones) ELECTRICAL: New circuit 220v 30/40 amp average of 30 feet,. Standard breaker and New disconnect box and whip to condenser. REPLACE 2 GAS FURNACES WITH HEAT PUMP FAN COILS SAME LOCATIONS, RECONNECT TO EXISTING LOCATIONS, INSTALL MXZ-8C60, 5 TON HEAT PUMP, 59 DBA ON 3: PAD, 50 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISCONNECT Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 378     Suite 210: 2-TON HEAT PUMP C/O ON BALCONY, AIR HANDLER IN CLOSET INSTALL 80 GALLON HPWH AND EVCS RUUD - Professional Ultra Hybrid, 40, 50, 65 and 80-Gallon Capacities 208-240 Volt / 1 PH Electric - 49 dbA INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP INSTALL DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT WITH ELECTRICAL 5 TON HEAT PUMP MULTI ZONE ADD ON + DISCONNECT. INSTALL MINI SPLIT SYSTEM REPLACE 2 GAS FURNACES WITH NEW HEAT PUMP FAN COILS IN THE SAME LOCATIONS IN GARAGE AND ATTIC. CAP GAS LINE. Reconnect to existing duct work. Install MXZ- 8C60, 5 ton heat pump, 60K. 58 dBA on 3" light weight pad. Connect to existing 50AMP dedicated circuit from previously removed hot tub. 80 gallon heat pump WATER HEATER installation Rheem PROPH80T2RH375-30 Electric Hot Water Heater 4,500 Watt 240 VAC 80 Gallon DIRECT REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING INDOOR AIR HANDLER, ADD (N) OUTDOOR HEAT PUMP ON FLAT ROOF INSTALL (N) MULTI ZONE HEAT PUMP ON THE BALCONY (HOA APPROVED) WITH ASSOCIATED WALL MOUNTED UNITS IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA AND MASTER BEDROOM. UNIT 3: INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP AT BALCONY. UNIT #19: INSTALL (N) DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP SYSTEM. RESIDENTIAL HEAT PUMP UNIT ASSOCIATED INDOOR UNITS. REPLACE 50 GALLON GAS HOT WATER HEATER WITH 40 GALLON HYBRID HWH (Rheem XE40T10H45UO selected) PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ ProTerra Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard CONVERTING EXISTING FURNACE TO A FAN COIL WITH BACK UP STRIP HEATERS ADDING AN OUTDOOR HEAT PUMP CONDENSER. UPGRADING FROM A TRADITIONAL WATER HEATER TO A SMART HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ ProTerra Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard ADDING COOLING AND HEATING MINI-SPLIT EQUIPMENT Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 379     HEAT PUMP INSTALL HEAT PUMP AND ASSOCIATED INDOOR UNITS. INSTALL N HEAT PUMP AND REPLACE FURNACE HEAT PUMP INSTALLATION, DUCTWORK REPLACEMENT, EV CHARGER INSTALLATION INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP. AIR HANDLER IN THE ATTIC WITH ASSOCIATED CONDENSOR AT EXTERIOR PAD. INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP. INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP SYSTEM. Replace gas furnace with new heat pump fan coil, 3 ton 36K Btuh. Install new MXZ-8C60 heat pump condenser, 59 dBA, on 3" pad. Add 2 Ductless fan coils for upstairs bedrooms. 50 amp dedicated circuit with fused disconnect. FURNACE AND AIR HANDLER AND ADD HEAT PUMP INSTALL (N) FAN COIL/AIR HANDLER. REPLACE (E) A/C WITH (N) HEAT PUMP. UPGRADE ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND PANEL TO 200AMP, INSTALL NEW HEAT PUMP MINI-SPLIT SYSTEM, NO CHANGE TO EXISTING FLOOR AREA INSTALL MULTI ZONE DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT SYSTEM. INSTALL HEAT PUMP AND ASSOCIATED INDOOR UNITS. INSTALL HEAT PUMP UNIT ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. INSTALL (N) MINI SPLIT HEAT PUMP. REMOVE (E) FURNACE AND INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 380     INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLERS. REPLACE FURNACE WITH AIR HANDLER. INSTALL HEATPUMP R&R EXISTING GAS FURNACE & INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP SYSTEM R&R GAS FURNACE HEAT PUMP-MINI SPLIT REPLACE FURNACE WITH HEAT PUMP. ADD DUCTING. INSTALL HEAT PUMP REPLACE HEAT PUMPS AND AIR HANDLER. DUCTING SYSTEM TO REMAIN. INSTALL HEAT PUMP UNIT AND FAN COILS REMOVE FURNACE. INSTALL HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLER. HEAT PUMP WITH SOUND BLANKET. REMOVE GAS FURNACE AND INSTALL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM Suite 314: R&R IN-KIND INDOOR AIR HANDLER AND OUTDOOR HEAT PUMP RESIDENTIAL INSTALLATION OF HEAT PUMP PACKAGE INSTALL HEAT PUMP 48,000 BTU, COOLING 54,000 BTU HEATING 20 EER 12.2 EER 11.5 HSPF ON PATIO. INSTALL WALL MOUNTED MINI SPLIT14,400 BTUS COOLING 16,474 BTUS HEATING IN KITCHEN. INSTALL WALL MOUNTED MINI SPLIT 19,200 BTUS COOLING 21,051 BTUS HEATING IN LIVING ROOM. INSTALL WALL MOUNTED MINI SPLIT 14,400 BTUS COOLING 16,474 BTUS HEATING IN BEDROOM INSTALL NEW DUCTLESS MXZ-5C42 HEAT PUMP WITH 5 HIGH WALL MOUNTED FAN COILS. 42K BTUH,59 dBA, on 3" LIGHT WEIGHT PAD. PROVIDE 40 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT W/FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH FROM MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL. 3 TON SEER 15 HEATPUMP ADD ON RIGHT SIDE YARD; ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AIR HANDLER Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 381     REPLACE FURNACE AND ADD HEAT PUMP & EVAPORATOR COIL (HYBRID/DUAL FUEL SYSTEM) PANEL UPGRADE TO 400 AMP, SUB-PANEL REPLACEMENT, ELECTRIC WATER HEATER CIRCUIT, EVSE LEVEL 2 INSTALLATION RHEEM - Professional Prestige® ProTerra™ Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard CHANGE OUT (E) HEAT PUMP, AND ADD (N) AIR HANDLER. ADD (N) DUCTLESS MINI-SPLIT SYSTEM (INCLUDES 1 OUTDOOR HEAT PUMP AND 3 INDOOR AIR HANDLERS) HEAT PUMP. INSTALL HEAT PUMP. HEAT PUMP AND 5 INDOOR WALL MOUNT UNITS. 4.5 TON MINI SPLIT & HEAT PUMP REPLACE HEAT PUMP AND AC;INTERIOR & EXTERIOR INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP AND ASSOCIATED INDOOR AIR HANDLER. Suite 315: REPLACE HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLER, SAME LOCATION. ADD SOUND BLANKET. REPLACE FURNANCE IN KIND; INSTALL EXTERIOR HEAT PUMP; REPLACE DUCTWORK; ZONE: RM-30 2-ZONE ROOFTOP HEAT PUMP SYSTEM WITH 1 WALL- MOUNTED INTERIOR UNIT IN LIVING ROOM, AND ONE WALL-MOUNTED UNIT IN BEDROOM INSTALL (2) DUCTLESS HEAT PUMPS MXZ-8C48, 4 TON, 58 DBA, ON 3" LIGHT WEIGHT PADS. REPLACE 2 GAS FURNACES, SAME LOCATION, RECONNECT TO EXISTING DUCTS WITH FAN COILS. ADD 4 HIGH WALL DUCTLESS FAN COILS FOR BEDROOMS. (2) 40 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUITS WITH FUSED DISCONNECTS. INSTALL NEW SANCO2 GS4- 45HPCHOT WATER HEAT PUMP UNIT WITH PIPING TO 83 GALLON HOLDING TANK. 15.4K BTUH, 37 DBA, ON 3"" LIGHT WEIGHT PAD. 15 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISCONNECT. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 382     BOILER AND WATER HEATER REPLACEMENT TO HEAT PUMP **UPDATE SCOPE TO ADD RADIANT FLOOR PANELS**oc REPLACE EXISTING GAS FURNACE WITH NEW SPLIT DUCTED HEAT PUMP SYSTEM IN THE PRESCHOOL. INSTALL DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP SYSTEM MXZ-5C42, 3.5TON, 58 DBA ON 3" LIGHT WEIGHT PAD WITH 5 HIGHWALL DUCTLESS FAN COILS. 40 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISONNECT SWITCH ADD HEAT PUMP. DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT W/ ELECTRICAL REMOVE AND REPLACE (CONDENSER AND FURNACE WITH HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLER. DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP SYSTEM MXZ-4C36 WITH 3 HIGH WALL FAN COILS. 36k BTUH, 3.0 ton, 58 dBA, on 3" LIGHT WEIGHT PAD. 25 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH HEAT PUMP SYSTEM INSTALL 2 NEW ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS HEAT PUMP. INSTALLATION OF HEAT PUMP AC SYSTEM & COINCIDING DUCTWORK. REPLACEMENT OF FURNACE WITH A SPLIT DUCTED HEAT PUMP SYSTEM R/R OF (E) HEATPUMP & FAN COIL - 2 TON CAPACITY UNIT LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF DWELLING (3-STORY BUILDING) FURNACE REPLACEMENT, ADD HEAT PUMP. INSTALL SOUND BLANKET ON HEAT PUMP COMPRESSOR. REPLACE WATER HEATER ADD HPWH State Water Heaters - PREMIER® HYBRID 50 – 80 GALLON ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 383     PROPOSAL INCLUDES (2) HEATPUMP ADDONS - 1 LOCATED IN THE BACKYARD, 1 LOCATED ON THE RIGHT SIDE YARD (BOTH UNITS NEED ELECTRICAL). ALSO PROPOSED (2) AIR HANDLER ADDONS INSIDE THE SFR. HEAT PUMP WITH ASSOCIATED AIR HANDLERS. REPLACE WATER HEATER WITH HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AT THE GARAGE. Rheem -XE65T1 OHS45UO XE65T1 OHS45UO ADD (N) DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP SYSTEM (INCLUDES 1 OUTDOOR HEAT PUMP AND 5 INDOOR AIR HANDLERS). REPLACE EXISTING HVAC WITH AIR HANDLER AND OUTDOOR HEAT PUMP EQUIP: AIR HANDLER- LG LQN090HV4 & HEAT PUMP- LG LMU36CHV (MAX dBA: 55) REPLACE GAS WATER HEATER WITH HEAT PUMP TYPE.SANC02 43-GALLON HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER SYSTEM - GS4-45HPC & SAN-43SSAQA 43 Gallon Tank MULTIFAMILY: Suite 6: DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP WITH 3 HIGH WALL FAN COILS, 1 MAIN LIVING AREA, 2 BEDROOMS. MXZ- 3C30 HEAT PUMP, 30K BTUH, 2.5 TON, 58 DBA, ON 3” LIGHT WEIGHT PAD. 25 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISCONNECT. MULTI-FAMILY: HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLER REPLACEMENT. R/R GAS WATER HEATER WITH A 50GAL HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER SAME LOCATION IN BASEMENT Rheem - Performance Platinum 50 Gal. 10-Year Hybrid High Efficiency Smart Tank Electric Water Heater REPLACE GAS WATER HEATER AND FURNACE WITH ELECTRIC HPWH AND MINI SPLIT HEAT PUMP. INSTALL NEW CIRCUITRY. MAIN PANEL CONVERT TO SUB. UPGRADE ELECTRIC SERVICE AND INSTALL MAIN PANEL (200A). CHANGEOUT 3 TON 14 SEER AC IN FRONT YARD, 3 TON COIL, 70K 93% FURNACE IN ATTIC REPLACE WATER HEATER WITH HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AT BASEMENT. Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric DIRECT REPLACEMENT HEAT PUMP AND CONDENSER REMOVING EXISTING BROKEN GRAVITY FED FURNACE TO BE REPLACED WITH A DUCTED MINI-SPLIT HEAT PUMP SYSTEM AT REAR UNIT EXISTING UNIT 375 HPWH IN GARAGE RUUD - Professional Ultra™ Hybrid Electric  with LeakGuard Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 384     REPLACEMENT OF TWO FURNACES AND TWO HEAT PUMPS. INSTALL A CENTRAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEM INCLUDING NEW DUCTWORK SYSTEM. REPLACE FURNACE WITH INDOOR AIR HANDLER. INSTALL HEAT PUMP. UPGRADE MAIN PANEL FROM 100 AMPS TO 200 AMPS. REPLACE GAS FURNACE WITH HEAT PUMP IN ATTIC. INSTALL 30 AMP CIRCUIT WITH DISCONNECT SWITCH. RESIDENTIAL Custom Multi-Zoned HP Ducted for the Main House. 4 Zoned Ductless Heat Pump for the Bedrooms RESIDENTIAL DUCTLESS MINI-SPLIT SYSTEM, (1) HEAT PUMP AND (5) INDOOR AIR HANDLERS. RESIDENTIAL DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP REPLACE HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLER. SAME LOCATION. LIKE-FOR-LIKE. RESIDENTIAL (2) HEAT PUMPS INSTALLATION FLOOD DAMAGE REPAIR: INSTALL HEAT PUMP WITH ASSOCIATED AIR HANDLER. R/R MINISPLIT WITH HEAT PUMP MINISPLIT, LOCATED BEHIND DWELLING REPLACE GAS WATER HEATER WITH HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER IN SAME LOCATION. RHEEM - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ ProTerra Hybrid Electric with LeakGuard DUCTLESS MINISPLIT HEAT PUMP LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER WITH EXPANSION TANK (65 GAL) IN GARAGE Bradford White - AeroTherm® Series Heat Pump Water Heater - RE2H50S10 RESIDENTIAL FURNACE REPLACEMENT. INSTALL HEAT PUMP CONDENSER. R/R 50GAL HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER ; SAME LOCATION LOCATED IN CLOSET RHEEM - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric - INSTALL HEAT PUMP ON SIDE OF PROPERTY. R/R FURNACE. WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF HEAT PUMP A/C LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 385     INSTALL 3-ZONE HEAT PUMP MINI SPLIT. WORK TO INCLUDE AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT AND CONDENSATE LINES. REPLACE FURNACE WITH AIR HANDLER. ADD HEAT PUMP AND 30 AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISCONNECT. HEATPUMP MINI SPLIT LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD MULTI-FAMILY: HEAT PUMP REPLACEMENT RESIDENTIAL: INSTALL HEAT PUMP AND AIR HANDLER IN ATTIC WITH DUCTS. RESIDENTIAL: ADD HEAT PUMP A/C UNIT AND 3 INDOOR UNITS. INSTALL SUBPANEL IN GARAGE. REPLACE GAS WATER HEATER WITH HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric - XE40T10H45U0/XE50T10H45U0/XE65T10H45U0/XE 80T10H45U0 INSTALLATION OF NEW HEAT PUMP. R/R DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT ; SAME LOCATION, LOCATED IN THE SIDEYARD #F203 ; R/R HEATPUMP A/C LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF MULTIFAMILY BUILDING RESIDENTIAL FURNANCE AND HEAT PUMP REPLACEMENT. DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD RESIDENTIAL INSTALL 2 MINISPLIT HEAT PUMP OUTOORS AND 5 INDOOR UNIT DUCTLESS MINI-SPLIT SYSTEM: HEATPUMP AND 6 INDOOR AIR HANDLERS RESIDENTIAL 2 HEAT PUMPS EXTERIOR REPLACEMENT AND REPLACE HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER IN GARAGE. EXTERIOR RESIDENTIAL HEAT PUMP INSTALLATION. HEAT PUMP Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 386     ADD NEW 2 TON 24 SEER DUCTLESS MINI SPLIT IN LEFT SIDE YARD. ADD ELECTRICAL FOR NEW INSTALL, 2 AIR HANDLERS MULTIFAMILY: ADD NEW 3 TON 19 SEER DUCTLASS MINI SPLIT IN LEFT SIDE YARD, ADD ELECTRICAL FOR NEW INSTALL, 4 INTERIOR AIR HANDLERS RESIDENTIAL: REPLACE GAS FURNACE WITH HEAT PUMP AIR HANDLER AND INSTALL HEAT PUMP CONDENSER. RES: Suite 11: HEAT PUMP REPLACEMENT OF FURNACE IN EXISTING LOCATION AND ADDING NEW AC. Carrier - 58TP0/58TP1 PERFORMANCE™ TWO-STAGE, VARIABLE-SPEED 4- WAY MULTIPOISE INDUCED-COMBUSTION GAS FURNACE Input Capacities: 45,000 thru 135,000 Btuh Series A REMOVE FURNACE. INSTALL HEAT PUMP. INSTALL 30-AMP DEDICATED CIRCUIT WITH FUSED DISCONNECT. *****ML/SC***** R/R GAS FURNACE LIKE FOR LIKE SAME LOCATION LOCATED IN THE BASEMENT MECHANICAL CLOSET. WILL ALSO INSTALL A 18 SEER HEAT PUMP CONDENSING UNIT Residential water heater replacement at same location, change from tanked gas water heater to tanked heat pump water heater Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric - XE40T10H45U0/XE50T10H45U0/XE65T10H45U0/XE 80T10H45U0 RESIDENTIAL HEAT PUMP REPLACEMENT. RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR HEAT PUMP INSTALLATION ADD 4 TON 18 SEER MINI SPLIT WITH 48K AIR HANDLER LOCATED IN THE BACKYARD RESIDENTIAL HEAT PUMP INSTALLATION AND HEAT PUMP ADDTION TO FURNACE RESIDENTIAL HVAC INSTALLATION, 2 MINI-SPLIT SYSTEMS ON EXTERIOR ROOF OF CAR PORT INSTALL HEAT PUMP HVAC UNIT LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD. WORK INCLUDES 3 WALL MOUNTED UNITS. INSTALLATION OF HEATPUMP HVAC UNIT & 4 INDOOR UNITS Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 387     REPLACE TANKLESS WATER HEATER WITH HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AO Smith - VOLTEX® AL SMART HYBRID ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER WITH ANTI-LEAK TECHNOLOGY  - HPTS-50/HPTS-66/HPTS- 80 RESIDENTIAL A/C REPLACEMENT WITH HEAT PUMP. SAME LOCATION. SFD: ADD HEAT PUMP CONDENSER TO EXISTING FURNACE. RESIDENTIAL INSTALLATION OF TWO HEAT PUMPS AND DUCTWORK. SFD: INSTALLATION OF HEATPUMP WITH 3 INDOOR UNITS. RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED ADU (281.70 SF) WITH TANKLESS WATER HEATER 21PCE-00313 - STOP WORK ORDER: REMODEL UNIT - ADD WASHER/DRYER IN THE KITCHEN, ADD WH IN BATHROOM, ELECTRICAL AND FRAMING. ADD GAS HEATER. REMODEL BEDROOM WALLS***Add kitchen and bathroom remodels, replace windows and doors***( CHANGE OF SCOPE - CW - 2/3/2022 ) RHEEM - XG29T06EC32U0 21PCE-00314 - STOP WORK ORDER: LEGALIZE UNPERMITTED BATHROOM AND KITCHEN REMODEL, GAS WATER HEATER AND WALL FURNACE REPLACEMENT, ADD WASHER/DRYER IN THE BATHROOM. LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL REMODEL. LEGALIZE WINDOW REPLACEMENT. (CW 1/25/2022). ACBO email 2/8/2022: fence modification as redmarked on front sheet. Verify all scope of work. RHEEM - XG29T06EC32U0 21PCE-00315 - STOP WORK ORDER: WATER HEATER IN BATHROOM, WASHER/DRYER IN THE BATHROOM, NEW LIGHTING, FANS**Add kitchen and bath remodel, window and door replacements, dt***( SCOPE CHANGE -CW- 2/3/2022 ) RHEEM - XG29T06EC32U0 RESIDENTIAL REMODEL (7,000 SF) TO INCLUCE REMODEL THROUGHOUT ENTIRE HOUSE (BASEMENT TO 3RD FLR) REMOVE AND REPLACE FURNACE, WATER HEATER, VARIOUS WINDOWS. ADD SF TO REAR PORCH, (N) A/C, (N) GAS FIREPLACE AND (N) SKYLIGHTS. MEP UPDATED THROUGHOUT. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 388     RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (108 SF) AND REMODEL (1879 SF) ADDITION TO INCLUDE (N) SF AT KITCHEN AND (N) HALF BATHROOM. FULL HOME REMODEL, COVERSION TO ALL ELECTRIC HOME, MEP UPDATED THROUGHOUT AREA OF WORK. EVCS (2 / 80 AMP / LEVEL 2 / QTY 2) INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF GARAGE. ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPGRADE TO 400 AMPS. RE-ROOF (30 SQS) Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric - XE40T10H45U0/XE50T10H45U0/XE65T10H45U0/XE 80T10H45U0 CONVERT (E) GARAGE TO ADU (379 SF) TO INCLUDE (N) HEAT PUMP. RESIDENTIAL REMODEL TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF (E) DURAFOAM ROOF AND REPLACE WITH PVC ROOF (30 SQS) ASSOCIATED INSULATION AND FACIA. INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP (N) PEX WATER LINE (N) RECESSED LIGHTING AND (N) INSULATION AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS. UPDATED ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING, SWITCHES, AND OUTLETS. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE / GARAGE CONVERSION TO ADU (660 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER. REMOVE FURNACE AND INSTALL HEAT PUMPS. REPLACE ALL DUCT WORK. MULTI-FAMILY REMODEL 194SF. THIS PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING. BUILDING INTERIOR WORK AT ALL 4 UNITS TO INCLUDE: REMOVAL OF INTERIOR NON-LOAD BEARING WALLS, INTERIOR DOORS, WASHERS, DRYERS & WALL HEATERS AS IDENTIFIED. NEW STACKABLE WASHER & DRYER, MULTI ROOM DUCTLESS HEAT PUMP SYSTEM & CONDENSORS. R/R GAS WATER HEATER WITH 50GAL HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER NorCal Water Heaters -50 gallon Heat pump Bradford White 50 Gallon Heatpump BRE2H50S101NCW RESIDENTIAL REMODEL (1,380 SF) TO INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO INTERIOR LAYOUT TO CREATE FOUR (N) BATHROOMS. CONVERT UNPERMITTED WORKSHOP INTO BEDROOM . ADD (N) A/C. RELOCATE KITCHEN AND FRONT ENTRY. ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPGRADE TO 200 AMP AND RELOCATION. REMOVE AND REPLACE VARIOUS DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONVERT DETACHED GARAGE TO ADU (323 SF) WITH COVERED PATIO AREA (222 SF) HEAT PUMP AND 100 AMP SUB PANEL. Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric - ECCH160XLN-2 RES: CONVERT GARAGE TO ADU (373 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. REMODEL TO CREATE UTILITY ROOM. ECOSMART - ECO 8 / ECO 11 - Tankless Electric Water Heater CONVERT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE/GARAGE TO ADU WITH STORAGE/MECH SPACE AND HEAT PUMP. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 389     CONVERT GARAGE TO JADU (360 SF) CREATE MUDROOM (121 SF) IN GARAGE SPACE. ADD HEAT PUMP. CONVERT PORTION OF DETACHED GARAGE TO ADU (317 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER. REPLACE VARIOUS WINDOWS AND DOORS. Rheem - Professional Classic Ultra Low Nox Gas Water heater (Professional Classic Series Atmospheric) REMODEL KITCHEN AND BATHROOM REMODEL (ELECTRICAL REWIRE, DIRECT REPLACEMENT, NO WINDOW OR WALL CHANGES) REPLACE FURNACE (DIRECT REPLACEMENT). ADD HEAT PUMP. MAIN SERVICE PANEL UPGRADE 200 AMP. REMOVE A NON-BEARING WALL TO COMBINE AN EXISTING UTILITY ROOM AND AN EXISTING BATHROOM INTO A LARGER BATHROOM. UPGRADE MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL FROM 200 AMP TO 400 AMP. ADD A HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AND HEAT PUMP. MAKE SOME MINOR ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT UPGRADES. Bradford White - AeroTherm® Series Heat Pump Water Heater - RE2H50S10 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION/REMODEL. ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE TO ADD 2 NEW BEDROOMS AND 1 BATHROOM (673.5 s.f.) AND REMODEL (E) BATHROOM, KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM CEILING (approx. 400 s.f.) ADDITION AND REMODEL TO SFR: NEW 261 SF JADU, REMODEL 1391 SF (N) LAUNDRY ROOM, REMODEL KITCHEN, ELIMINATE CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE RESIDENTIAL REMODEL TO CONVERT ATTACHED GARAGE INTO AN ADU. ~420 SF. **SCOPE CHANGE TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED JADU ~355 SF***oc RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (764 SF) AND REMODEL (988 SF) ADDITION TO INCLUDE ENTRY, FAMILY ROOM, GUEST BATHROOM, OFFICE, EXPANDED KITCHEN AREA, LAUNDRY AREA AND COVERED ENTRY PORCH. REMODEL TO INCLUDE UPDATED BEDROOM 2 BATH AND CLOSET, HALL STORAGE, MASTER BEDROOM BATH AND CLOSET, EXPANDED KITCHEN AND RAISED CEILINGS AT LIVING/DINING ROOM. REPLACE WINDOWS THROUGHOUT. ADD SKYLIGHTS, A/C, FURNACE IN ATTIC, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, GAS FIREPLACE INSERT. ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPGRADE TO 200 AMPS. SanCO2 Heat Pump Water Heater SANCO2™ High-Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater The Clear Path to Net Zero Energy. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 390     RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (123 SF) AND REMODEL (396 SF) REMODEL TO INCLUDE GARAGE CONVERSION TO JADU (330 SF) AND 2ND FLOOR BATHROOM REMODEL. INSTALL (N) HEAT PUMP, GAS TANKLESS WATER HEATER, FURNACE AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING. PARTIAL RE-ROOF. CONVERT PORCH TO ATTACHED JADU (350 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, 100 AMP SUBPANEL. ( main house under construction - see 19000-00936 ) RESIDENTIAL REMODEL TO INCLUDE KITCHEN, MASTER BATHROOM AND HALLWAY BATHROOM. REPLACE 19 WINDOWS AND 22 DOORS.  NEW LIGHTING AND INSTALL MINI-SPLIT SYSTEM. UPGRADE EXISITING ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO 200 AMPS RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 466SF AND REMODEL 300SF INCLUDES ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. CONVERT ONE EXISTING BATHROOM AND BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (570 SF) AND REMODEL (200 SF) ADDITION TO INCLUDE ATTACHED ADU (486 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP AND HP TANK WATER HEATER. (N) SF AT KITCHEN AND FRONT ENTRY. REMODEL AT MASTER BED & BATH. CONVERT STUDY TO GUEST BATH. MODIFY GAS LINE FROM METER TO HOUSE. ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPGRADE TO 400 AMPS. GARAGE CONVERSION TO ADU (241 SF ) WITH ADDITIONAL SF (314 SF ) FOR TOTAL ADU AREA (554 SF) TO INCLUDE (N) LAUNDRY. (N) MECHANICAL ROOM WITH A (N) HEAT PUMP. RELOCATE WATER HEATER AND FURNACE. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION/REMODEL TO INCLUDE: KITCHEN REMODEL, ADDITION TO KITCHEN WINDOW BAY, LAUNDRY AND POWDER ROOM REMODEL. ON SECOND FLOOR REMODEL ONE BEDROOM TO CREATE ANOTHER BATHROOM AND WALK-IN CLOSET, REMODEL 2 ADDITIONAL BATHROOMS. UPDATE LIGHTING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE, ADD NEW HEATPUMP FURNACE WITH 2 INTERIOR UNITS. NEW TANKLESS WATER HEATER. REMODEL REAR COVERED PATIO, NEW IPE SIDING OVER REAR ELEVATION, REROOF COVERED PATIO. UPDGRADE MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL TO 200 AMPS. AO Smith - PROLINE® XE CONDENSING TANKLESS WITH X3® SCALE PREVENTION TECHNOLOGY OUTDOOR ATO-240HX3, ATO-340HX3, ATO-540HX3 CONVERT EXISTING DETACHED WORKSHOP INTO ADU ( 248 SF ). UPGRADE SEWER, GAS, ELECTRICAL. ADD TANKLESS GAS WH, HP FOR ADU. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 391     ATTACHED 834 SF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU). UPGRADE MAIN PANEL TO 200 AMPS. (DEMO CARPORT IN PREPARATION FOR ADDITION ON SEPARATE PERMIT 22BLD- 01924) CONVERSION CARPORT (145 SF ) AND PORTION RESIDENCE TO AN ATTACHED JADU (446 SF) TEMP POWER RESIDENTIAL ADDITION & REMODEL. ADDITION TO INCLUDE 2ND FLR, SF AT KITCHEN, AND BEDROOM 1. REMODEL TO INCLUDE CONVERSION OF BEDROOM, HALL, AND POWDER ROOM. CREATE LAUNDRY ROOM. UPDATE DINING ROOM LAYOUT. EXPANSION OF UTILITY ROOM AT BASEMENT. RELOCATE STAIRS TO BASEMENT. ADD REAR DECK. ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPGRADE TO 200 AMPS. INTERIOR REMODEL AT FIRST FLOOR (940 SQFT): REMODEL AND RELOCATE KITCHEN AND PRIMARY BEDROOM, REMODEL BATHROOM. INSTALL SLIDING GLASS DOORS TO REAR YARD, HEAT PUMP DUCTLESS MINI-SPLIT HVAC SYSTEM, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, DECK AT REAR YARD. Navien NPE-2 Series Tankless Wataer Heater RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR REMODEL TO INCLUDE KITCHEN, 3 BATHROOMS, UPGRADE ELECTRICAL PANEL TO 200 AMPS, TWO MINI-SPLIT SYSTEMS, REPLACE 24 WINDOWS AND DOORS AND 5 SKYLIGHTS THROUGHOUT HOUSE, ADD NEW SIDING. CONVERT UNCONDITIONED UTILITY ROOM TO MASTER SUITE. (E) UNCONDITIONED SUNROOM TO REMAIN. Rheem - PERFORMANCE PLATINUM™ Hybrid Electric - XE40T10H45U0/XE50T10H45U0/XE65T10H45U0/XE 80T10H45U0 DETACHED GYM (663 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP. REPLACE EXISTING GAS FURNACE AND INSTALL A NEW FAN COIL AND HEAT PUMP 19 SEERS. Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 392     AC Manufacturer and Model Heat Pump Heating and Cooling Manufacturer and Model LG LMU240HV - 50/54 dbA Goodman - GSXC18 - 68/74 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PVFY-P12NAMU-E1 - 27-35 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PVFY-P48NAMU-E1 - 35-43 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-FS06NA - 20-40 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MUZ-FS06NAH - 47-49 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL12NA -  49-51 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MUZ-GL12NADB - 49-51 dbA Carrier - 38MARBQ12AA3 - 56 dbA Bryant - 40MBDQ Ducted Style Ductless System Sizes 09 to 58 - 66 dbA Samsung AR09JSALBWKXCV / AR09JSALBWKNCV - 29-53 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 393     Bryant - 288BNV EVOLUTIONR V VARIABLE SPEED HEAT PUMP WITH PURON REFRIGERANT 1--5 TON - 55-73 dbA City Multi - Model: PVFY-P36NAMU-E1 - 35-43 dbA Carrier - 38MA*R, Outdoor Unit Single Zone Ductless System Sizes 09 to 36 - 25-50 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA - 51-55 DB Carrier - 25VNA8 Infinityr 18VS Variable Speed Heat Pump with Puronr Refrigerant - 55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2 - 51 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PUMY-P36NKMU3(-BS) - 49-53 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 394     Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C224NA2 - 51-55 dbA Samsung - AM060MXMDCH/AA - 58-60 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-2C20NA2 - 50-54 dbA Daikin - FTX18NMVJU / RX18NMVJU - 54 dbA LG - LA120HSV5 - Single Zone Art Cool™ Mirror Wall Mount - 45-48 dbA Blueridge BMY917C x1 9,000 BTU 16.5 SEER Single Zone Ductless Mini Split Outdoor Condenser - 54.5 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PVA-A42AA7 & PUZ-A42NKA7(- BS) - 36-44 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP24NA & SUZ-KA24NAHZ - 36-41 dbA Carrier - 40MAQ / 38MAQ - 55.5 fbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 395     Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP36NA & SUZ-KA36NAHZ - 61-90 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP24NA & SUZ-KA24NAHZ - 115 dbA Lennox - XC16 ELITE® Series - R-410A - Two-Stage Compressor - 60 Hz - 73 dbA Bryant - MODEL 226A PREFERRED SERIES 2--STAGE HEAT PUMP WITH PURON REFRIGERANT 2 TO 5 NOMINAL TONS - 70 dbA Daikin - FTKB12AXVJU / RKB12AXVJU - 46-52 dbA New Condenser Heat Pump Outdoor Unit1 Model # 38MPRAQ24AA3 62 dB & Heat Pump 2 Model #: 38MGRQ30D 62.3 dB Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2-U1 - 52-56 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-4C24NA2-U1 - 50-54 dbA Lennox - model # EL18XPV-036 - 63-75 dbA Indoor units location 1 MITSUBISHI MSZGL18NA 1003887T location 2 MITSUBISHI MSZGL12NA 11E35252 outdoor units MITSUBISHI MXZ5C42NA2 12P01484    58 dBA MITSUBISHI MXZ3C30NA2 01U48308B   58 dBA Ductless 48000 Btuh Up to 22 SEER Heat Pump 5 Zone 208/230-1 Item: 38MGRQ48E--3 MFR: 38MGRQ48E--3 - 64 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C60NA2 - 70-115 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 396     Lennox - ML14XP1 MERIT® Series - 76 dbA American Standard 4A6L6030A1, 2.5 Ton -58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C30NA2 - 52-56 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C60NA2 - 54 dbA Daikin - #2MX518 - 51 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C60NA - 58 dbA Bryant - 214DNA024P00) - 76 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2  - 55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2  - 55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2-U1  - 51-55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PUMY-P36NKMU3(-BS) - 49-53 dbA American Standard Heat Pump - 4A6l9036A1000H - 60 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL15NA & MUZ-GL15NA - 49-51 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 397     Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C48NA - 51-54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-2C20NA2 - 50 dbA American Standard TAM9A0C36V31DA - Platinum Series, 3 Ton, Variable Speed Multi-Position Air Handler, R410A, 208-230/1/60 American Standard 4A6V8036A1000 - Platinum 18 Series 3 Ton, 18 SEER, R410a Variable Speed Heat Pump Unit, 208-230/1/60 - Heat Pump Model 284ANV – Make "Bryant" 284ANV048000 HEAT PUMP (EVOLUTION™ EXTREME 24 VARIABLE-SPEED Sound Level  72 dB(A) Sound Blanket of 15dBA will be provided Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP36NA & SUZ-KA36NAHZ - 61-90 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL12NA-U1 & MSZ- GL42NA-U1 - 54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MLZ-KP18NA & SUZ-KA18NA2 - 54-55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C60NA - 59 dBA Lennox Lennox CBA27UHE-024-230 located in attic EL15XP1-024-230 71 dBA install 10dB sound blanket American Standard - 4A6L9060A1XXXB  - Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2-U1 - 51-54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric- MXZ-5C42NAHZ2 - 5-80 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GK12NA-U1 - 19-45 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MUZ-WR12 - 54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-4C36NA2-U1 - 54-56 dbA Samsung - AC024KNZDCH/AA - 50 dBA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 398     Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL 18NA-U1 - ## dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SUZ-KA36NA2 - 55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PVFY-P48NAMU-E1 Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-SM48NAM-U1 - 51-54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PVFY-P48NAMU-E1 Mitsubishi Electric - mxz-sm48nam-u1 - 51-54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP36NA & SUZ-KA36NA2 - 55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ - SVZ-KP36NA 36,000 BTU Multi Position Ducted Heat Pump Air Handler Mitsubishi Electric - SUZ - SUZ-KA36NA2.TH 36k BTU - M-Series SUZ Outdoor Condenser - Single Zone Only Sound Level – 55 dBA GREE - GMV5 - 208-230V Heat Pump - 57 dBA Bryant - 224ANS PREFERRED SERIES HEAT PUMP WITH PURON REFRIGERANT 1−1/2 TO 5 NOMINAL TONS -69 dbA GREE - Indoor Air Handler Model Number GMV- ND36A/AT(U) Gree GMV VRF System, 4 Ton, Outdoor Unit Model Number GMV-48WL/A-T(U) 18SEER, 57dB(A) Lennox - EL16XP1 ELITE® Series - R-410A  - 60 Hz - 71 dbA Carrier - 25VNA448A**30 - 51 dbA Bryant, model # 214DNA036P00, 3 ton, is 70 dBA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C48NA2 - 54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-FS15NA & MUZ-FS15NAH Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C48NA2 - 54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5c42 - 59 dbA Carrier - 38MARBQ36AA3 - utdoor Unit Single Zone Heat Pump Ductless System - 61.5 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 399     Bryant - 214D Legacy™ Line Heat Pump with Puron® Refrigerant 1- 1/2 To 5 Nominal Tons - 68-69 dbA Fujitsu - ARU18RLF -Fujitsu - 18RLFCD - 32-55 dbA Mitsubishi - MXZ-4C36NA2-U1 - 54-56 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL09NA Mitsubishi Electric - MS2-GL09NA & MUZ-GL09NA - 48-50 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-4C36NA2 - 56 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL06NA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM  - 58 dbA LG - LMN079HVT Multi F Wall Mounted High Efficiency Indoor Unit 7,000 Btu/h Carrier - 38MGRQ18B3 - 62 dbA MSZ-GL12NA 12,000 BTU Ductless Wall Mounted Mini split indoor unit MSZ-GL09NA 9,000 BTU Ductless Wall Mounted Mini split indoor unit MXZ - MXZ-3C30NA2 28,600 BTU Ductless Multi Zone Heat Pump Condenser Sound Level- 55dbA Indoor Unit: MSZ-JP12WA-U1 Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-JP12WA & MUZ-JP12WA - 49-51 dbA Bryant - 214A Legacyt RNC Line Heat Pump with Puronr Refrigerant Size 018--060 (1--1/2 To 5 Tons - 70-72 dbA American Standard, model # 4A6L9024A1000A, 2 ton, 53 dBA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2 - 51-55 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-8C48 - 58 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 400     New Condenser Heat Pump Outdoor Unit Model # 38MBRBQ48AA3 Decibel: 62.9 DB Mitsubishi Electric - : MXZ-5C42NA2 - 56-58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2 -55  dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-WR09NA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-WR09NA & MUZ-WR09NA - 48-50 dbA Amreican Standard - 4A6L9036A1000A - 48 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-4C36NA2 - 54-56 dbA MSZ-FS09NA 9,000 BTU Ductless Heat Pump 3D I- SEE Sensor Air Handler MSZ-FS06NA 6,000 BTU Ductless Heat Pump 3D I- SEE Sensor Air Handler MLZ-KP18NA-U1 18,000 BTU One-Way Ceiling Cas MXZ-4C36NA2 36,000 BTU Ductless Multi Zone Heat Pump Condenser Sound level 56dBA GREE - FLEXX24/36HP230V1A - 45 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 - 58 dbA 40MBAA -  "Carrier" 40MBAAQ24XA3 Air Handler Unit Ductless System Single Zone "Performance" Heat Pump - "Carrier" 38MARBQ24AA3 Performance Heat Pump Outdoor (Single-zone) Sound Level- 52.5 dbA Carrier - Model # 40MBABQ30XB3 Carrier - Model # 38MARBQ30AA3 Decibel: 63 dBA Fancoil Model: (indoors):  Manufacturer: Payne Model: FMC4X2400AL dBA rating: Standard Rating dBA 54 Heatpump Model (Roof): Manufacturer: Carrier/Day & Night  Model: N4H424GKG . dBA rating: Standard Rating dBA 76 Lennox - CBA38MV DAVE LENNOX SIGNATURE® COLLECTION - R-410A Ready - Multi-Position - Variable Speed - 60 Hz - Lennox - EL18XPV ELITE® Series - Variable Capacity - Precise Comfort® Technology - R-410A - 60 Hz - 61 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 401     25HBC5 Comfort™15 Heat Pump with Puron®Refrigerant 1- 1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons -  68 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-SM60NAM-U1 - 58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 - 56-58 dbA LG LQN090HV4 LG LMU36CHV (MAX dBA: 55) Mitsubishi Electric - SUBMITTAL DATA: MXZ- 3C30NA2 - 52-56 dbA Carrier - FX4D Comfort™ Series Fan Coil Sizes 019 thru 061 Carrier - 25HBC5 Comfort™ 15 Heat Pump with Puron®Refrigerant 1- 1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons - 68-69 dbA LG - LMU481HV 4.0 Ton Heat Pump - 57-81 dbA Tempstar 4 Ton 14 SEER A/C Condensing Unit, 208-230/1/60, R-410A Item: NH4A448AKA MFG: NH4A448AKA Carrier - 24VNA6 -Infinity Variable-Speed Air Conditioner with Greenspeed Technology - 51 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA3-U1 - 51-55 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 402     Trane - 41WR7036B-SUB-1C-EN  - 3 Ton Split System Heat Pump -1 Ph  - 72 dbA Bryant - 38MARB Outdoor Unit Single Zone Ductless System Sizes 06 to 36 - 30-50 dbA Lennox - Elite Series - ELI18XPV Heat Pump - 61 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - PVA-A42AA7 Mitsubishi Electric - PVA-A42AA7 & PUZ-A42NKA7(- BS) 42,000 BTU/H MULTI-POSITION AIR HANDLER - 52-53 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP36NA & SUZ-KA36NA2 36,000 BTU/H MULTI-POSITION AIR HANDLER  - 55 dbA Carrier 38MGRQ48E3 38MGRQ48E--3 Performance Series Minisplit Outdoor Unit for 5 Zones with 48000 BTU Cooling and 36000 BTU Heat Pump Capacity, 230/208 Volts/50 Amps - 64 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SUBMITTAL DATA: MXZ- 3C30NA2 - 52-56 dbA Lennox - CBA25UHV (HFC-410A) SERIES UNITS Lennox - 16HPX MERIT® Series - R-410A - Two- Stage Compressor - 60 Hz - 74 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-2C20NA2-U1 - 50-54 dbA Bryant - 38MARB Outdoor Unit Single Zone Ductless System Sizes 06 to 36 - 30-50 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA.2  - 56-58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C30NA2-U1 - 52-56 dbA Bryant - 38MURA - Outdoor Unit Single Zone Ductless System - Sizes 1-1/2 to 4 Nominal Tons - 54 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 - 58 dbA Carrier - 38MURA Outdoor Unit Single Zone Heat Pump System Sizes 1-1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons - 54 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 403     Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C30NA3 2.5-TON MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM - 52 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - M-SERIES - SVZ-KP36NA - 35-43 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2 - 51--55 dbA Carrier - 25HHA4 Performance Serie Heat Pump ith Puron refrigerant - 69 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - R410A - SUZ-KA18NA(H)2.TH - 32-43 dbA Gree - GMV-60WL/C-T(U) - 208~230V Mini Heat Pump (C-Series) - 63 dbA Carrier - 25TPA7 Performance Series 2-Stage Heat Pump with Puron® Refrigerant 2-5 Tons - 70 dbA Lennox - MLA/MLB Mini-Split Low Ambient Multi-Zone Heat Pump Systems - R- 410A  - 60 Hz -26.5 dbA Lennox - MLB048 Heat Pump Outdoor Unit / MLA018 thru 036 Heat Pump Outdoor Units - 62.3 dbA Carrier - 50VT-C Comfort™ 14 SEER Single-Packaged Heat Pump System with Puron® (R-41 OA) Refrigerant Single Phase 2-5 Nominal Tons (Sizes 24-60) Three Phase 3- 5 Nominal Tons (Sizes 36-60) - 75 dbA Lennox - SL280DFV - icomfort® ENABLED SL280DFV SERIES UNITS - 74-81 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2 - 55 dbA Lennox - MCFA/MCFB Ceiling/Floor-Mount Non- Ducted Indoor Unit Lennox - MPB, Mini-Split Multi-Zone Heat Pump Systems - R-410A - 60 Hz  - 62 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-SM60NAM 5-TON MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM - 58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - Indoor Unit: PEAD-A42AA􀀁Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM - 58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2-U1 - 56-58 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM -58 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 404     Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL15NA 15,000 BTU/H WALL-MOUNTED INDOOR UNIT - 26- 44 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA3 2-TON MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM - 51 dbA Carrier - 38MGR Multi-zone Heat Pump Outdoor Unit Ductless System Sizes 18, 24, 30, 36 and 48 - 62-64 dbA Indoor Unit: PVA-A36AA7 Mitsubishi Electric - PVA-A36AA7 & PUZ-A36NKA7(- BS) 36,000 BTU/H AIR HANDLER HEAT PUMP SYSTEM - 52-53 dbA Indoor Unit: MSZ-GL12NA Mitsubishi Electric - MSZ-GL12NA & MUZ-GL12NA 12,000 BTU/H WALL-MOUNTED HEAT PUMP SYSTEM - 56 dbA Carrier - 34SCA5 ComfortSeries Air Conditioner with Puron Refrigerant 1-1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons - 65 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-5C42NA2 MULTI-INDOOR INVERTER HEAT PUMP SYSTEM - 56-58 dbA Bryant - 288BNV EVOLUTIONR V VARIABLE SPEED HEAT PUMP WITH PURONr REFRIGERANT 1--5 TON -55 dbA Mitubishi Electric - MXZ-4C36NA2 - 56 dbA TOSOT - T-Unix - ODU Model:TU36-24WADU IDU Model:TU36-24AADU  - 62 dbA Indoor unit: AMUG48LMAS Fujitsu - 48LMAS1 - Inverter Driven Heat Pump - 55 dbA Bosch - Split System Heat Pump Bosch IDS BOVA15 IDS Light Condensing Units | 2-5 Ton Capacity | R410A - 55-69 dbA Indoor Unit: MSZ-GL09NA Mitsubishi Electric -  MSZ-GL09NA & MUZ-GL09NA 9,000 BTU/H WALL-MOUNTED HEAT PUMP SYSTEM - 48-50 dbA Indoor Unit: MSZ-GL18NA Mitsubishi Electric -  MXZ-4C36NA2 - 54-56 dbA Mitsubishi Electric -  MXZ-4C36NA 2 - 54-56 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 405     Mitsubishi Electric -  MXZ-SM48NAM - 4-TON MULTI-ZONE INVERTER HEAT-PUMP SYSTEM - 51 dbA Bryant - 38MURA Outdoor Unit Single Zone Ductless System Sizes 1-1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons - 54 dbA Indoor unit: Mitsubishi Electric -  SVZ-KP30NA Mitsubishi Electric -  MFZ-KJ18NA [HP] heat pump MXZ-3C24NA Sound Level –  55 dbA heat pump MXZ-5C42NA Sound Level – 58  dbA Mitsubishi MSZ-FS06NA Hyper Heat Single Zone Indoor Unit Indoor unit: MSZ-FS06NA-U1 Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C30NA2-U1 - 52-56 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 406     DuctlessAire- 13 SEER Ductless Mini Split Air Conditioner Heat Pump System - 35-42 dbA Samsung - Wind-Free 1Way Cassette for North America (R410A, 60Hz) - AM***AN1PCH BOSCH - Bosch Climate 5000 Ductless Minisplit System - 20 dbA BOSCH - Bosch Climate 5000 Ductless Minisplit System - 20 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - SVZ-KP36NA & SUZ-KA36NA2 / SUZ-KA36NA2 TH - 55 dbA GREE - 9,000 BTU/H (208/230V)  Wall Mounted Heat Pump System - 28-43 dbA Carrier - 24VNA6 INFINITY® VARIABLE SPEED AIR CONDITIONER WITH GREENSPEED™ INTELLIGENCE 2 TO 5 NOMINAL TONS  - 51 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C24NA2 - M Series - 51- 55 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 407     Indoor unit: WT009ALFI22HLD Pioneer - Diamante ULTRA - 20~23 SEER Ultra High E􀀁ciency Heat Pump + DC Inverter in One System Single Zone (9,000 ~ 24,000 BTU/hr) 110V~120V / 208V~230V, 60Hz, 1Ph - YN009ALFI22RPD - 52 dbA Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-3C2ANA3-U1 - 51-55 dbA Carrier 3 ton Air Handler Ductless System , 208/1, 40MBAAQ36XA3 Carrier - Performance Series 38MBRC Outdoor Unit - Size 38 - 38MRBCQ36AA3 - 63 dbA GREE - Gree 2-3 Ton 18 SEER Heat Pump Condensing Unit, 208- 230/1/60, R-410A Item: FLEXX36HP230V1AO MFG: FLEXX36HP230V1AO - 49 dbA Rheem® Mini-Split Heat Pump Systems - RIWH09AVSA / ROSH09AVSA - 47-51 dbA LG - Indoor Unit (IDU) - LSN090HFV3 LG - LS090HFV3 Single Zone Standard Efficiency Wall Mount Outdoor Unit (ODU) - LSU090HFV3,   - 42 dbA SANCO2 HEAT PUMP -  dbA not listed Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 408     Pinoeer - DC Inverter + Heat Pump in One System - WYT-19 Diamante Series Single Zone Mini Splits - 58 dbA Daikin - 4MXS36RMVJU  - 4 Port, 3-Ton Outdoor Heat Pump  - 56-73 dbA Daikin - 2MXS18NMVJUA - 51 dbA LA120HSV5 Single Zone Art Cool™ Mirror Wall Mount Outdoor Unit (ODU) - LSU120HSV5,  Indoor Unit (IDU) - LAN120HSV5 - 39 dbA Pinoeer - DC Inverter + Heat Pump in One System - WYT-19 Diamante Series Single Zone Mini Splits - 58 dbA Carrier - FZ4A Performance™ 2-Speed Series Fan Coil Sizes 024 thru 061 Carrier - 214D Legacyt Line Heat Pump with Puronr Refrigerant 1--- 1/2 To 5 Nominal Tons - 69 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 409     Mitsubishi Electric - MXZ-2C20NA2 - 50 dbA Indoor unit: PVA-A42AA7 Mitsubishi Electric -  PVA-A42AA7 & PUY-A42NKA7(- BS) 42,000 BTU/H AIR HANDLER AIR- CONDITIONING SYSTEM - 34-42 dbA LG LMU363HV - 36k BTU - Outdoor Condenser - For 2-4 Zones - 54 dbA Indoor unit: AMUG24LMAS Fujitsu - 24RGLXM - 55 dbA Item 4 Attachment E Heat Pump Residential Since 1 1 2022     Packet Pg. 410     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 9, 2023 Report #: 2307-1805 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of July 12, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft verbatim minutes from the July 12, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting was made available to the Commissioners prior to the August 9, 2023 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 411