HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-10 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: December 10, 2025 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 p.m. 4
5
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6
7
Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 8
9
The clerk called roll. Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chen, Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner 10
James, Commissioner Ji and Commissioner Templeton were present in person. Commissioner 11
Peterson was present remotely. 12
13
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 14
15
Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced there were no agenda changes, additions or 16
deletions. 17
18
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark W. suggested that Third Thursday live music be a program from 19
April to October to attract stimulus spending and that resources, such as staff time, etc., be put 20
into it and that there be work done with the landlord of 456 University Avenue to turn that 21
property into a cultural asset for public benefit. 22
23
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 24
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 25
26
Jennifer Armer stated the regularly scheduled second meeting for December had been 27
cancelled. The South Palo Alto Bike Ped Connectivity item and a planned home zone PHZ 28
project at 808 San Antonio Road were tentatively scheduled for the first January meeting. There 29
was also potential for a third item. The information would be published when available. On 30
December 8, Council approved the Dark Sky/Lightening Ordinance with modifications, which 31
would be implemented. 32
33
Office of Transportation Ozzy Arce commented that the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Draft Plan 34
was presented to Council on December 1, which they spoke positively about. Council wanted 35
staff to revisit certain comp plan policies that limited street improvements the OOT could move 36
forward with and to reconsider bike facilities on portions of Middlefield rather than the entire 37
corridor. Staff was preparing the final plan for presentation and adoption by Council in early 38
2026. Starting in 2023 and through the spring of 2025 Palo Alto conducted speed surveys at 39
various locations and on December 1 Council approved the second reading of the surveys, so 40
OOT could now collaborate with the Police Department to encourage the enforcement of speed 1
on key arterials with the use of radar. 2
3
Ozzy Arce stated that on November 10 Council reviewed the quiet zone quad gate 4
recommendation to install 4 systems at Churchill, Meadow and Charleston to make the rail 5
crossings eligible for the quiet zone designation. The traffic garden/Palo Alto Bike Safety Park at 6
the Ventura Community Center recently opened. On December 1, Council reviewed 8 7
alternatives for the South Palo Alto Bikeway Connectivity Project and narrowed it to Alternative 8
A. Staff was directed to advance 2 variants of Alternative A – A1 being a signalized crossing of 9
Alma and El Dorado and A2 being a tunnel under Alma and the Caltrain tracks. There was a 10
slight preference for Alternative A2, the full grade separation. There was currently a discussion 11
occurring in Council Chambers regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project and looking at the 12
alternatives and the 15-percent design as part of the preliminary environmental and 13
engineering phase. 14
15
Commissioner Templeton requested that Nara Cammack’s name be mentioned when providing 16
updates on the traffic garden. 17
18
Commissioner Ji thanked Ozzy Arce for a thorough report. 19
20
Chair Akin asked what was happening with the Middlefield bike lanes and the BPTP. 21
22
Ozzy Arce answered that bike improvements along certain areas of Middlefield (not the entire 23
corridor) would be considered. The section of Middlefield and downtown was on the near-term 24
list. It was believed that a redundancy in the bike network in a more dense urban area was 25
appropriate. Also being considered was the area on Middlefield between Greene Middle School 26
and Matadero Creek and crossing Oregon Expressway as well as the commercial Midtown 27
Shopping Center. Council saw a benefit in focusing on Middlefield, especially key sections, so 28
staff would move forward with the recommendations. 29
30
Chair Akin expressed that critical public feedback had been received about the segment 31
between Channing and the creek and hoped that would be addressed. 32
ACTION ITEMS 33
34
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2100-2400 Geng Road [24PLN-00356]: 35
Recommendation on Site and Design, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative 36
Map Applications to Demolish Four Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct 65 37
Three-Story Buildings Containing 145 For Sale Townhome Units. Thirteen Percent 38
(19) of the Units Would Be Deed Restricted to Low Income Households. The Vesting 39
Tentative Map Would Merge Two Parcels and Re-Subdivide For Condominium 40
Purposes. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California 41
Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was 42
Filed on July 8, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA 43
Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zoning District: ROLM 1
(E)(D)(AD) -Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (Embarcadero) with Site and 2
Design and Automobile Dealership Combining Districts. 3
4
Chair Akin disclosed that he had spoken with the applicant briefly a couple days before the 5
packet came out but there was nothing to report that was not already in the public record. 6
7
Senior Planner Steven Switzer provided details related to the project's location and the history 8
of the project. Staff was tentatively scheduled for a meeting with the ARB on January 15 and for 9
a meeting with Council in March. This was for a Conditional Use Permit and a portion of the 10
project site was not identified in the Housing Element. It was also for a site and design permit 11
for development in the same zoning district as well as a vesting tentative map for the 12
condominium component of the project. Steven Switzer outlined what would occur on the site 13
and briefly discussed the State laws and the constraints Palo Alto had. The project would be a 14
little above the minimum density requirement. Under State Density Bonus Law, the applicant 15
was afforded further protections of waivers or concessions from applicable standards that 16
might physically prevent the project from being built at the requested density. The site plan and 17
the rendering of the project were displayed on slides. Per the ARB’s feedback, colors had been 18
changed from what was presented in the initial application. It was a builder’s remedy project 19
and could not be denied on the basis of an inconsistency with the Zoning Ordinance or the 20
Comprehensive Plan. 21
22
Steven Switzer voiced that the project applicant was afforded waivers and concessions from 23
applicable standards should they be identified. The project would be in conformance with the 24
RM-20 development standards, objective design standards, the Baylands Master Plan, the 25
Baylands design guidelines and the site assessment and design guidelines. Feedback received 26
from the October 16 ARB meeting included the project incorporating more housing typologies 27
than previously proposed. The ARB suggested incorporating a duplex, which the applicant 28
agreed to. Lighting considerations were a concern with the proximity to the Baylands, so that 29
should be a condition of approval. The applicant agreed to revise the initial proposal as it 30
related to materials and colors to be sympathetic to the Baylands. Related to the floodplain, the 31
ARB had requested more information on the grade changes and the retaining walls, which was 32
included in the architectural plans. Common open space would be provided. The majority of the 33
units would have private rooftop decks and consideration could be given to a design different 34
than what had been presented. 35
36
Steven Switzer noted, related to the financial feasibility of the project, it would be necessary to 37
raise the townhomes out of the floodplain, so the applicant had been working with the City and 38
Public Works to develop a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) with FEMA. Following 39
that would be a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Due to raising the site, trees would be removed 40
and there would be a retaining wall for the Baylands Athletic Center shared property. 41
Approximately 50 trees on City property would be impacted, which the arborist recommended 42
removing. The arborist’s report detailed the impacts. The topic was scheduled to be heard at 43
the PRC on December 16. A Parkland Improvement Ordinance had been drafted and was 44
available for public comment. As for the environmental analysis, it was determined that the 1
project would not have any adverse impacts and that it was consistent with the Comprehensive 2
Plan with standard conditions applied, which were detailed in the Record of Land Use Action. 3
Staff recommended the PTC consider the project exempt from CEQA and to recommend that 4
Council approve the site and design, Conditional Use Permit and vesting tentative map based 5
on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval found in the draft record of Land Use 6
Action in Attachment B. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton asked if there was any history of disturbance to that soil or any 9
concern with the amount of soil disturbance. 10
11
Steven Switzer answered there was no concern with the amount of soil disturbance. 12
13
Commissioner Hechtman inquired if the City’s trees being removed were at the boundary line 14
between the ball field and the subject site and if some portion of the 648 new trees being 15
planted would be planted on City property on the other side of the retaining wall. 16
17
Steven Switzer replied that the City’s trees being removed were at the boundary line between 18
the ball field and the site. The 648 new trees would be located on the project site. Work on City 19
parkland required a Parkland Improvement Ordinance, which would be addressed at the 20
December 16 meeting. 21
22
Commissioner Hechtman queried if the December 16 meeting might result in new trees on City 23
property. 24
25
Steven Switzer responded that based on the Tree Preservation Manual and what was proposed 26
in the ordinance, it would allow some flexibility to have a planting or an in-lieu fee paid for the 27
trees. Whatever the PRC should decide would move forward with the Parkland Improvement 28
Ordinance. 29
30
Commissioner Hechtman questioned if PRC wanting trees planted would affect the 648 trees on 31
the site. 32
33
Steven Switzer answered there would be trees in addition to the 648 trees on the site. 34
35
Vice Chair Chang asked if the 648 trees would replace the loss of 648 trees on the site and if the 36
PRC would consider additional trees. 37
38
Steven Switzer answered that the 648 trees would replace the loss of 648 trees on the site and 39
the PRC would consider additional trees. 40
41
Commissioner Templeton hoped replacement trees proposed to the PRC would not be wildfire 42
hazards. 43
44
Steven Switzer thought the applicant indicated that more than half of the trees would be native 1
species. 2
3
Commissioner Ji requested examples of what denial would mean in this case. 4
5
Steven Switzer answered that when dealing with builder’s remedy projects denial would be 6
reserved for a public safety or health issue imposed by the project rather than an inconsistency 7
with the zoning standard. 8
9
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that grounds to deny the project were very narrow 10
and difficult findings to make. If the PTC believed there were specific adverse impacts on public 11
health and safety based on objective standards, staff could look into it but staff was not 12
anticipating such. 13
14
Commissioner James asked if staff had anything to add to summarize the flooding remediation; 15
how it was determined what the elevation the land should be; if the plan contemplated a SRTS 16
for bicyclists; if there was a description of the potential bike path to Caltrain; what the safest 17
path would be to public schools; what the income qualification and selection process would be 18
and if it would favor certain jobs, such as teachers; and if there would be any deed restriction or 19
remedy if a resident’s income should increase above an income qualification amount. 20
21
Steven Switzer had nothing else to add concerning flooding remediation. Land should be above 22
the base flood elevation (BFE). In the Staff Report, there was mention of transportation, access 23
points, bike lanes and the trail network. The Staff Report noted the distance from the project 24
site to the Caltrain station. There were options for paths to public schools. Using the Palo Alto 25
pedestrian and bike bridge south of the project site might be ideal. The governing document for 26
the income qualification and the selection process was the BMR agreement. A for-sale model 27
was different than rental properties. Capturing the 50- to 80-percent AMI would be at the time 28
of purchase. The City utilized Alta Housing for BMR unit selection, and Steven Switzer was not 29
privy to favoring teachers, etc., in the selection process. 30
31
Jennifer Armer added, regarding SRTS, that applicants were encouraged to think about how 32
their development would fit into the existing fabric and the Transportation team always 33
considered additional facilities possibly being needed. Something that could extend to a full 34
safe route to school was often beyond what the City could require in terms of development 35
improvements. Staff tried to identify immediate connections that could be required as part of a 36
development project but there were often limitations as to how far that could go. Concerning 37
income qualification and the selection process, preference was given to those who lived and 38
worked in Palo Alto, though not usually by employment type. There was a wait list for those 39
applying for BMR units. Alta Housing reviewed applications to ensure criteria qualification. 40
41
Commissioner Templeton queried if the housing criteria was specific across the city or specific 42
to this project. 43
1
Jennifer Armer replied that criteria was the same across the city, although some projects could 2
choose to have additional criteria but this project did not. 3
4
Commissioner Hechtman outlined a possible SRTS route. 5
6
Commissioner Templeton noted that the route described by Commissioner Hechtman would 7
not take one to Duveneck or Walter Hays. 8
9
Commissioner Peterson questioned what the distance was to a Caltrain Station or public transit 10
and what the rule was for a builder’s remedy project as it related to distance to public transit. 11
12
Steven Switzer responded there was not a distance requirement to public transit for a builder's 13
remedy project but the distance from the project to the nearest Caltrain station was 2.2 miles. 14
15
Jennifer Armer added there was another waiver based on distance to public transit but it did 16
not apply to this project. 17
18
Founding Partner Strada Investment Group Michael Cohen provided a background of the site 19
and outlined what the zoning permitted. Under State law, a denser, taller multifamily project 20
could be developed but the applicant had not elected to do that because there was an 21
undersupply for first-time homebuying opportunities in the area, especially for families. There 22
would be a wide variety of home sizes and price points and elements to support 23
multigenerational families and aging in place. To focus on community building, the layout and 24
landscape plans had gathering spaces, etc. The number of trees on the site would be triple what 25
currently existed and more than 50 percent would be native species. Eucalyptus would not be 26
planted. The feedback from ARB had been incorporated in the designs. The applicant reached 27
out to a number of stakeholders and there had been a positive meeting with the Palo Alto 28
Airport Association. Buyers would be notified of there being an airport in the vicinity with an 29
avigation easement, etc. The applicant had done similar projects, largely townhomes, east of 30
the 101 and had a clear understanding what needed to be done to lift the site out of the 31
floodplain and how to convert former office properties into residential communities. 32
33
Principal and Senior Architect at Dahlin Group Darian Wagner discussed some of the ideas 34
behind the architecture. There would be attached and detached homes and duplexes ranging 35
from 1,600 to 3,000 square feet at different price points. The duplexes would have balconies 36
and roof decks facing open spaces. The attached townhouses would have garages. Darian 37
Wagner discussed the materials that would be used. 38
39
Principal at The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., Morgan Burke spoke about the landscape design 40
creating a comfortable, lush, garden-style community with opportunities for residents to 41
gather. There would open spaces totaling just under an acre throughout the site with sidewalks 42
connecting them. Single-family homes and duplexes would have private fenced yards. There 43
would be outdoor cooking areas for large gatherings, benches throughout, paths cutting 1
through the plantings, open lawn space and pocket parks with a variety of native plantings that 2
would be drought tolerant and hopefully create habitat for small animals, pollinators and birds. 3
The removed tree planting would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. The eucalyptus trees on the 4
neighboring site could be removed, which would be above and beyond the removals shown. 5
6
PUBLIC COMMENTS 7
8
Stephen L. looked forward to supporting the project when presented to Council. Stephen L. 9
found that this project would help provide needed affordable housing for first-time 10
homebuyers. Stephen L. hoped the PTC could work with staff and Council to get a streamlined 11
building process. 12
13
Winter D. was not pleased with the development and understood there would be a low number 14
of BMR units and that low-income housing would be segregated and with a fewer number of 15
bedrooms. Winter D. did not consider Baylands housing to be good for the City’s sustainability 16
and climate goals and requested a concession not be granted. 17
18
Scott O. supported the project. It appeared that it would be a good housing opportunity with 19
access to transit and bikeways and community and green spaces with good unit sizes. Scott O. 20
aligned with the comments made by Stephen L. related to needing more housing. 21
22
Michael Cohen noted the affordable units would consist of 3 and 4 bedroom units and not be 23
segregated. Though not legally required, they would comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 24
Converting an old office park of this density to residential would significantly reduce the 25
amount of traffic to and from the site. This project would increase housing and reduce parking, 26
which was rare. 27
28
Commissioner Templeton was excited about the project and encouraged the applicant to speak 29
about the environmental benefits in more depth. Commissioner Templeton questioned if there 30
would be shortcut park access. Commissioner Templeton was concerned about access to 31
schools, so the Planning Department needed to provide strong feedback to improve the area 32
and maybe the PRC needed to discuss it. Commissioner Templeton noted that the design 33
provided for wind protection but questioned if there would be heat protection. Commissioner 34
Templeton mentioned this was a migratory bird highway and that birds would try to nest on the 35
roof decks. 36
37
Morgan Burke answered there would be a park path connection to the park. As for heat 38
protection, there would be robust tree planting. 39
40
Darian Wagner added that covered balconies would provide heat protection. 41
42
Michael Cohen did not know about birds nesting but the buildings would be lower height and 1
density with less glazing. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton remarked that if the vision was to not be disruptive and integrate 4
with the environment, the bird discussion should be put to the forefront. Maybe the trees 5
could be of appropriate height and density for birds to land. 6
7
Vice Chair Chang inquired why there would be only 50 percent native trees and where folks 8
would store bikes since there would be only 1 bike space per unit. 9
10
Morgan Burke replied that the tree plantings could be studied. The nonnative trees would be 11
climate-adapted species that would do well in this area. Many native trees had aggressive root 12
systems and the lot was tight. Morgan Burke was trying to strike a balance. 13
14
Michael Cohen responded that garages could be used for bike storage. 15
16
Darian Wagner added that some units, such as the duplexes, would have 2 bike parking spaces 17
and some units would have additional storage space. 18
19
Vice Chair Chang was most concerned about bike parking for the townhouses with tandem 20
parking spaces. Vice Chair Chang asked if abiding by the Dark Skies Ordinance was mentioned 21
anywhere in the conditions of approval. 22
23
Darian Wagner stated, regarding bike parking, that some units would have space enough to fit 24
more than 2 cars and there would be space along the side of the building, which would be 25
secure. 26
27
Jennifer Armer voiced that Dark Skies was adopted on December 8 and there were some 28
modifications as part of the adoption but the PTC could recommend that be added to the 29
conditions of approval. 30
31
Commissioner Ji spoke of the Housing Element listing 175 units for Lot 2100 to 2200 Geng Road 32
but that 145 units were proposed. Commissioner Ji questioned if the hope was that all units 33
would be affordable and if thought had been given to units having a diverse number of 34
bedrooms, not only 3 or 4 bedrooms. 35
36
Steven Switzer responded that when the site was identified, it was subscribed 175 units but it 37
was only an estimate of what a developer might do. 38
39
Jennifer Armer clarified that when staff assigned a certain number of units to a potential 40
housing development site as part of the Housing Element it was a projection and an estimate of 41
the number of units likely to occur. It was not uncommon that proposals reflected fewer units 42
than projected. 43
44
Michael Cohen responded that the market rate units would be affordable but, on a relative 1
basis, all units would be much less expensive than what was typically available in the Bay Area. 2
Regarding number of bedrooms, a 2-bedroom unit would not be efficient use of the space. 3
4
Commissioner Hechtman asked if the path to the ballpark was depicted on A.5.1 as the space 5
between Units 14 and 15, if thought had been given to glass possibly being broken due to balls 6
from the ballpark, what the landscaping vision was for the front row of units looking out over 7
the ball field, what the average height of the retaining wall would be along the back row and if 8
building a moderate-rate development had been contemplated. 9
10
Morgan Burke answered that the path to the ballpark would be to the left of Unit 1. Building a 11
moderate rate development would not be economically feasible. 12
13
Michael Cohen replied that thought had been given to glass possibly being broken due to balls 14
from the ballpark but it was not likely that anyone would be able to hit a ball that distance. 15
16
Morgan Burke responded that the front row of units looking out over the ball field would have 17
private yards, so the applicant would not do a program and residents would design their own 18
backyards. Two trees per yard would be planted along the entire back row. There would also be 19
a 6-foot tall fence mounted on the retaining wall. The average height of the retaining wall along 20
the back row would be 2 feet. 21
22
Commissioner Peterson inquired if the builder’s remedy required a skilled and trained 23
workforce or if it was triggered through a CEQA process or funding sources if there was public 24
funding. 25
26
Albert Yang answered there was no set requirement on the project. 27
28
Chair Akin queried if the color temperature of exterior lighting had been considered. 29
30
Morgan Burke replied that Sheet L5.2 addressed bird-safe lighting and the temperature would 31
be 2700 kelvins. 32
33
Commissioner Templeton requested that the applicant speak to the lawn choice as it related to 34
water use. 35
36
Morgan Burke responded that water use could be offset in a variety of different ways. There 37
would be many low water use shrub plantings. 38
39
Commissioner Templeton liked the project but hoped the City would consider more in the 40
space and that nearby former industrial commercial sites might be new neighbors if the project 41
should move forward. In general, Commissioner Templeton liked the diversity of the different 1
levels of income, size of units and the proximity to employment opportunities. 2
3
Vice Chair Chang was pleased to see the office conversion, adequate parking, that there would 4
be 19 affordable units with 3 bedrooms, the open space per unit, that the existing affordability 5
was in the 50- to 80-percent AMI and the natural plantings. Vice Chair Chang hoped to have the 6
highest percentage of native trees as possible and that there be a condition of approval related 7
to the Dark Skies Ordinance. There might not be enough bike parking. Vice Chair Chang 8
discussed the project providing fewer units of housing than what was calculated in the Housing 9
Element, although there were many good reasons. As such a project was desired by the market, 10
it raised the question of the overall housing allocation and the State possibly being misguided in 11
terms of what was actually feasible for the market. 12
13
Commissioner Ji was excited about the adequate parking, the large bedrooms and the amount 14
of open space. Commissioner Ji preferred that moderate income housing be allocated but it 15
appeared that the market had spoken. 16
17
Commissioner James was pleased to see the office space redeveloped into residential, that the 18
zoning would match fairly closely and it would not be a 30-story building, that it would be 19
family oriented and that folks would be availed of the Baylands. The applicant had done a good 20
job designing the site and solving problems. The study session with the ARB had been 21
productive and was an example of the kind of sensitivity that all builder’s remedy projects 22
should conform to. 23
24
Commissioner Hechtman supported the staff recommendation. It was a great project with 25
style. Commissioner Hechtman appreciated the applicant listening to the ARB. Commissioner 26
Hechtman liked that there were grocery stores, etc., near the location and the open space 27
possibilities. Commissioner Hechtman asked if the PTC could impose conditions of approval 28
related to the Dark Sky Ordinance, increasing bike parking and increasing and native plantings 29
above 50 percent if the developer was not agreeable. 30
31
Albert Yang stated there would need to be findings to impose conditions of approval related to 32
the Dark Sky Ordinance, increasing bike parking and increasing native plantings above 50 33
percent. If the PTC believed there were necessary conditions, the conditions could be imposed 34
as long as they did not render the project infeasible. 35
36
Commissioner Peterson supported the staff recommendation. It was an innovative place and 37
near many attractions and jobs. Commissioner Peterson’s first interest was the quality of the 38
construction, which the applicant did not address. 39
40
Chair Akin recommended moving the project forward. The larger units were great for families. 1
Chair Akin agreed with reducing the office oversupply. The project was compatible with 2
adjacent uses to a greater extent than normal and it had better environmental compatibility 3
than the existing uses and other things considered elsewhere. Ownership opportunity was a 4
plus. Chair Akin wished there was more opportunity for a variety of housing types that could 5
sustain people through several life stages, although he understood the economics were 6
constraints. The project had less than half the density and much less affordability than what 7
had been anticipated. 8
9
The RHNA target for low-income housing in this range was 40 percent, which closely matched 10
the existing distributions in the city and the county. Chair Akin stated that with the State 11
requiring only 13 percent of units to be affordable to qualify such a development, if most 12
projects were like this one, the city would gentrify rapidly and there would be a risk of 13
decertification at the next HCD review because of failure to make enough progress on 14
affordability. A better way to deal with it was needed. Some of that would be arranging 15
financing on a larger scale and Chair Akin hoped some of it would be working more closely with 16
developers in the future to find other ways to address it. If the project had 1 building of 1- and 17
2-bedroom flats, it could have made a difference. The constraints imposed by the State did not 18
guarantee new residents affordability or the desired quality of life. 19
20
Commissioner Hechtman suggested changes to the document language related to the Record 21
of Land Use Action on Packet Page 25, Policy T-3.9 on Packet Page 26, Findings 1 and 2 on 22
Packet Page 28, the housing element goals and policies and the reference to the trees on 23
Packet Page 29, Section 8 (final map) on Packet Page 30 and Number 17 referencing the trees 24
on Packet Page 35. Commissioner Hechtman explained why staff should review the Public 25
Works Urban Forestry Section on Packet Pages 46 to 48. 26
27
Chair Akin asked, regarding the Public Works Urban Forestry Section, if street trees would need 28
protection. 29
30
Steven Switzer answered that street trees along Geng Road would need protection. 31
32
Commissioner Hechtman inquired if the trees along the edge of the property on Geng where 33
the raised fill would taper down to meet the existing grade would remain. 34
35
Jennifer Armer responded that the trees along the edge of the property on Geng where the 36
raised fill would taper would remain. 37
38
Commissioner Hechtman requested that staff review Packet Pages 46 to 48, although changes 39
might not be necessary. 40
41
Chair Akin stated staff had been provided with language changes he had suggested earlier. 1
2
MOTION 3
4
Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation with an added condition of approval that 5
the project comply with the Dark Skies Ordinance, to recommend that staff work with the 6
applicant to increase the percentage of native trees (the applicant indicated they would 7
increase the percentage) and for staff to look at the suggested language changes recommended 8
by Chair Akin and Commissioner Hechtman. 9
10
Commissioner Ji queried if the additions needed to currently tie to a specific finding. 11
12
Jennifer Armer did not believe the additions needed to tie to a specific finding at this time. The 13
applicant had agreed to the additional condition of approval, which was an acceptable way to 14
include it with no need to specifically reference the findings. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 19
20
VOTE MOTION 21
22
The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 23
24
MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Templeton, 25
Commissioner James, Commissioner Hechtman, Vice Chair Chang, Chair) 26
27
Votes were cast enthusiastically. 28
29
[The Commission took a 15-minute break] 30
31
3. Request for the Planning and Transportation Commission to Recommend the City 32
Council Adopt the Draft Ordinance Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly 33
Design) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of 34
the Palo Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 35
Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). 36
37
Senior Planner Kelly Cha presented the Draft Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance. The City’s 38
Comprehensive Plan included a policy that encouraged bird-friendly friendly design regulations 39
to reduce the potential for bird collisions and it had been a Council priority objective for the last 40
several years. Since 2024, feedback had been received from the ARB, the PTC and community 41
members. Staff received a recommendation at the last PTC hearing and the direction was 42
reflected in Attachment A of the report. Kelly Cha outlined the ordinance at a high level. There 1
were 3 options to meet the bird-friendly design requirements, which included visual cues. The 2
Draft Ordinance would allow alternative compliance but it would require a report from a 3
professional with specific accreditation. A few structures and buildings would be exempt. Staff 4
became aware of cost and availability concerns related to treated glazing and other cities had 5
essentially exempted single-family homes. 6
7
Kelly Cha stated films and decals were affordable but posed some environmental and 8
installation concerns. Insect screens might not be architecturally compatible for some window 9
openings. Manufactured glazing might be the most viable option for single-family homes but it 10
would be an added cost. Staff recommended exempting single-family homes. Since the PTC 11
might not want to exempt all single-family homes, staff suggested considering removing 12
replacement of existing windows from the Applicability Section and/or applying size thresholds 13
for new or replacement windows. Staff recommended removing the 300-foot buffer from the 14
bird-sensitive area (BSA), in order to consistently apply the requirements, and to remove the 15
accreditation and years-of-experience requirement from the Alternative Compliance Section as 16
accreditation did not exist outside Canada and years of experience might not contribute to a 17
professional’s qualifications and would unnecessarily shrink the pool of candidates. After 18
receiving the PTC’s recommendation on the Draft Ordinance, staff would present the Draft 19
Ordinance to Council for adoption, which was anticipated to occur early next year. 20
21
Vice Chair Chang addressed (2)(A) on Packet Page 112 and queried what was meant by 22
elevation versus façade. 23
24
Kelly Cha explained the definition of elevation and noted there was an elevation definition. 25
26
Commissioner Ji requested that staff speak to the ARB’s feedback and how it would intersect 27
with the PTC’s recommendation. 28
29
Kelly Cha noted there was a link to the ARB’s feedback. There had been 2 study sessions and a 30
24-square-foot threshold was added to the design standards. The main discussion point was 31
applicability so not to increase the burden on single-family homes and small-scale projects. 32
33
Commissioner Hechtman asked if there was data showing an increase in bird strikes in 34
proximity to waterways, particularly creeks. 35
36
Kelly Cha responded that San Francisco studied national research (not specific to the Bay Area 37
or Palo Alto) over 10 years ago and used 300 feet as a buffer from creeks and water bodies and 38
some parks and open space but that study was not linked to any Staff Reports. 39
40
Commissioner Templeton asked if the research addressed all types of birds, as it would vary 1
based on bird type. 2
3
Kelly Cha did not know the types of birds the research addressed. Most of the studies focused 4
on the East Coast. 5
6
Commissioner Peterson wanted to better understand the height requirement and the division 7
between residential and commercial and when there would be a trigger to change windows. 8
Commissioner Peterson asked if there was a concern of geese flying into the top floors of the 9
Palo Alto Headquarters. 10
11
Kelly Cha replied that the current Draft Ordinance indicated that any windows replaced or 12
installed would have to comply with the requirements. There was no concern for certain bird 13
species flying into the top floors of Palo Alto Headquarters. There were currently no height 14
thresholds. For commercial buildings with retail, it would include anything above the second 15
story. For residential and nonretail buildings, the entire façade or elevation would need to be 16
considered. 17
18
Jennifer Armer responded that the distinction between commercial and residential pertained to 19
City policy rather than frequency of bird strikes. It was balancing the City’s priorities for 20
environmental and supporting housing and retail. 21
22
Vice Chair Chang inquired if a permit would be required for any new or replacement window. 23
24
Jennifer Armer answered that a permit would be required for new and replacement windows. 25
26
Vice Chair Chang did not think that was the PTC’s intention as an accidentally broken window 27
should not be included. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton noted that this was in competition with the City’s goal to replace old 30
windows with energy efficient windows. 31
32
Commissioner Ji referenced Section 6 on Packet Page 114 and queried if this would become 33
effective for a project that was 99-percent complete. 34
35
Jennifer Armer answered that “deemed complete” applied to the permit stage. 36
37
PUBLIC COMMENTS 38
39
Daniel H. of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance speaking on behalf of 9 (DeAnna H., Pooja K., 40
Adam S., Cynthia S., Mohit T., Cindy W., Michael M., Nancy Y., Lisa H.) (presentation) generally 41
agreed with staff’s recommendation to exclude or exempt residential properties or at a 42
minimum treat all residential properties the same. Daniel H. observed 1 bird strike in 24 years 1
and a neighbor observed 1 in 30 years in relationship to their homes. An approach to doing 2
bird-strike studies might be to invite environmental groups to present data and studies. A 2013 3
bird collision study related to the California Academy of Sciences Building determined 4 things 4
needed to be determined – bird species, collision propensity, conservation status and the 5
building circumstance. Daniel H. objected to the ordinance indicating shades and screens 6
needed to be permanent and to the application of plastic dots and films. Homeowners needed 7
clear unobstructed windows. Residential properties should be exempt until data was available. 8
Daniel H. voiced why Yale researchers recommended against distinguishing between bird-safe 9
areas. Daniel H. questioned how 40 percent would be measured. Daniel H. had not received 10
notice of the ordinance. There should be guidelines, not regulations. If there should be an 11
ordinance, Daniel H. suggested following the lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and 12
Berkeley. 13
14
Junyan W. speaking on behalf of 4 (Rani F., Linda R., Laura M., Diane M.) (presentation) served 15
as Co-Chair of the Environmental Action Committee at the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and 16
provided examples of unobstructed glass patterns that significantly reduced bird strikes. Junyan 17
W. spoke of a bird collision study conducted from October 2020 to April 2022 and it was 18
determined that birds struck glass 4 stories high. A Romanian study showed that collisions 19
occurred most with clean glass, fewer with dusty glass, that graffiti reduced them further and 20
that windows with dust and graffiti had very few collisions. Visual cues were highly effective in 21
birds recognizing glass as a barrier. 22
23
Shani K., Environmental Advocate for the Santa Clara County Bird Alliance, speaking on behalf 24
of 5 (Margaret H., Connie C., Lyn H., Doria S., Alan K.) (presentation) spoke of her background in 25
ecology. Shani K. discussed migratory birds being more at risk of collisions than residential birds 26
and protecting the environment being important. Much information could be found at 27
stopbirdcollisions.org. Replacing windows in a way that would create a defined hazard should 28
be retrofitted. Mountain View’s requirements for North Bayshore were reasonable. Shani K. 29
suggested figuring out how to apply the hazardous requirement to hazardous situations but not 30
to everything. The 300-foot buffer was important. The alternative compliance definition was 31
problematic. Shani K. did not agree with exempting all residential homes. San Francisco had 32
identified location and element hazards. 33
34
Jeffrey S. spoke of mullions preventing bird collisions. Jeffrey S. felt the ordinance would relieve 35
the City from its burden of proof and shift it to residents in BSAs. 36
37
Ed F. considered the regulation to be burdensome to residents. Ed F. lived about 600 feet from 38
the creek and in 25 years observed 1 bird strike. Ed F. suggested doing a study or not 39
proceeding with the ordinance. 40
41
Charlie W., Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, had heard concerns that the ordinance was too 42
broad, not gauged to local conditions and too restrictive. Charlie W. mentioned that more data 43
was needed and suggested there be a study to understand the scale of the issue, to determine 1
where birds were located and to assess collision frequency to justify the cost of the 2
requirements before adopting the ordinance. The ordinance did not balance overall benefit, 3
occupant experience and construction costs and it did not account for all building structures in 4
the city. Charlie W. requested there be practical alternatives rather than blanket restrictions 5
across all nonresidential buildings. 6
7
Dashiell L., Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, supported the 8
ordinance, the 300-foot buffer, applying standards to new hazardous architectural features and 9
exempting residential development outside the BSA. Dashiell L. read a statement from the 10
American Bird Conservancy regarding factors influencing the risks of birds colliding with 11
buildings and noted that about a dozen studies indicated that reflectivity of vegetation and the 12
ability to see vegetation through glass increased the risk of collisions. The PTC was provided 13
with a handout listing scientific studies identifying buffers that would protect habitat. 14
15
Marton B. wanted to know if the bird population was stable, decreasing or increasing. Marton 16
B. suggested adding language to exempt JADU’s, to clarify language related to the 40-percent 17
elevation of glass area, to clarify the exemption of glass being less than 24-square feet and to 18
clarify that a 24-square foot glass, if broken, would not need to meet the bird-friendly glazing 19
definition. Fritted glass could be a burden. Marton B. requested that basement glazing be 20
exempt. Marton B. asked if dots, lines and patterns could be of any color. 21
22
Kai S. voiced that Sand Hill Property supported removing the 300-foot buffer from the definition 23
of BSAs. Bird-safety requirements should only apply where there was a demonstrated risk to 24
birds. If there should be a creek buffer, Kai S. requested that only a portion of such a parcel 25
within the buffer be subject to the regulation. Kai S. suggested that the proposed standards be 26
reviewed by qualified experts for need and cost before being incorporated into the ordinance. 27
28
Commissioner Templeton appreciated the public commenting and staff’s work to improve the 29
proposed ordinance. It was a well-intentioned effort but not ready for primetime. 30
Commissioner Templeton understood it was painful to businesses, homeowners and 31
environmentalists and that tech companies were voluntarily implementing bird-safe 32
protections. Commissioner Templeton noted that Junyan W. had provided many nonresidential 33
examples of bird-safe glass but it did not necessarily apply to what was being proposed here 34
and more information and data was needed. Commissioner Templeton heard that vegetation 35
increased the likelihood of collision but she did not support removing vegetation. The 300-foot 36
buffer was important to locations where there was bird activity but Commissioner Templeton 37
did not know what windows had to do with that as there was no data. A number of conclusions 38
could be reached with the level of available data but the conclusions might not be correct and 39
action might not yet be warranted. More information and clearer direction was needed. At a 40
minimum, this should not apply to residential properties and, at a minimum, more information 41
was needed before requiring businesses to invest by regulation. Commissioner Templeton 42
would like to provide guidelines as per direction from Council. 43
1
Vice Chair Chang stated staff did a good job narrowing down the areas of concern and she 2
suggested the item move forward to Council. Vice Chair Chang did not think the public 3
understood what was being asked of homeowners. Vice Chair Chang asked if only 10 percent of 4
windows could be untreated and if bug screens were considered bird safe. Vice Chair Chang 5
wanted to exempt replacing old windows with energy-efficient windows and limit it to new 6
construction. Vice Chair Chang queried if multiple 15-square foot panels could be installed next 7
to each other. If the current installed base of windows was exempted, it would not hinder 8
anyone from replacing a broken window or changing to energy-efficient windows. Vice Chair 9
Chang wanted to exempt replacement windows. The ordinance clearly defined bird hazards, 10
which had been researched, so perhaps that situation should not be grandfathered in. In terms 11
of new construction of residential homes, the 300-foot buffer zone in riparian zones did not 12
seem to be an issue. With regard to open space, the areas in the Baylands and Foothills should 13
not be exempt even if it was a residential development. 14
15
Chair Akin questioned if interior insect screens were effective. 16
17
Kelly Cha answered that bird experts recommended exterior screens and/or films for 18
nonpermanent markers. No more than 10 percent of the elevation could be untreated. Bug 19
screens were considered bird safe. Multiple 15-square foot panels could be installed next to 20
each other but insect screens or other treatments might be needed depending on the amount 21
of glazing based on the elevation. If the current installed base of windows was exempted, it 22
would not hinder for anyone from replacing a broken window, etc. 23
24
Commissioner Ji was concerned about the onerous impacts on residential and supported 25
stricter bird-safe requirements for commercial buildings. It would have been helpful to have 26
had more detail related to the ARB’s description of bird-safe design. Commissioner Ji generally 27
supported keeping wild areas wild outside Foothill and 101 Baylands. The ordinance should be 28
easy to understand. 29
30
Commissioner James felt there was a lot of guesswork occurring and extrapolating about bird 31
deaths from national figures and spreading assumptions across every building in the city. This 32
ordinance was specific to every house and building and it could not be assumed that every 33
house and building posed an equal risk. Assumptions were being made in the absence of 34
evidence. Regulations needed to be easy to understand and to comply with and seen as 35
valuable to the community, which Commissioner James did not see in the ordinance. 36
Commissioner James explained that there were built-in biases. The role of the PTC was to find 37
the balance between the available information and the understood risk and how to mitigate it. 38
It should be narrowly focused and there should be a focus on education and resources. Without 39
evidence, there should be guidelines, not requirements. 40
41
Commissioner Hechtman had read through the October 30 meeting minutes looking for studies 1
and the lack of data was concerning. There was reference to a Yale study in the August 28 Staff 2
Report, which linked to a nationwide study called Bird-Building Collisions in the U.S. There 3
should be a study of birds in Palo Alto’s general region. Commissioner Hechtman had observed 4
2 bird collision deaths in over 30 years in relation to his home. Commissioner Hechtman had 5
not heard support for this ordinance from property owners. Commissioner Hechtman had 6
found success in using magnets on the windows, which break up the plane. 7
8
Commissioner Peterson could not support the ordinance as written because it was overly 9
covering and too simplified, although it did not need to be overly detailed. It should not apply 10
to different edge scenarios, such as basement windows. Commissioner Peterson had not heard 11
anything related to good science which would allow for making City-level ordinances. 12
Commissioner Peterson suggested that residents be surveyed. Commissioner Peterson 13
explained that folks voluntarily do things to prevent bird strikes. In 10 years, Commissioner 14
Peterson had not observed a bird strike in connection with his home. 15
16
Chair Akin, with great reservation, supported eliminating requirements for R1. Papers by Scott 17
Loss and others made it clear that R1s were significant hazards. A policy should cover large 18
numbers of buildings and it did not appear that affordable glass was available or that there 19
were environmentally friendly plastic-based solutions. Chair Akin wanted this to return to the 20
ARB in a few years. Chair Akin supported removing the 300-foot buffer from the BSA as 21
requirements should be consistent throughout the urban area. Chair Akin had 3 bird strikes this 22
year with at least 2 fatalities in relation with his home during fall migration season, which was 23
exactly what the papers by Scott Loss and others estimated to expect. Based on very little data, 24
standards should be applied uniformly but more information was needed to make the case. The 25
accreditation requirements were not workable and a better definition was needed. Chair Akin 26
was inclined to support the staff recommendation but was open to it having a little more 27
complexity. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton remarked that in addition to the lack of data, the scope of bird strikes 30
was not understood. Commissioner Templeton had thought about comparing bird strike deaths 31
to things like West Nile virus in the area and using code enforcement versus the ordinance 32
being applicable to everyone. The ordinance should be compatible with the values of the City, 33
homeowners and business owners but not be an unnecessary burden. The ordinance would be 34
an overstretch. Commissioner Templeton suggested forwarding guidelines to Council, not an 35
ordinance, as a step to a longer term plan and that there be a recommendation for Council to 36
return the item to PTC in a couple years. Commissioner Templeton supported keeping wild 37
areas wild and questioned how the areas could be made better when homes were intruding on 38
the space. Replacement windows should be exempt. 39
40
Vice Chair Chang did not want to exempt replacement windows for residential. New 1
construction should be bird-safe. The staff recommendation made sense. Single-family homes 2
in the Baylands and in open space should not be exempt but it should be universally applicable 3
within urbanized areas. Regarding alternative compliance, Vice Chair Chang suggested striking 4
mentions of qualified biologists and years of experience. The ordinance could be forwarded to 5
Council with staff’s changes with a suggestion that guidelines address the issue. Staff’s work 6
and research should not be discarded. 7
8
Commissioner Ji generally supported the PTC forwarding staff’s work and the PTC’s 9
recommendations to Council and letting them make a decision. Commissioner Ji asked if 10
assisted living was considered residential. The Channing House having different types of 11
windows on different floors was onerous on the building. Commissioner Ji suggested striking 12
“areas within 300 feet of the center line of a natural stream” on Packet Page 110; removing 13
language referencing replacement in Section C, Subsection 3 on Packet Page 112; and removing 14
the term qualified biologist and the terming for years of experience in the Alternative 15
Compliance Section. Areas east of Highway 101 and west of Foothill Expressway should be 16
identified as bird-safe areas and R1 in the urban area should be excluded. 17
18
Jennifer Armer understood that assisted living was not residential use and that commercial 19
requirements would apply. 20
21
Albert Yang added that assisted living being considered residential/commercial depended on 22
specifics of the involved units. 23
24
Commissioner James found the lack of data and the unclear understanding of the problem to 25
be problematic in moving forward. There was a lot of guessing taking place even with the 26
comparisons to other municipalities. Commissioner James would be happy to support a 27
solution if the problem was clearly identified. 28
29
Commissioner Hechtman was approaching the ordinance from a cost-benefit perspective. Initial 30
efforts should focus on the height birds mostly fly, such as between floors 4 and 11 based on 31
the information that has been presented, and then layers could be added as more data was 32
available. Commissioner Hechtman supported there being no applicability to single-family 33
homes in urban areas east of Foothill and outside the Baylands. Using an R1 designation could 34
be problematic. Within the urban area, the regulation should apply only to the portion of a 35
structure above 35 feet. Commissioner Hechtman did not understand why San Francisco was 36
interested in studying bird strikes near creeks since there are no creeks there. The PTC had 37
forwarded Council some rules about development in the riparian area related to setbacks and 38
this ordinance should be consistent with those numbers. It would not apply to residential in the 39
urban area but it could apply to creek-adjacent nonresidential in the urban area and to 40
residential west of Foothill if one elected to build a windowed wall at or inside the 150 feet 41
through an exception. There should be symmetry between the different riparian-related 1
regulations. Commissioner Hechtman agreed with staff’s recommendation regarding 2
alternative compliance. There was opportunity for advocacy groups to do public outreach and 3
education. Commissioner Hechtman was hesitant with the concept of guidelines, although it 4
should be presented to Council. The focus should start with lighted high-rises. 5
6
Commissioner Peterson liked that the ordinance would have a provision that a wildlife biologist 7
write a custom plan for a project. It should also include environmental engineers. 8
Commissioner Peterson inquired how staff would assess customized studies and if bird studies 9
were covered by CEQA and if bird studies could be part of the environmental review process. 10
11
Jennifer Armer explained that single-family homes were generally exempt from CEQA. 12
Biological studies for projects addressed only certain protected species. Most of what was being 13
discussed would not include biologists. Jennifer Armer recommended that the use of 14
exceptions and additional study be viewed as a rare occurrence. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton did not want to discard staff’s work but before codifying something, 17
it should be thought through. Commissioner Templeton clarified that she was not trying to 18
make guidelines to assess a study. Commissioner Templeton asked if the ordinance passed the 19
PTC and Council how it would be known if it worked. There was no data or starting/ending 20
points for comparison to support a recommendation. This was aspirational but imposing 21
something very tangible on every property owner. Commissioner Templeton was concerned 22
that implementing something that was not ready, did not make sense and could not ever be 23
justified would backfire on the City’s environmental causes. For something aspirational, things 24
should be done that had been done in other circumstances. An example was heat pumps being 25
recommended, not required. 26
27
MOTION 28
29
Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation, which included an exemption for single 30
family-homes but with the modification of not exempting those outside the urban area, for the 31
BSA to remove the stream buffer in the urbanized area, to strike all mentions of qualified 32
biologist and accreditation and the sentence reading “In addition, the qualified biologist or 33
ornithologist shall have at least 5 years of experience in bird-friendly building design” from the 34
Applicability Section, to remove the replacement of windows from the Applicability Section, to 35
provide an exemption from the regulations for portions of residential structures below 35 feet 36
unless they were in the urban area and to recommend that Council consider the cost-benefit 37
and whether an ordinance or guidelines would be more appropriate. 38
39
Commissioner Templeton queried of what remained what would affect commercial and retail. 40
41
Kelly Cha responded that with the change in Item 3, commercial buildings would not have to be 1
concerned with bird-treated glass for existing glass. It would apply only to newly constructed 2
buildings and structures and substantial remodels according to the definition under Title 16. 3
4
Jennifer Armer understood, related to Item 3, that if replacement of a bird-hazard installation 5
was proposed that it should be brought into compliance. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton asked if the change to Item 3 would apply to the replacement of glass 8
to any structure. 9
10
Jennifer Armer responded that single-family and multifamily residential in the urban areas, 11
Hillsides and Baylands would be exempt. 12
13
Chair Akin inquired if the edit referred to any new or replacement bird-hazard installation only, 14
not windows or fenestrations in general. 15
16
Kelly Cha understood that Vice Chair Chang wanted to remove the “fenestration or” from the 17
third applicability condition. 18
19
Vice Chair Chang noted it should apply to any replacement bird-hazard installation, new 20
fenestration or bird-hazard installation. Vice Chair Chang wanted to remove replacement of 21
windows only. 22
23
Commissioner Templeton queried why it would apply to only single-family and not any 24
residential, such as a duplex. It might be fair to exempt residential below 35 feet. 25
26
Jennifer Armer summarized the motion as to revise the BSA to not include the 300-foot stream 27
buffer, so that it would be only the Baylands and Hillside areas; to provide an exemption from 28
the regulations for portions of residential structures below 35 feet unless they were in the 29
urban areas; to strike mentions of the qualified biologist in accreditation and the sentence 30
starting with “in addition” and continued “at least 5 years;” to recommend that Council 31
consider the cost-benefit of an ordinance versus guidelines; and remove the replacement of 32
windows from the applicability. 33
34
Commissioner Hechtman understood that residential under 35 feet would be exempt unless a 35
new fenestration or bird hazard installation was proposed; that all the rural areas would be 36
BSAs and that the rules would apply regardless of the nature of the use and regardless of the 37
height of a structure, as the motion did not include any 35-foot or other height below which it 38
would not apply; and that alternative compliance was essentially what staff recommended but 39
more finely articulated. 40
41
Vice Chair Chang responded that replacement windows would be exempt but not replacement 1
bird-hazard installations. Homes below 35 feet in the urban area would be exempt. 2
3
Chair Akin questioned, given the 35-foot height limitation in the urban area, if consideration 4
should be given to extending that to any other area. 5
6
Vice Chair Chang did not want to extend the 35-foot height limitation to other areas. 7
8
Commissioner Hechtman preferred that the 35-foot rule apply throughout the city and that the 9
exception be in the creek setback areas. The Berkeley ordinance applied to only structures over 10
35 feet that were 10K square feet in size, which effectively eliminated all single-family 11
residential. 12
13
Vice Chair Chang noted the ordinance would include the Baylands and open space and that 14
respect should be given to open space. Vice Chair Chang understood the desire to align with the 15
Stream Ordinance but the concerns of streams and birds were different. 16
17
Chair Akin asked if low-density residential structures or portions of low-density residential 18
structures under 35 feet would be exempt. 19
20
Jennifer Armer answered that any portion of residential structures under 35 feet would be 21
exempt. 22
23
Commissioner Templeton inquired if retail was not specified because it was covered in a 24
previous section. 25
26
Jennifer Armer replied that the exemption of first story retail referenced in the Draft Ordinance 27
could be retained. 28
29
Chair Akin hoped to see more in the coming years because the opportunities needed to be 30
pursued more aggressively but as a compromise now, he seconded the motion. 31
32
SECOND 33
34
Chair Akin seconded the motion. 35
36
Commissioner Templeton commented that changes were being made in the absence of data. 37
Commissioner Templeton would support the motion if there was acknowledgement that this 38
item was being addressed at the request of Council, that there was a lack of data and that the 39
recommendations might or might not change anything. It would be wise to add an item stating 40
the PTC lacked the data to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures, which Council should 41
take into consideration. 42
1
Chair Akin did not object to adding such an item but noted there was data but it was not local 2
data. 3
4
Commissioner Templeton stated there was no data indicating how many birds would be saved 5
by this ordinance. 6
7
Vice Chair Chang did not object to adding the statement but there were many laws limiting 8
pollution, for example, but it could not be measured because it was cost prohibitive. 9
10
Commissioner Templeton asked why it would not be cost prohibitive to impose this on folks if it 11
was cost prohibitive to measure. If homeowners were being asked to spend hundreds of 12
thousands of dollars, the why needed to be known. 13
14
Vice Chair Chang heard data points through public comment. Homeowners would be exempted 15
for the most part. 16
17
Chair Akin expressed that the Scott Loss paper was a rule of thumb. The cost of a local study of 18
very high statistical significance would be equivalent to not doing anything for the ordinance at 19
all. 20
21
Commissioner Templeton wanted Council to know there was no basis for the PTC’s 22
recommendations. 23
24
Discussion ensued as to the language that would be presented to Council and it was decided 25
that it would read that the PTC acknowledged that there was lack of data to quantify the 26
current magnitude of the problem and evaluate the effectiveness of the measures for 27
residential if implemented. 28
29
Commissioner Ji was happy with the motion but stated that large apartment buildings under 35 30
feet were similar to office. 31
32
Chair Akin accepted the language that would be presented to Council. 33
34
Commissioner Hechtman asked if the first floor commercial exemption would exclude retail and 35
office. 36
37
Jennifer Armer voiced that the motion did not address first floor commercial and that that 38
section would be retained as stated. The first floor commercial exemption referred mostly to 39
retail, not so much office. 40
41
Commissioner Templeton requested that staff include that in the write-up for Council so there 42
would be no confusion. 43
44
Vice Chair Chang added that noncommercial in those areas would be exempt. 1
2
Commissioner Hechtman queried if all office was considered commercial. 3
4
Jennifer Armer clarified that the wording could in some cases included office, though in most of 5
those zones office was not allowed or restricted on the ground floor. Some districts allowed a 6
variety of different uses and when designing a building, the service that would be provided 7
might not be known and staff did not want to dictate whether a window should or should not 8
be treated. 9
10
VOTE MOTION 11
12
The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 13
14
MOTION PASSED 5-2 (Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Ji, 15
Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) (Commissioner James and Commissioner Hechtman voted no) 16
17
Commissioner James was not convinced that the certainty of the problem was known or that it 18
was known how to fix it. Many assumptions had been made. 19
20
Commissioner Hechtman commented there was not enough data. It was not okay to impose 21
additional cost on nonresidential buildings below 35 feet because they were in a profit-making 22
business. The impacts below 35 feet of a commercial building were not demonstrably worse 23
than a 35-foot or less residential building. Commissioner Hechtman did not hear anything 24
tethering residential in nonurban areas to bird-flight corridors associated with the creek. 25
26
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27
28
4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 29
Minutes of September 24, 2025. 30
31
PUBLIC COMMENT 32
33
There were no requests to speak. 34
35
MOTION 36
37
Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 38
39
SECOND 40
41
Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 1
2
VOTE MOTION 3
4
The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 5
6
MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Ji, 7
Commissioner James, Commissioner Hechtman, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) 8
9
5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 10
Minutes of October 8, 2025. 11
12
MOTION 13
14
Commissioner Ji moved to approve the minutes as revised. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Vice Chair Chang seconded the motion. 19
20
PUBLIC COMMENT 21
22
There were no comments. 23
24
VOTE MOTION 25
26
The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 27
28
MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner 29
Peterson, Commissioner Templeton, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) (Commissioner James 30
abstained) 31
32
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 33
MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 34
35
Commissioner Templeton wished happy holidays to all and a happy birthday to Chair Akin. 36
37
Vice Chair Chang wished Chair Akin a happy birthday. 38
39
Chair Akin thanked everyone. 40
ADJOURNMENT 1
2
The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. 3