Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-27 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Draft Summary Minutes: August 27, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6 7 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 8 9 The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 Vice Chair Chang attended virtually and noted she is alone in the room. 12 13 PUBLIC COMMENT 14 15 There were no requests to speak. 16 17 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 18 19 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced no changes. 20 21 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 22 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 23 24 Jennifer Armer displayed slides. A boards and recognition event will occur on August 28. The 25 retreat is planned for September 6. September 10 is the next regularly scheduled PTC meeting, 26 which will include a discussion of the San Antonio Road Area Plan Update and the South Palo 27 Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity review concept design alternatives. On September 8, the El Camino 28 Real Retail Preservation Nodes, as recommended by the PTC, will be on City Council’s Consent 29 Calendar. The 400 Mitchell Lane CUP, recommended by the PTC, will also be on consent. PTC 30 liaisons do not need to attend. Another PHZ prescreening application had been received for 414 31 California Avenue and will be discussed at that meeting. On September 15, information about 32 the first year of the Rental Registry will be on Council’s Consent Calendar. The Staff Report will 33 be published in the coming weeks. The work plans for the PTC, ARB, and HRB will be on the 34 Consent Calendar on September 29. 35 36 Commissioner Ji requested information on the Rental Registry. 37 38 Jennifer Armer explained what the Rental Registry is. 39 40 Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Rafael Rius did not have collision data, but it should be 1 available for the next meeting and will be shared as soon as it is received. The South Palo Alto 2 Bike Connectivity Project will come to the PTC on September 10. The Crescent Park Traffic 3 Calming Project is targeted for September 24. The next iteration of the Bicycle and Pedestrian 4 Transportation Plan is planned for November 12. The Churchill Avenue and Hansen Bikeway 5 Project has been passed to Public Works for construction, and the project has started. The next 6 Council Rail Committee meeting is scheduled for September 16, and there will be discussion of 7 quiet zones. He believes they will address the 15-percent grade separation plans. The SRTS 8 team will start the Elementary School Bike Rodeo Education Program. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton asked how Council and/or the PTC are being updated on railroad 11 track collisions, which is relevant to the PTC’s work. She asked to be notified if the PTC can help 12 in any way. 13 14 Rafael Rius will discuss it with the Chief Transportation Official and provide a formal response. 15 16 Commissioner Ji asked if there is information related to the impacts of RVs specifically around 17 Park Boulevard as a bike route or if the item will be presented to the PTC in any form. 18 19 Jennifer Armer shared that Policy and Services Committee discussed it at the beginning of the 20 week, and she believes a recording of the meeting is available online. It will return to Council 21 based on the recommendation from that meeting. It will not come to the PTC. 22 ACTION ITEMS 23 24 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 70 Encina Avenue [25PLN-00034]: 25 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Tentative Map to Merge 26 Two Lots and Allow for a Condominium Subdivision to Create Ten Units on the 27 Resulting 12,119 Square Foot Parcel. The Subdivision Map Would Facilitate 28 Construction of Ten New Residential Units in One Building, which was previously 29 approved on April 14, 2025(24PLN-00095). CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions 30 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA 31 Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zoning District: PC-32 5654. For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at 33 emily.kallas@paloalto.gov. 34 35 Chair Akin requested disclosures, and there were none. 36 37 Senior Planner Emily Kallas outlined the project request. The existing parcel is code compliant. 38 The map is associated with a recently approved project zoned through the PHZ process and 39 meets Title 21. The map must meet 7 findings. The project was analyzed for CEQA. Staff 40 recommends the PTC recommend approval of the tentative map to Council based on findings 41 and subject to conditions of approval. The applicant will not give a presentation but is available 42 to answer questions. 43 1 Commissioner James inquired if there is a specific adopted plan for the project site. 2 3 Emily Kallas answered there is no specific plan for the project site. There is an adopted 4 development proposal and planning entitlement, which Council approved in April. What will be 5 built will largely reflect that plan. 6 7 PUBLIC COMMENT 8 9 Herb B. noted that the surveyor had not signed the map, and he requested that the identities of 10 Stormland, LLC, and the Town and Country Development Company, LLC, be noted in the Record 11 of Land Use Action if applicable. 12 13 Lopez stated he hopes the best decision will be made for this item. 14 15 Keiran was experiencing audio difficulties. 16 17 Chair Akin queried, related to Herb B’s comment, if anything needed to be resolved. 18 19 Emily Kallas answered that the surveyor is not required to sign the tentative map, only the final 20 map. Before going to Council for approval, staff will check the Record of Land Use for any 21 potential discrepancies between the owner of record and the application form as signed. 22 23 Commissioner Hechtman commented that he supports the staff recommendation. He 24 referenced Packet Page 16 and feels the first sentence in Finding 2 should be copied into the 25 response to Finding 1. He requested that staff make Condition 4 on Packet Page 20 applicable 26 to this particular project. Item 5 should be deleted if there is a no private street. Concerning 27 Section 7, he noted that the word “submitted” should be added after the word “subdivider” in 28 the third from last line. 29 30 MOTION 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the staff recommendation with staff to consider 33 the changes to the Land Use Action record he commented on previously. 34 35 SECOND 36 37 Chair Akin seconded the motion. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton questioned why this tiny residential island will be in a massive 40 commercial area and whose responsibility it will be to ensure that children will have a safe 41 route to school (excluding the high school across the street), if there will be policing changes 42 and/or better pedestrian and bike access. She asked if there are other projects nearby 43 designated to development of housing. She encouraged Planning staff to consider such 1 isolation. 2 3 Jennifer Armer stated this was adopted as a housing site in the Housing Element and is part of 4 the Comprehensive Plan for Land Development. Having a safe route to school is generally 5 everyone’s responsibility. Generally certain types of connections and improvements may be 6 required as part of a development, and there may need to be updates to some of the long-7 range planning projects and the Transportation Division’s projects. In the future, there may 8 need be an area plan to envision improvements so it will be part of the requirement. She is not 9 aware of nearby parcels designated for housing development. However, there could be in the 10 future. 11 12 Commissioner Peterson noted that the pathway to the bike path by the Caltrain tracks is 13 incomplete, and he encouraged staff to look at that throughway. The Opportunity Center is 14 across the street, so it is a highly occupied street. 15 16 VOTE MOTION 17 18 The Clerk conducted a roll call vote. 19 20 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, James, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) 21 3. Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal 22 Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental 23 Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for 24 Protection of the Environment). 25 26 Senior Planner Kelly Cha requested the PTC recommend that Council adopt the draft ordinance. 27 It is a Council priority objective and will implement Comprehensive Plan policy and programs. 28 She provided a history of the project, including community feedback. Most of the existing 29 applicability carried over to the draft ordinance, but a criterion is added to capture some 30 residential developments not subject to discretionary review but that will still be located close 31 to a stream. The exemption section adds more conditions, which she detailed. The main change 32 to the draft ordinance is establishing the streamside setback, and staff recommends a single 33 setback for the urbanized, open space, rural, and Baylands areas. Staff recommends 30 feet for 34 the urbanized area. To address some concerns regarding the exception process for single-family 35 homes, staff added a condition to allow some lots to apply 30 feet within the open space, rural, 36 and Baylands areas. There are standards related to vegetation, fences, structures, and 37 improvements within the streamside setback area. She outlined the exceptions for the 38 streamside setback area. While reviewing some of the public comments received after the Staff 39 Report was published, staff discovered the proposed threshold of 20K square feet to allow a 40 smaller setback within the open space and rural area in the Baylands area may not capture all 41 impacted parcels, so staff requests that the PTC consider modifying the threshold to 1 acre or 42 43,560 square feet. 43 1 Commissioner Hechtman requested that staff speak about new fences versus replacement 2 fences. He asked how 2:1 landward from the toe of the bank is calculated related to slope 3 stability. 4 5 Kelly Cha replied that maintenance, repair, and replacement of existing fences will be allowed 6 according to the noncomplying facilities chapters. New fences will have to comply with the 7 draft ordinance as adopted. 8 9 Jennifer Armer explained that a setback is sometimes not enough for certain bank slopes. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman requested that the Staff Report provide a diagram with 2:1 triangles 12 illustrated as well as a 30-foot limit as it relates to the calculation of 2:1 landward from the toe 13 of the bank. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton inquired regarding fences if exceptions could be made as it relates to 16 safety. 17 18 Jennifer Armer replied that fences are not prohibited. Relief may require an exception request. 19 Packet Page 36 lists an exemption for single-family properties along San Francisquito Creek and 20 fronting on Edgewood Drive. 21 22 Kelly Cha added that there is an exception process for fences within the slope stability area. 23 24 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang emphasized that this is relevant for properties without 25 existing fences. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton stated she wants to better understand the Edgewood exceptions. 28 29 Jennifer Armer noted that the PTC can consider specific exemptions for Edgewood if desired. 30 31 Chair Akin inquired why there is a required 5-foot setback from top of bank to a fence in the 32 slope stability area. 33 34 Kelly Cha stated that is in the existing ordinance, although an exception process has been 35 established. 36 37 Vice Chair Chang queried if there is data regarding the extension of the slope stability area or 38 the area that does not allow building from 20 feet to the proposed 30 feet. She referenced 39 Packet Page 28 and questioned if a reasonable alternative for the variance process is clearly 40 understood from a legal perspective. She addressed Packet Page 37 (irrigation systems 41 designed to prevent soil erosion) and Packet Page 39 (things being evaluated by a qualified 42 biologist) and asked if those are commonly understood standards or terms. She asked if it might 43 be hard to enforce the ordinance or make the ordinance clear to folks. She requested the 44 definition of outboard stream bank slope referenced on Packet Page 38. Packet Page 35 1 references “proposes to locate towards the streamside setback,” and she questioned if that 2 applies to any hardscape and landscape improvements. She will send staff typos she found. 3 4 Kelly Cha replied that the biologist recommends a 30-foot setback for bank stability and 5 sediment control. She can provide more data on the distance at a later date. This relates to 6 streamside setback, not slope stability. Slope stability will retain at 20 feet or the 2:1 ratio 7 within the urbanized area. It is expanded to 30 feet in open space, rural, and Baylands areas. 8 Nothing will change for Edgewood residents. She explained a reasonable alternative for the 9 variance process. The language on Packet Pages 37 and 39 are common terms used by 10 biologists. She believes there is a board certification for biologist, but she will look into it. She 11 will check on the term outboard stream bank slope, which might require more definition. She 12 does not believe the language on Packet Page 35 applies to landscaping, but she will confirm. It 13 should read toward the stream, not the streamside setback, which will be corrected. She 14 explained the intention of the language. Hardscapes will not require permit review. There are 15 impervious paving requirements, but she does not believe it will trigger permit review. 16 17 Assistant City Attorney Yang responded that in theory a reasonable alternative for the variance 18 process is understood from a legal perspective. It will be hard to support something unusual or 19 a luxury. 20 21 Vice Chair Chang requested that landscaping, hardscape, and permeability be clarified. She 22 inquired if Item K on Packet Page 40 concerns lot measurements and lot area along 23 watercourses for Palo Alto regulations and not Santa Clara County property tax assessment. 24 The sentence “Provided the expansion…” does not appear to be complete. 25 26 Kelly Cha replied that Item K concerns local Palo Alto regulations. 27 28 Jennifer Armer noted, regarding the sentence “Provided the expansion…” that there is a 29 grammatical error. She added that the Staff Report lists findings for exceptions and one was 30 copied incorrectly, so she requested that the PTC refer to the language in the ordinance on 31 Page 38. 32 33 Good City Company Kevin Gardiner suggested that definitions be added for outboard and 34 inboard. 35 36 Commissioner James queried if slope stability is related to keeping vegetation in the 20-foot 37 area from the edge of the creek and if the stream setback is about construction extending to 30 38 feet in the urbanized areas. He questioned what the 30-foot vegetation restrictions are based 39 on as 30 feet seems to be a lot. 40 41 Jennifer Armer responded that slope stability is the more strict of the 2 areas and, with minor 42 exceptions, restricts paving and structures. The restrictions in the remainder of the streamside 43 setback are less than what is in the slope stability area. 44 1 Long Range Planning Manager Coleman Frick added there are vegetation requirements for the 2 setback area. 3 4 Kelly Cha stated the 30-foot vegetation restriction is based on the discussion with the biologist. 5 The PTC may make modifications to the recommendation. 6 7 Commissioner Peterson referenced the map on Packet Page 49 and asked if it is a plan view 8 map and if it is the only graphic showing the plan view of the corridors. 9 10 Kelly Cha explained what the map on Packet Page 49 is showing. It addresses PTC feedback to 11 add an exemption for properties behind floodwalls. A specific exemption has been added for 12 the Edgewood neighborhood. Staff has internal working maps showing the plan view of the 13 corridors, which can be shared. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson requested that map be provided. He spoke of the linear corridor 16 combined with the cross section of the corridor and asked if the width of the corridor defines 17 the 100-year elevation plus the 30 feet. 18 19 Kelly Cha explained how the setback is measured for the top of bank. 20 21 Commissioner Peterson voiced that it is important to see the 100-year flood map. 22 23 Kelly Cha replied that that map is not readily available at this time. The vertical distance is 24 where the 2:1 and the 30-foot setback will be measured. 25 26 Commissioner Peterson noted that the 100-year elevation could be outside the stream banks, 27 so it could be acres on either side of the creek in some locations. He requested a plan view from 28 the top view to understand what the corridor will look like over time with different surface 29 elevations. 30 31 Kelly Cha responded that the map is not readily available, but she will follow up. 32 33 Jennifer Armer will look into sharable maps showing the locations of the streams within the city 34 to show which ones are running through the urbanized areas. 35 36 Chair Akin thought Commissioner Peterson was addressing the setbacks because the 100-year 37 flood level applies to only those streams with poorly defined banks. 38 39 Jennifer Armer replied that site-by-site analyses are not done, so they cannot always get that 40 kind of detail, which is why clear definitions and exception processes are desired. 41 42 Commissioner Peterson added that creating such a map is not difficult. It is hard to make 43 decisions based on maps created using older technology. 44 1 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that insurance flood zones maps have that information, 2 which should be readily available. 3 4 Coleman Frick remarked that staff could easily prepare a 100-year flood map, but it would not 5 show streams/creeks without defined banks. 6 7 Vice Chair Chang added that 16(B) on Packet Page 34 is for the sake of completeness. It is not a 8 large issue. There is a variance process for those who might be affected by such an issue. 9 10 Commissioner Ji addressed the map on Packet Page 49 and asked what the green and blue lines 11 represent and requested they be labeled. He inquired how many properties will be impacted by 12 the changes, if service roads on Matadero Creek will be included, if there has been feedback 13 from San Francisquito Creek JPA or Valley Water, and if the biologist had commentary about 14 biological impacts for channelized and natural streams and the 30-foot recommendation. He 15 requested the City attorney address ADUs and building in the slope stability zone. He inquired 16 why lighting is not referenced in this ordinance. He referenced an Edgewood Drive map and 17 asked if there is a difference with some backyards being against a certain part of the creek. 18 19 Kelly Cha defined the green and blue lines on the map. She will follow up on how many 20 properties will be impacted. Staff was not able to confirm if service roads on Matadero Creek 21 will be included, but she will find out. If Valley Water considers a road a service road, they will 22 be exempt from the draft ordinance with the exception of the slope stability requirement. San 23 Francisquito Creek JPA and Valley Water are part of the distribution list, but comments have 24 not been received on the latest draft ordinance. Staff will follow up for their feedback. The 25 lighting provisions are part of the Lighting Ordinance update, and the lighting provisions will be 26 brought as part of the consideration. Regarding Edgewood Drive and some backyards being 27 against a certain part of the creek, the conditions may not be different than the Edgewood 28 neighborhood. It can be expanded to cover the section that will not be exempt. The properties 29 on Marlowe Street are exempt. The PTC can recommend including the section from Marlowe 30 Street to Southwood Drive as part of the exemption. 31 32 Jennifer Armer added that the Francisquito Creek JPA and Valley Water had been met with 33 early in the process. She explained the reasoning for the 30-foot recommendation for 34 channelized and natural streams. 35 36 Kevin Gardiner added that channelized and natural streams have different habitat values, but 37 there is also a flood control objective. 38 39 Albert Yang stated, regarding ADUs, that the City would probably be able to make findings for 40 not building within a stream bank. There are usually protected easements along stream banks, 41 which probably would not allow development. ADUs may be allowed in an area otherwise more 42 regulated. 43 44 Chair Akin inquired if the structure of the bank from Marlowe Street to University is different 1 than Edgewood. 2 3 Kelly Cha will confirm with the Engineering Division the structure of the bank from Marlowe 4 Street to University. 5 6 Commissioner Ji queried where the Edgewood exemption will be and the number of properties 7 impacted. 8 9 Kelly Cha responded that it seems that the embankment ends at University Avenue and it goes 10 into some of the Edgewood area between Southwood Drive and Newell Road. About 783 11 parcels within the urbanized area and about 139 parcels in the open space, rural, and Baylands 12 areas will be impacted. 13 14 Commissioner Ji asked how extending the provisions impacting lots under 20K square feet to 1 15 acre will impact that number. 16 17 Kelly Cha explained that it will not change the number of parcels impacted. 18 19 Jennifer Armer added that she does not believe it will change the total number but it would 20 shift some that are subject to the 150-foot setback into the reduced setback of 30 feet. 21 22 Commissioner Ji asked how many parcels are changing from 150 feet to 30 feet based on staff’s 23 recommendation. 24 25 Kelly Cha replied that she can provide that information later. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton questioned if property owners on the creeks are being granted a use 28 of the subset of their property by the City but still have to pay taxes on the larger set. She 29 understands that useable parts of some properties will be significantly reduced. 30 31 Jennifer Armer responded that the size of easements and the regulations applying to them are 32 not changing. Concerning useable parts of properties being reduced, this effort is to consider 33 additional stream protection. A stream setback that is more than the slope stability area is 34 being considered and would limit what can be done within the streamside setback. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton commented that a lot is being asked of property owners, which 37 needs to be connected to the good of the City. There is a lack of clarity in the proposal. 38 Property owners and residents need to know the tradeoff and why they should support it. 39 40 Kelly Cha responded that the goal is to conserve natural and channelized creeks and riparian 41 areas as open space amenity and natural habitat area and elements of community design. Most 42 policies address balancing environmental protection and community design. It includes flood 43 control. The update is more to address the riparian areas and natural habitat, which is lacking 1 from the existing regulations. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton asked if there is a measurement of the level of degradation and what 4 is expected after making the changes. 5 6 Jennifer Armer answered that planning efforts like this start at the Comprehensive Plan level, 7 which is a high-level document with goals and policies. There is a lofty goal that needs to go 8 into a more detailed analysis. A biologist provided recommendations. This is a goal from the 9 Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton stated she is frustrated that the biologist did not provide a scientific 12 basis for the recommendations. She asked how the PTC is failing to meet Council’s direction. 13 14 Jennifer Armer expressed that she believes the Comprehensive Plan Policy is focused on the 15 hillsides and the wetlands. She provided a slide listing the programs. The Stream Corridor 16 Protection is to explore 150 feet as a desired stream setback, which is about the open space 17 rural areas. 18 19 Kelly Cha spoke about how the regulations in the urban areas have been included, which 20 includes possibly conserving species and habitats by establishing setbacks. 21 22 Jennifer Armer added that one of the programs addresses urban creeks and enhanced riparian 23 setbacks. 24 25 Kevin Gardiner mentioned that the Comp Plan calls for considering and evaluating the stream 26 protection setbacks in the urban areas. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton voiced that a specific reason for adopting the majority of the 29 proposals has not been identified. The recommendations need to be connected to the goals. 30 There possibly being a benefit to biological change is not enough to take away property usage. 31 32 Commissioner James inquired if there is a minimum amount of vegetation buffer that would 33 prevent further degradation of the ecosystem. He does not understand how increasing 30 feet 34 from the stream in urbanized areas prevents flood damage to existing structures. It is hard to 35 assess if the City is in the right spot by using comparisons to other municipalities. 36 37 Commissioner Peterson inquired if there is guidance from the JPA for the San Francisquito 38 Creek. Buffer zones on the corridors were not presented to the County Subcommittee on Flood 39 Protection, and he, as Chair, would have sent a letter. He asked if letters have been received 40 from the Water District. 41 42 Kelly Cha will investigate the list of comment letters received. No comments have been 43 received from San Francisquito Creek JPA since October. They are on the distribution list, so 44 they have been updated on the progress. There have been meetings with Valley Water, and 1 they provided feedback, and some of their concerns have been addressed in this draft 2 ordinance. 3 4 Commissioner Peterson asked if their feedback is in the packet. 5 6 Kelly Cha replied that the packet includes public comments received since October. They do not 7 have the public comment letters officially sent from both agencies. They had internal meetings 8 with Valley Water. They have not received an official letter from JPA. It is assumed they have no 9 significant concerns since they have not received comments, but staff will follow up for 10 clarification. Valley Water’s feedback included looking at the exemption on retaining walls 11 again. They had technical comments, not policy comments. 12 13 Vice Chair Chang queried if the Valley Water standard is 30 feet and if that influenced the staff 14 recommendation of 30 feet. 15 16 Kelly Cha replied that the Valley Water setback was part of the consideration. It is also the 17 biologist’s recommendation. The Comprehensive Plan also has a critical habitat area of 30 feet. 18 19 [The Commission took a 7-minute break] 20 21 PUBLIC COMMENTS 22 Daniel Hansen speaking on behalf of 9 (Cynthia S, Adam S, Cindy W, Mohit T, Nancy Y, Keiko M, 23 Mike M, Janet L, Brook H) on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance stated they 24 support the ordinance with the exception of Edgewood. Edgewood is a unique area with safety 25 and security concerns. Flood abatement work in the creek will happen soon. The Newell Bridge 26 will be replaced. Reach 2 will be coming from the JPA. He spoke of impacts to property values 27 and the properties being subject to the cutback on the floor area ratio. Slides listing the 28 concerns were furnished, which include encampments, fires, creek access, flooding, the 29 enlargement of Newell Bridge, lack of a riparian corridor for wildlife crossing the bridge, 30 hindering new fences, and gaps between walls and fences. It is requested that fences not be 31 subject to discretionary approval and that it be allowed under Chapter 1624, that the 5-foot 32 gap for stability not apply to Edgewood and perhaps areas where there is a concrete bank, and 33 that the stream setback be no more than 25 feet. It is not understood why noninvasive 34 ornamental plantings will not be allowed in the slope stability area. It is felt that exemption 35 requirements for streamside setback are too strict. It is believed there is a technical conflict in 36 Paragraph G referring to Paragraph F, which should be corrected. 37 38 Kristin S. voiced her concerns with maintenance of existing fences. She had requested the 39 biologist’s name, and she indicated they are now claiming privilege. She objects to giving up 40 property without knowing the environmental reasoning, to the 30-foot setback, and not being 41 allowed certain plantings in her backyard. 42 43 Dashiell L., Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, commented they 1 support the ordinance and request that the PTC recommend Council adoption. A joint letter 2 with the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance had been submitted, which suggests improvements 3 related to restricting the development of recreational trails to one side of natural riparian 4 corridors, which is from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan N3.3.3, and preventing impervious 5 structures within the setback area, which is from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan N3.3.1. He 6 noted that in general the Conservation Plan provides extensive guidance and justification for 7 the provisions of the ordinance, such as Goal N-3 and Policies N-3.2 and N-3.4. 8 9 Tom F. remarked that he opposes prohibition on new fences in the slope stability area and the 10 restrictions on landscaping in the slope stability area. He requested that “fences” be removed 11 from Section 18.40.140G3, that 140G1 and G2 maintain existing landscaping restrictions, and 12 that confusing text be removed from Sections G and G1. He requested the redlines from their 13 attorneys and a separate document from Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance be reviewed. The 14 streamside setback should be no more than 25 feet in urban areas. He would support the 15 ordinance with the aforementioned revisions. 16 17 Rod H. spoke of his interest in the legal and policy issues in the matter and the precedence they 18 may set. He has been a long-time supporter, member, and doner of a number of leading 19 environmental organizations. He supports the positions of the Edgewood Neighborhood 20 Aliance, not those taken by the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. He does not support new 21 fences requiring Director approval or a 5-foot fence setback. He supports plantings being 22 allowed inside backyard fences consistent with current ordinances, a 25-foot setback, and 23 relaxing exceptions. It is reasonable to treat different parts of the creek differently. 24 25 Jeffrey S. stated he sent correspondence related to concerns that the ordinance will galvanize 26 homeowner opposition to flood control improvements along San Francisquito Creek on 27 Edgewood Drive. He urged that Edgewood be exempt from the streamside setback due to many 28 factors coming to bear on the area. 29 30 Jennifer L., a partner at Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips law firm, speaking on behalf of Tom and 31 Kristen Fountain, requested more detail to understand what the ordinance will do, which is 32 legally required. She had submitted a letter requesting a number of revisions to Subsections G, 33 G1, G2, and H1. They object to tightening restrictions on fences and landscaping within the 34 slope stability area. 35 36 Diane M. voiced that she supports preserving natural vegetation and habits in the creek area, 37 including no less than a 30-foot setback. 38 39 Shani K., environmental advocate with the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, mentioned that she 40 had been on the Community Advisory Committee when the Comprehensive Plan was put 41 together. The Edgewood concerns should be investigated. She is happy to send information on 42 the importance of setbacks. She spoke of the value of stream corridors, which include flooding, 43 pollutants, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The Bird Alliance had sent a letter. She does not 1 support exempting parcels in the Baylands or the Foothills. 2 3 Sanjiv W. voiced that he supports exempting homes on Edgewood Drive. He does not 4 understand the purpose of the ordinance versus what currently exists. He suggested cleaning 5 up the creek as a first step in supporting the habitat. The proposal for fences is burdensome. He 6 asked if the ordinance is also being considered in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. 7 8 Chia C. commented that she does not support the 30-foot setback, which is a burden for 9 smaller lots. She considers 20 feet sufficient to maintain bank integrity for engineered channels. 10 11 Chair Akin asked commissioners to opine on there possibly being a fundamental review of the 12 draft, for example differentiating between natural and channelized streams, or proceeding with 13 the existing draft but with the incremental changes discussed at this meeting. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton stated she is inspired by the public commenting. The Edgewood 16 exception is excellent, but it could use some tweaking. Channelized creeks are different than 17 naturalized creeks, and trying to apply the principals of the discussion to both is confusing. She 18 takes seriously the number of properties affected. She encouraged staff to consider the 19 language of preserving versus changing corridors. She has concerns as to what will be 20 considered “new” fences and voiced that folks should be able to replace fences easily. She 21 requested that staff address planting a specific set of approved riparian-friendly plants within 22 fences and the inclusion of the word “fence” in the part that was supposedly unchanged. 23 24 Kelly Cha responded that “fence” was added as an example, for transparency, and to avoid a 25 gray area. Regarding plantings, the vegetation requirements have been combined in the slope 26 stability area. If the PTC desires, the recommendation can be modified to ease provisions. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton commented that adding the term “fence” as an example is helpful, 29 but there needs to be phrasing to allow folks to replace a fence and to not consider it new. It 30 may need to be evaluated whether plantings need to be regulated versus recommended. The 31 goal of stabilizing banks may need to start with education and promotions for folks to 32 voluntarily plant the desired plants. 33 34 Commissioner Hechtman expressed that he appreciates the public’s participation. He does not 35 see justification or a benefit for a 30-foot setback. He has not seen science for going beyond 20 36 feet, but he could support 25 feet. There needs to be a balance for the corridor and yard space. 37 Regulations should not be imposed on property owners behind a floodwall if there is no true 38 benefit of a riparian atmosphere behind the wall, so folks behind floodwalls should be exempt. 39 The word “fences” is not a change but a clarification. If a fence is to be replaced with the same 40 height and materials as what previously existed, it will not trigger the new fence requirements. 41 He elects to proceed with discussing the existing draft as he does not find the changes 42 discussed to be fundamental. 43 44 Vice Chair Chang thanked the public for their valuable comments. She requested that staff 1 speak to new fences and plantings. 2 3 Kelly Cha stated if folks want to plant vegetation they should consider the listed options. 4 Additional vegetation requirements have been carried over to slope stability because it helps 5 bank stability. In the existing regulations, she believes some plantings are allowed if an 6 exception is approved. Within the slope stability area, because bank stability is the core reason 7 to establish the stream ordinance, staff wants it to meet the Comprehensive Plan policies. The 8 PTC may modify the provisions before forwarding to Council. 9 10 Vice Chair Chang spoke of the need to protect the riparian corridors. Riparian vegetation is 11 encouraged alongside channelized creeks because it provides shade for the creek. It seems that 12 the PTC broadly agrees on the ordinance as it applies to the rural areas, which should not be 13 delayed, and she hopes there can be agreement on the rural areas. She is concerned about 14 extending the exemption in the Baylands and west of Foothills to the 20K-square-feet or 1-acre 15 lots because there is a variance process in place. 16 17 Jennifer Armer clarified that the 20K square foot or 1 acre is not intended to be an exception. 18 Instead of requiring a 150-foot setback, it will be reduced to be the same 30-foot streamside 19 setback. 20 21 Vice Chair Chen expressed she is more comfortable with it at 20K, not 1 acre, because there is a 22 variance process in place. 23 24 Kelly Cha shared a working map showing the reason for staff’s recommendation. If 20K is used, 25 it would basically capture none of the impacted parcels. Increasing it to one acre would capture 26 some of them. It is more of an urban setting. 27 28 Jennifer Armer explained what the map is showing. She does not think any of the lots are less 29 than 20K square feet. 30 31 Vice Chair Chen noted that one-acre lots are large and, to the extent possible, building 32 structures as far away as possible should be encouraged. She is not sure if 30 feet is sufficient in 33 this area as this is exactly the type of area that should be protected. Environmental protections 34 need to be balanced with what is appropriate in the area. She prefers a variance process. She 35 understands 20K is not sufficient. She requested clarification on new versus replacement 36 fences. A property owner on Edgewood may want to replace a hurricane fence with something 37 more substantial because of security concerns. She wants to balance practicality with 38 protecting the stream bank. 39 40 Commissioner Ji thanked the public for their time and patience. He asked how many of the 139 41 properties on the map are within 20K feet. It would have been nice to have had the same due 42 diligence and analysis applied to the 783 parcels impacted by the ordinance in the urban area. A 43 public commenter noted that a 30-foot setback will be 60 percent of their property. In the rural 44 area, 75 feet seems somewhat reasonable. Regarding the Chair’s question about fundamental 1 change, he does not have enough information to provide a comment. 2 3 Kelly Cha responded that no buildable lots are under 20K square feet, which is why staff 4 recommends the modification. 5 6 Commissioner Peterson supported there being 2 motions and a separate vote for the wildlands 7 outside Highway 101 and Foothill versus the urban area between Highway 101 and Foothill. It is 8 a clear topic for the wildlands, the Baylands, and the hillsides. He explained that there is a fluid 9 situation within the urban area. There is not a corridor model, which can be done without a lot 10 of effort and with a consultant. There is no rush to make decisions about the urban area, and 11 there is incomplete information. He wants to hear a more coherent discussion from the JPA and 12 Silicon Valley Water. 13 14 Commissioner James remarked that there appears to be consensus related to the open areas, 15 and he supports moving that forward. The bar should be high and there should be strong 16 evidence for controlling individual property owners’ land. It does not make sense to compel 17 folks to plant riparian vegetation inside their fences. He wants to do no harm to the existing 18 riparian greenway or to property owners. The channeling in the urban areas is not a natural 19 stream. He is inclined to support a 20-foot buffer. There needs to be more evidence to take 20 more than that. 21 22 Chair Akin spoke of the program in 3.3.2 being explicit about treating naturalized and 23 channelized creeks differently and setting different parameters for them. Incremental changes 24 to what has been proposed in the draft are sufficient. There may be 8 changes with broad 25 agreement on 4 of them. Edgewood is unique because of the combination of hardened banks 26 and a significant security issue. Extending special treatment to San Francisquito Creek in general 27 goes too far. Once it is accepted that Edgewood is special, progress can be made on the 28 specifics and there can be discussion whether a 5-foot setback is needed from top of bank to 29 fence, the distance of streamside setback, and whether ornamental plantings inside fencing 30 need to be riparian. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton expressed that Edgewood deserves a callout and that it should be 33 examined whether other properties deserve one as well. A 20- to 25-foot setback seems 34 reasonable. There should be data for a 30-foot setback. Before regulating plants, they need to 35 be demonstrated. Replacement fencing needs to be clarified. She questioned how it will be 36 known if the environmental health of the city is going to be improved without a measurement, 37 scientific approach, or data. There should be a pursuit to improve creek health, which can start 38 with cleaning them and keeping them safe from criminal activity. She wants to protect the 39 environment and the people and their property. If the goal is to make something better, it has 40 to be known what it is that will be made better. 41 42 Commissioner Hechtman voiced that he supports exempting Edgewood at its current rather 43 than an expanded reach. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) made some 44 cogent points about environmental values of channelized creeks. He does not know if there 1 should be a separate set of guidelines for channelized and naturalized creeks. The RWQCB did 2 not defend protecting riparian values behind flood walls. The findings on Packet Pages 38 and 3 39 are potentially problematic and need more work. Concerning “no reasonable alternative,” 4 he provided an example of not being able to make such a finding. Regarding “special 5 circumstances,” if the creek is the special circumstance, the finding does nothing. If it is not, he 6 does not know what the special circumstance would be. He asked what the approximate cost is 7 for a qualified biologist to prepare an assessment, and suggested that requirement needs 8 further thought. The regulation prohibiting ornamental plants should be limited to the 9 streamside of the existing fence. Where Adobe Creek crosses 101, there is cluster of buildings 10 and a bike trail that is 8 feet wide, which would not qualify for the exception because its less 11 than 10’ wide, so there may need to be a treatment that will not make the buildings legal 12 nonconforming the day the ordinance is adopted. That needs to be solved as the ordinance 13 goes forward because it is not a realistic treatment for that group of properties. He does not 14 think the rural can be split from the urban because it is one ordinance, so it needs to return to 15 the PTC. On return, the map should be overlaid on an aerial. The one acre makes sense. He 16 does not want to do a compromise to pick a number between 30 and 150 or impose a burden 17 on folks of going through a variance procedure. Packet Page 36 should read “or paved public 18 trail or a service road,” as not all service roads are paved. Regarding Item (f)(C) on Packet Page 19 37, “the maximum extent possible” needs some work. 20 21 Kelly Cha answered that the cost for a qualified biologist to prepare an assessment ranges from 22 $2K to $5K. 23 24 Vice Chair Chang stated it is fine for things to be rendered legal nonconforming. If the goal of 25 the ordinance is to not make things worse, then what should be controlled is new construction, 26 not rebuilding on an existing footprint or a leading edge not being closer to a stream. 27 Landscaping and patios may be issues. It makes sense to not have trails on both sides of a 28 stream. She believes the rural areas can be split from the urbanized areas. She wants the rural 29 areas to be put into effect. If it will be continued, she wants there to be agreement on the rural 30 section. 31 32 MOTION 33 34 Vice Chair Chang moved staff’s recommendation for the ordinance as it applies to the “rural 35 areas” (the areas west of Foothill Expressway and east of 101) and staff’s recommendation as in 36 the packet with the 20K feet rather than the 1 acre. 37 38 SECOND 39 40 Commissioner Peterson seconded forced. 41 42 Vice Chair Chang stated the rural areas are the low-hanging fruit and have the most impact. 1 These are the most sensitive areas and need protection as highlighted by the Comp Plan. 2 3 Commissioner Peterson voiced that he is swayed by Vice Chair Chang’s arguments. He wants to 4 see a global model of everything between Foothill and 101. He has no problem giving a variance 5 to the area of lots by Adobe Creek. He does not think there will be anything controversial in 6 Council passing the Foothill and Baylands areas. 7 8 Chair Akin commented that staff has discussed the sensitivity of the lot size to which the 30-9 foot setback would apply and there are no answers to that. He asked if it is being 10 recommended that Council adopt this, trusting that staff will convey the uncertainties to 11 Council, or if this will continue with the PTC so the sizes can be adjusted at a date uncertain. 12 13 Vice Chair Chen replied that the lots need to be investigated one by one. It is not one number 14 for all. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman declared that he does not support the motion. It does not address the 17 concerns of the cluster of properties on the Bayshore side and makes them legal 18 nonconforming. Concerning the Foothill and Arastradero area, there is not information to make 19 a decision without seeing the overlay. Existing fences will become legal nonconforming and 20 there are concerns about material changes. Legal nonconforming is also being applied to 21 houses, guest houses, etc., and it is not known what it will apply to because the overlay has not 22 been presented. It is premature. He does not know what Council is going to do with only a piece 23 of an ordinance being forwarded and suspects Council will tell the PTC to finish it. A complete 24 package should be sent to Council. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton expressed that she empathizes with Commissioner Hechtman’s 27 comments. She inquired if the PTC will get the requested refinements and data. 28 29 Coleman Frick asked if data regarding the lots and the area Commissioner Hechtman spoke of is 30 being requested. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton stated there needs to be data to make a recommendation. The 33 changes are serious, and there is no data to justify them. There is also no data to move forward 34 on the rural areas. She queried if the information needed to make the decision can be obtained. 35 36 Jennifer Armer responded that some additional data can be provided, such as the overlay. It is 37 not within staff’s capacity or budgeting to provide some of the other data currently. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton questioned what message should be sent to Council with the motion. 40 She asked if the message is this is direction Council should go but that more information is 41 needed or is the message that there is enough information to move forward. 42 43 Vice Chair Chang remarked it is a mix of the two. Fluid information is preferred because every 1 parcel is going to be different. It is not realistic that the missing information will be received. It 2 is clear in the Comp Plan that the rural areas are important and high impact. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton stated she does not know what is going to be affected by the changes 5 other than property rights. There is nothing to measure the current status and the status after 6 the changes. 7 8 Commissioner Peterson proposed a friendly amendment to exclude Adobe Creek setback 9 outside 101 and the Baylands. He explained that north of Foothill will not be a problem. He 10 agreed with Vice Chair Chang regarding investigating each individual lot and letting those ride. 11 12 Commissioner Ji asked if the Adobe Creek setback outside 101 will cover all the desired 13 buildings. 14 15 Jennifer Armer questioned if the Adobe Creek exception includes the 2 buildings Commissioner 16 Hechtman is concerned about. A way to accomplish this may be to modify the 10-foot path 17 width to 8 feet. 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman noted that a width may not be needed because public/private street, 20 paved public trail, or service road protects those properties. He voiced that he is ready to 21 support a motion for the Baylands if it is broken into 2 motions. The Foothill, Arastradero, 22 Adobe Creek area (Esther Clark area) could be called a discrete area, and the 30 feet on an acre 23 or less could be limited to that area only. 24 25 Chair Akin noted if it is limited to that area the lot size does not need to be specified. 26 27 Vice Chair Chang commented that she is concerned about the Elwell Court properties because 28 there should not be more building there and asked if Commissioner Hechtman is referring to 29 that. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman responded that Elwell Court is commercial zoning, and he does not 32 believe those are housing opportunity sites. 33 34 Vice Chair Chang asked what the concern is with being legal nonconforming. 35 36 Commissioner Hechtman responded the only reason to make it legal nonconforming is because 37 it will best serve the environmental purposes to someday do something different and it would 38 impose a burden limiting the ability to redevelop those sites. The riparian impact will end on 39 the other side of a service road, paved path, or public/private street. He added that the rules 40 are being relaxed for government and asked why pick on private property owners. 41 42 Jennifer Armer wanted to make it clear that the discussion turned to the Baylands. 43 44 Commissioner Hechtman confirmed that the commission had turned the conversation back to 1 Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek. 2 3 Vice Chair Chen mentioned that she wishes to leave the Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek 4 properties as nonconforming. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton inquired why it would matter if they are legal nonconforming. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman answered that it has to do with fences and the utility of the property. 9 The only reason to do it is to benefit a sensitive environmental area, but there is a bisector of a 10 paved trail between it and the sensitive creek area. The ordinance says 10 feet, and he thinks 11 the trail is 8 feet. 12 13 Vice Chair Chang noted that her concern is related to previous conversations concerning trails 14 in urbanized areas and this is different. There is an incredible amount of housing density being 15 built in the southern area next to the Baylands. She explained that the trail is different than one 16 in an urbanized area. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The purpose of the ordinance 17 and doing limitations on the areas is to not make them worse. She wants to continue forward. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton noted that part of the creek is not natural, that it is channelized for a 20 few feet. 21 22 Commissioner Peterson stated he believes it is an irrigation ditch. It is established as 23 commercialized land with a levee. He elects to set this aside and move on. 24 25 Vice Chair Chang responded that it is Adobe Creek and goes deep into the Baylands. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton voiced that the requested recommendation cannot be completed 28 because of property ownership and making sure the value proposition or cost is understood. 29 She questioned how the motion can be adjusted to move forward. 30 31 Vice Chair Chang commented that she wants to leave it as is because it is not causing damage 32 and current use would become legal nonconforming. 33 34 Commissioner Templeton expressed that moving forward would create new harm to the 35 property owners. 36 37 Vice Chair Chang replied that the balance is appropriate in this case. 38 39 Commissioner Ji felt persuaded by Vice Chair Chang’s comments about future uses. 40 41 Jennifer Armer noted that the motion is to recommend staff’s recommendation for the rural, 42 open space, and Baylands areas as provided in the staff report, which will allow a reduced 43 setback for lots under 20K square feet, not 1 acre. Amendments were recommended but not 1 accepted. 2 3 VOTE MOTION 4 5 The clerk conducted roll call vote. 6 7 MOTION FAILED 2-5 (Chang, Ji) (Akin, Hechtman, James, Peterson, Templeton no) 8 9 Chair Akin remarked that he wants to correct the problem with the RE lots, which the motion 10 did not cover. 11 12 MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Peterson entertained the same motion but with the exception along Adobe 15 Creek and RE lots. 16 17 Jennifer Armer clarified that Commissioner Peterson is recommending staff’s recommendation 18 for the rural, open space, and Baylands areas included and attached to the staff report with 2 19 modifications – to remove the 10-foot width specification for the paved public path and to 20 allow a 30-foot streamside setback for the neighborhood referred to as Esther Clark. She will 21 make sure the ordinance language is clear. 22 23 SECOND 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion for discussion purposes. 26 27 Commissioner Ji queried if the Esther Clark neighborhood should be discussed at a future time 28 instead of setting the 30 feet and the 150 feet or if that area should be moved into the area 29 considered “urban.” It seems that subset will be shrunk significantly while it is not being done 30 for other neighborhoods. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman understood that the vote will be to remove the width issue, which 33 resolves his Bayside concern. He asked if the motion will also be to geographically treat the 34 Esther Clark neighborhood as part of the urban area. If that is done, then he will be comfortable 35 moving forward with the Foothill area outside Esther Clark. 36 37 Commissioner Ji inquired if defining that part of Esther Clark as urban would make it a shorter 38 setback or just in the category of undetermined now. He supports it being undetermined. He is 39 not comfortable setting a number. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman explained that it will be undetermined. 42 43 Commissioner Ji declared that he is supportive of the e subcomponents Commissioner 1 Hechtman mentioned. 2 3 Commissioner Peterson added that he is supportive. 4 5 Jennifer Armer restated the motion to be accepting staff’s recommendation for the rural, open 6 space, and Baylands areas with 2 modifications – removing the 10-foot minimum widths for the 7 paved public paths and roadways and to exclude the Esther Clark area from the Hillside area 8 neighborhood such that it will be part of the urban areas that will be discussed at a future 9 meeting. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman asked if the 3 findings are being recommended for an exception that 12 would apply in the hillsides, rural areas, and Bayside. He stated he does not know if he is ready 13 to do that. 14 15 Commissioner Ji remarked that if there is adoption of the motion as is for the rural or nonurban 16 areas that the written language of Section H Subsection 1 on Packet Page 38 would potentially 17 have to be accepted. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton questioned if “no reasonable alternative,” etc ., could be stricken. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman responded that there should be a more learned approach. He feels 22 there is consensus on some aspects and questions if that can be established without 23 recommending the ordinance go forward. The urban area and Esther Clark could be discussed 24 at a future meeting. 25 26 Chair Akin mentioned he has come to the same conclusion. He hoped it would be done for the 27 urbanized area, but he does not think it can be done at this meeting. 28 29 Commissioner Peterson formally withdrew the motion. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman agreed. 32 33 Jennifer Armer requested specific direction on what staff should come back to. For example, 34 there was not consensus about what should be done in the urbanized area, but there seemed 35 to be general support for a 25-foot streamside setback. 36 37 Chair Akin voiced that he has a list of comments from the public and commissioners. He 38 suggested proposing a few and taking straw polls. 39 40 Coleman Frick stated that to bring the PTC an item based on it being continued with new 41 information it is helpful to get direction based on the discussion. 42 43 Jennifer Armer asked if the PTC wants more information or revised ordinance language or if the 1 discussion should be continued with the current information. 2 3 Chair Akin replied some things can be resolved, but a few require more discussion. He stated he 4 thinks there is general agreement on Edgewood deserving a special exemption. He conducted a 5 straw poll first asking if new fencing in the slope stability area should not require Director or 6 Public Works approval or a slope stability study on Edgewood. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton noted that she will abstain from voting. 9 10 Four hands were raised in agreement. 11 12 Chair Akin inquired if new fencing in the slope stability area should not require Director or 13 Public Works approval or a slope stability study outside the Edgewood area. 14 15 Zero hands were raised in agreement. 16 17 Chair Akin queried if the 5-foot fence setback from top of bank should not apply in the 18 Edgewood area. 19 20 6 hands were raised in agreement. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton declared she is abstaining because these items have not been 23 discussed or need more discussion. 24 25 Jennifer Armer suggested that Chair Akin provide a list of topics to be listed in the Staff Report 26 as discussion topics at the next meeting. 27 28 Chair Akin replied that he will send a list of topics to staff. 29 30 MOTION 31 32 Chair Akin moved to continue the item to a date uncertain. 33 34 SECOND 35 36 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 37 38 VOTE MOTION 39 40 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 41 42 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, James, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) 43 1 Commissioner Ji mentioned that he will email some additional information to staff. 2 3 Jennifer Armer commented that staff welcomes any thoughts and questions, which can be 4 emailed to her, Sam, or Kelly Cha. Such may provide additional information that staff can share 5 with the PTC when the item is rescheduled. 6 7 Chair Akin thanked staff for their work. 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9 10 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 11 Minutes of July 9, 2025 12 13 MOTION 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 20 21 VOTE MOTION 22 23 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 24 25 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, James, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) 26 27 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 28 29 Commissioner Templeton remarked that she appreciates the collaboration at this meeting. 30 31 Chair Akin stated there had been a roundtable with board and commission chairs and vice 32 chairs, the Mayor, and Vice Mayor. The Vice Mayor is interested in improving onboarding and 33 Council relationships with boards and commissions. The Mayor is interested in opportunities for 34 commissions to team up and share expertise. There is good opportunity for the PTC to do that 35 with the ARB. They are working on proposals for such. He hopes to have specific information in 36 the next month, but some will be discussed at the upcoming retreat. There will be a boards and 37 commissions recognition event tomorrow. 38 39 Vice Chair Chang announced there is a volunteer opportunity for 1,000 volunteers a week for 40 track watch. If interested, email trackwatchpaloalto@gmail.com. 41 42 Commissioner Ji mentioned that the San Antonio Community Advisory Group had their first 1 meeting last week. Meeting the stakeholders was helpful. Folks from Parks, ARB, and the 2 community attended. It was nice to build relationships. He reported nothing of substance as it 3 was the first meeting. 4 ADJOURNMENT 5 6 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting and thanked the public for attending. 7