Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-11 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: February 11, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 p.m. 7 Chair Akin called the February 11, 2026, regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation 8 Commission to order. 9 Sam Tavera conducted the roll call. Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 10 Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton were present. 11 Commissioner James was absent. 12 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 13 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced there were no agenda changes. 14 Oral Communications 15 Sam Tavera had not received any public comment cards for items not on the agenda. There 16 were no raised hands on Zoom. 17 City Official Reports 18 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 19 Jennifer Armer delivered the Director’s report. 20 The February 25, 2026, Planning and Transportation (PTC) meeting agenda included a 21 discussion of a proposed zoning code amendment and request for the PTC’s formal 22 recommendation, as well as a proposed Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) project at 800 and 808 San 23 Antonio Road. On March 11, 2026, the staff will invite the Architectural Review Board to join 24 the usual PTC meeting time for a joint meeting to discuss the Cubberley Community Center 25 Master Plan. Jennifer Armer reminded the Commission that the deadline for multiple open 26 recruitments for the PTC and Historic Resources Board was February 18, 2026. 27 The PTC previously reviewed the following items. On January 22, 2026, the staff met with the 28 Retail Committee to discuss the Retail Revitalization Ordinance, which would return to the PTC 29 next month. The City Council approved the El Camino Real Retail Node Map by consent on 30 February 9, 2026, as recommended by the Retail Committee and the PTC. On February 2, 2026, 31 the Council reviewed a new PHZ as a prescreening of the potential redevelopment of the 32 parcels adjacent to Town & Country. There was an expectation that the 70 Encina parcel 33 between the 44 and 88 Encina parcels would be included in that development as a single 34 proposal when the applicant submitted the formal application. The PTC reviewed the work plan 1 last July. On February 2, 2026, the Council discussed the PTC, ARB, and HRB work plans, and 2 Jennifer Armer thanked Chair Akin for joining the meeting and being available to answer 3 questions. The Council recommended approval of the PTC work plan with modifications. Staff 4 will post the work plan on the website. The Council requested that the PTC work plan include a 5 reference to Senate Bill (SB) 79 as part of the ongoing work to implement State laws, as there 6 would be upcoming discussions on that topic and Council direction before proceeding with any 7 code changes. 8 There was no one from the Transportation Department in attendance tonight but they will be 9 present at the next PTC meeting. 10 Vice Chair Chang asked whether staff had rescheduled the Retail Revitalization Ordinance topic, 11 as the PTC packet stated the Commission might review it at the February 25 meeting. Vice Chair 12 Chang requested the staff to provide takeaways from the prescreening of the Town & Country 13 parking lot. 14 Jennifer Armer answered that the staff was trying to move the Retail Revitalization Ordinance 15 forward as quickly as possible but, based on the Retail Committee's feedback, the staff wanted 16 to prepare strong language for the PTC's consideration and then move it on to the Council. 17 Thus, the staff expected to present the ordinance at the second PTC meeting in March. The 18 staff would provide a summary of the Council's prescreening of the Town & Country parking lot 19 when this item comes to the PTC. The staff identified several potential issues that a formal 20 application would need to address, including concerns about existing utilities and easements, 21 and some interest in exploring necessary transportation improvements. There was general 22 support for the Town & Country project but there would be extensive discussions about design 23 and compatibility. 24 Churchill was the subject of much public comment at the Council and School Board this week, 25 so Commissioner Templeton requested an update and inquired whether the PTC could 26 anticipate a discussion or study session to provide an opportunity for public comment. 27 Commissioner Templeton wanted the Transportation Department to speak at the next PTC 28 meeting about the conversations happening with Caltrain, the City, and the Public Works 29 Department regarding Churchill. 30 Jennifer Armer will pass on Commissioner Templeton's request to the Office of Transportation. 31 Jennifer Armer mentioned that the Office of Transportation planned to attend 1 PTC meeting 32 per month. 33 Commissioner Templeton stated that the Commission hoped Transportation would attend 34 every PTC meeting, so she questioned the change to 1 meeting per month and asked Jennifer 35 Armer to pass along her strong objection to the Office of Transportation. 36 Jennifer Armer explained that Transportation would provide a more detailed presentation to 37 the PTC once a month, as seen in recent meetings. 38 Chair Akin presumed that the PTC could contact Ozzy Arce directly. 1 As with any communication with staff, the PTC could reach out to Ozzy Arce directly; however, 2 Jennifer Armer wanted to be included on those emails so she could support the PTC with any 3 inquiries. 4 Commissioner Templeton emphasized the importance of ensuring public comment 5 opportunities for the Planning and Transportation Departments, as this Commission included 6 both. 7 Commissioner Ji agreed that the PTC wanted input on projects from Transportation, not just 8 from the Planning Department. Commissioner Ji asked whether the San Antonio Coordinated 9 Area Plan was on the PTC agenda, as he thought it might come to the PTC this month. 10 Jennifer Armer believed the tentative plan was for the PTC to hold a study session on the San 11 Antonio Road Area Plan, followed by a discussion of the Retail Ordinance, at the second 12 meeting in March. Jennifer Armer tried not to project too far into the future on her Director's 13 Report because things could change. 14 Commissioner Peterson has had a couple of people ask him what the Commission was doing to 15 address the fatalities involving high school students at the railroad tracks, and he did not want 16 to respond that it was not on the PTC's agenda. For the Transportation team to put that on the 17 PTC agenda would be a welcome addition, allowing the Commission to provide input. 18 Jennifer Armer said there was some discussion at the Council meeting about the ongoing 19 efforts to implement improvements to address occurrences on the train tracks and at the 20 crossing. Jennifer Armer would be working directly with the staff who were addressing this. 21 Because of the urgency, some improvements will not come before the PTC. Jennifer Armer 22 acknowledged the PTC's requests and recognized the importance of this work. 23 Commissioner Hechtman reiterated the importance of having a Transportation representative 24 participating in the PTC meetings. Commissioner Hechtman encouraged finding a way to work 25 within the Transportation Department's budgetary and labor deployment constraints. 26 Commissioner Hechtman asked Jennifer Armer to discuss the Commission's feedback with the 27 staff. Commissioner Hechtman was not proposing this as a solution but an example of a 28 compromise could be for Transportation to provide a brief written statement or bullet points 29 on the evenings when Transportation was not in attendance. 30 Commissioner Templeton noted that Transportation had recently begun attending the PTC 31 regularly, a practice the Commission had advocated for years, but the new Transportation 32 management was changing that. Commissioner Templeton wanted to ensure the staff clearly 33 communicated the PTC's message to the new Transportation Chief. 34 Action Items 35 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3606 El Camino Real [25PLN-00243]: 1 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to 2 Merge Seven Parcels to Create One Resulting 113,907-Square-Foot Parcel. The 3 Subdivision Map Would Facilitate Construction of 321 New Residential Units in One 4 Building (24PLN-00162). CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public 5 Resources Code section 21080.66). Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, and RM-40. 6 Chair Akin asked the Commission to voice any disclosures. Vice Chair Chang visited the site and 7 observed that it was very difficult for 2 cars to pass each other on Kendall and Matadero, which 8 the PTC's packet did not mention. 9 Senior Planner Steven Switzer delivered a slide presentation. The proposed vesting tentative 10 map would merge 7 parcels into 1 parcel of 2.61 acres (roughly 113,907 square feet) to 11 facilitate the construction of a 321-unit residential building, which was under a separate 12 entitlement and not up for discussion at tonight's meeting. Steven Switzer displayed the outline 13 of the 7 parcels on the screen. The resulting merged parcel complied with the code and did not 14 require zone changes. The project site was within the El Camino Real Focus Area and identified 15 for high-density housing. The merged parcel would not have any new public or private streets. 16 The staff detailed 7 findings in Attachment B for the Record of Land Use action that were under 17 consideration in tonight's discussion for subdivision map approval, including that this site was 18 suitable and consistent with the land use and zoning for this type of residential development, 19 and this site and associated project were suitable for the proposed parcel density. The vesting 20 tentative map would provide new public and private easements, including new utility 21 easements on the project site and a 12-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage on El Camino 22 Real. 23 The project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130, Public Resources Code Section 24 21080.66, a recent legislative change. That invoked strict timelines for City approval and 25 processing, generally 30 days after the tribal consultation period ended. On January 26, the 26 tribal consultation period for this project concluded. The applicant entered into an agreement 27 with the City to extend the deadline in the packet. 28 Staff recommended that the PTC recommend to the City Council that it approve the proposed 29 vesting tentative map based on findings in Attachment B, subject to the conditions of approval. 30 The Utilities' conditions of approval were forthcoming but staff anticipated they would be 31 available for City Council action. Staff did not expect the Utilities' conditions of approval to 32 result in any major changes to the associated project. 33 Chair Akin invited the Commission to ask clarifying questions. 34 Commissioner Hechtman read in the staff report that the tribe was potentially negotiating 35 conditions of approval. For the PTC to review and provide a recommendation to the Council, it 36 was ideal for the Commission to see as many of the conditions of approval as possible, even if it 37 was earlier on the day of the meeting, so Commissioner Hechtman encouraged that to happen 38 in the future. Commissioner Hechtman did not see in the staff report that any of the 7 parcels 39 were Housing Inventory Sites. Commissioner Hechtman wondered what the anticipated density 1 was of any designated Housing Inventory parcels. 2 Steven Switzer explained that, given the advanced lead time required to deliver staff reports to 3 the Commission, the staff could not include the conditions' language in this evening's PTC 4 packet. The tribes agreed to conditions for ground-disturbing activities and the presence of 5 monitors. Steven Switzer said that Packet Page 9 mentioned the total anticipated Housing 6 Inventory for this site was 37 units. 7 Vice Chair Chang had difficulty locating the proposed easements on the map. Vice Chair Chang 8 asked whether the IEE easement line would remain in place as drawn. 9 Chair Akin noted that C3.1 and C3.2 included the cross-sections and easements. 10 Steven Switzer displayed the plans on the screen. There was an easement for a 12 -foot 11 sidewalk on El Camino. On C3.1, a 6-foot public utility easement for the electrical transformers 12 was in the corner of the civil plans. Steven Switzer pointed to another utility access point in the 13 upper-right-hand corner of the plan. 14 Jennifer Armer added that many of those easements pertained to access to the meters and 15 transformers; for example, the easement along the top was for the water meter. 16 Vice Chair Chang was unable to locate a labeled easement for the sidewalk on the plan. 17 Jennifer Armer said the applicant could describe the easements during their presentation. 18 Referring to the vertical lines on C3.1 and C4.1, Vice Chair Chang asked whether a quitclaim for 19 the existing 30-foot IEE meant the removal of the easement. 20 Commissioner Hechtman explained that a quitclaim meant it went away. 21 Jeff Smith, Project Executive at Sares Regis Group in San Mateo, did not have a presentation or 22 the plans in front of him but offered to answer questions about the vesting tentative map. Jeff 23 Smith stated that the proposed 3-foot extension of the sidewalk easement along El Camino Real 24 was to create a larger, 12-foot-wide sidewalk. The easements along Matadero and Kendall were 25 for the utility connections. This all-electric project would include transformers on both sides. 26 Jeff Smith thought there would be 5 transformers. The applicant was working with CPAU on the 27 design of the transformers and necessary easements. 28 Commissioner Templeton asked what the small lines under the Lot 1 area on the plan 29 represented. Commissioner Templeton questioned the discrepancy between the packet 30 mentioning 321 units and Steven Switzer's statement that there were 37 units of housing. 31 Commissioner Templeton thought the plan depicted about 80 percent of the lot covered with 32 parking, and she wondered if that was the intention. 33 Steven Switzer pointed to a 2.5-foot easement in the upper portion of the plan. Steven Switzer 1 explained that there were 37 Housing Inventory Sites but the applicant proposed 321 units. 2 Jennifer Armer believed the lines on the plan represented parking spaces for the proposed 3 building, which was not under consideration tonight. Jennifer Armer reiterated that the City 4 had projected 37 units on the Housing Element Site. 5 Jeff Smith added that the proposal was for a Type 1 garage with 2 levels at grade and 5 6 residential stories above the garage. The garage would contain amenity spaces and lobbies. 7 Commissioner Ji inquired if Proposed ESMT and Proposed PSE in Section C of Page C3.2 referred 8 to the proposed easements. Commissioner Ji asked if Section C referred to the Kendall side. 9 With reference to Section 1, Commissioner Ji wanted to confirm whether the sidewalk would 10 be 10 feet on the Matadero side and 8 feet on the Kendall side. Commissioner Ji suggested that 11 the staff review what was within tonight's scope before the public comment began. 12 Jeff Smith answered that the Proposed ESMT represented the proposed easement. Jeff Smith 13 thought Proposed PSE was for the proposed sidewalk. Jeff Smith confirmed the sidewalk 14 dimensions were as mentioned on the plans. 15 Jennifer Armer believed Proposed PSE was the access easement for part of the sidewalk along 16 El Camino. Jennifer Armer thought there was a sidewalk easement and a public service 17 easement labeled in that section. 18 Section C was on Kendall. 19 Steven Switzer explained that the scope for this evening was the vesting tentative map to 20 merge 7 parcels, and that the discussion should focus on any concerns regarding the 7 findings 21 listed in Attachment E of the Record of Land Use. The proposed development of the merged 22 parcel was not on the agenda for discussion. 23 Jennifer Armer added that it was fine if some public comments addressed the redevelopment 24 application for this lot. The new building has gone to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). 25 There will be an opportunity for public comment on the vesting tentative map and the 26 proposed building when they go to the Council. 27 Commissioner Ji pointed out that the 7 findings were on Packet Pages 18 and 19. 28 Commissioner Peterson asked if the applicant had previously built in Palo Alto or in this area, 29 and whether the intention was to develop the merged lot. Commissioner Peterson asked for 30 further details on the developer's selection process for a general contractor. Commissioner 31 Peterson observed that the quality of construction was vastly different between low -bid and 32 negotiated contracting, with the highest quality typically achieved when working with 33 apprentices in the building trades. 34 Jeff Smith confirmed the intent to develop the lot after the merger of the parcels. Over the past 1 30 years, Sares Regis Group has developed nearly 3,000 apartment units and is currently 2 working on multiple projects in Palo Alto. Sares Regis Group hired third -party general 3 contractors to build most of its bigger projects. Sares Regis Group worked with trusted 4 contractors in the region, and anyone interested could look up those names online. A 5 percentage of Sares Regis Group's projects included a certain percentage of the trades. The 6 applicant was working with the Giovannotto family, who had a 67 -year history in Palo Alto, so 7 this project was not a merchant build. The Giovannottos regarded quality as of the utmost 8 importance. 9 Commissioner Templeton asked whether there were any implications or considerations 10 regarding PTC approval of the proposed merger of the parcels that the Commission should keep 11 in mind, for example, the expedited timeline. 12 Jennifer Armer replied that this vesting tentative map application to merge the parcels was part 13 of a package of applications that also included an application for the redevelopment of the site. 14 Designs for a new building on this site were on the City's website. With the recent streamlined 15 housing process, the building goes to the ARB and then to the Council because it was a Builder's 16 Remedy project. The Building Department prohibited construction over property lines, so a lot 17 merger was a critical component to construct the proposed building. Jennifer Armer 18 acknowledged that tonight was the PTC's only opportunity to make a recommendation on the 19 proposed vesting tentative map to the Council because the City was limited to the number of 20 hearings it could hold for this type of project. Jennifer Armer reiterated that the lot merger was 21 the only part of this project within the PTC's purview, not the site development. The staff 22 received written public comment regarding concerns about the development project. The staff 23 would share tonight's public comments with the Council during its review of this development. 24 Jennifer Armer invited the commissioners to voice any concerns they saw with the 25 development that they wanted the Council to be aware of. Jennifer Armer reminded the 26 Commission to be efficient with their time, as there was a second item to address on the 27 agenda tonight. 28 Commissioner Templeton felt it was important for the staff to inform the PTC that this was the 29 Commission's only opportunity to address this application and she asked who had decided that. 30 Commissioner Templeton expressed frustration with the Commission having incomplete 31 information. Commissioner Templeton wanted her question included in the minutes and in the 32 staff's written report to the Council. Commissioner Templeton thought it was unfortunate that 33 the PTC could not work with the applicant to improve the project and increase the likelihood of 34 the Council's approval. Commissioner Templeton hoped that feedback from community 35 members would result in the applicant having a strong package when the project moved 36 forward. 37 Attorney Albert Yang explained that the State passed SB 330, which limited the City to 5 total 38 hearings for certain housing projects, including appeals and continued hearings. Based on the 39 various bodies that needed to see this item, City staff created the hearing schedule. Moreover, 40 this project was using AB 130, a recent law requiring the City to make its decision within a short 1 timeframe, further limiting the scheduling of the hearings. 2 Commissioner Peterson inquired whether the project would include retail space or if there was 3 a possibility to do so. Commissioner Peterson noted this location as the most retail-vacant 4 space on El Camino. 5 Jeff Smith answered that the project was purely residential. Sares Regis Group has undertaken 6 mixed-use projects, including its current work in downtown Sunnyvale. The developer looked 7 into retail early on in this project but did not receive positive responses from retailers or retail 8 brokers, so this was not a strong retail location and retail only worked in great locations. 9 Commissioner Ji saw on Slide 2 that there were no zoning changes; however, there would be no 10 commercial use on this property. 11 Steven Switzer confirmed that the underlying zoning districts would remain unchanged and 12 residential use was permitted. Also, the expanded El Camino Real Focus Area allowed higher -13 density housing. 14 Albert Yang clarified that no zoning change was necessary because this project did not need to 15 comply with the City's zoning as it was proceeding under the State's builder's remedy housing 16 laws. Inconsistency with the City's zoning was not a basis for the City to deny a builder's remedy 17 project. 18 Public Comment 19 1. Penny Brennan lives in the Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto. Penny Brennan urged 20 the Commission to vote no on merging 7 parcels to create the footprint for this project. 21 Penny Brennan opined that the proposed building was too tall and dense, and the 22 entrances and exits were poorly planned and unsafe for residents in the surrounding 23 Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods. From El Camino to Bol Park, Matadero was a 24 narrow 2-lane road with no sidewalks and few parking spaces. Placing the main 25 exit/entry of a 7-story, 321-unit building on Matadero Avenue near the intersection with 26 El Camino would pose a significant safety hazard and create dangerous traffic problems, 27 including heavy congestion and backups along Matadero and El Camino. The increased 28 volume of vehicles from 3606 El Camino would significantly increase this danger. Penny 29 Brennan's biggest concern was bicyclists' safety, particularly children who cross the 30 harrowing El Camino-Matadero intersection to commute to Barron Park Elementary, 31 Fletcher Middle, and Gunn High Schools. Penny Brennan was concerned that nearby 32 residents would be put at risk of physical harm by catastrophic earthquake and fire 33 events in the proposed 7-story, 321-unit building. Penny Brennan wondered how the 34 height, density, poor egress, and narrow streets surrounding 3606 El Camino might 35 hamper firefighting and other emergency services. The proposed building endangered 36 the lives and safety of Ventura and Barron Park residents by placing an excessive burden 37 on existing emergency services resources allotted to this region of Palo Alto. 38 2. Kerri Jung is a Barron Park resident and local teacher. Kerri Jung had safety concerns 1 about the proposed merger of parcels on Kendall Avenue. Kerri Jung encouraged 2 commissioners to visit the site before voting. The plans did not capture that Kendall 3 Avenue was so narrow that you had to pull over to let a car go by. Kendall is a Safe 4 Route to School where kids regularly bike or walk. The building's proposed exit/entrance 5 was on the curve of Kendall, which, combined with a large building with minimal 6 setbacks, would result in very low visibility when cars pulled out onto the sidewalk 7 where kids were riding or walking. Kerri Jung wondered how the City determined that 8 Kendall Avenue was suitable for high-density housing. Kerri Jung stated that AB 3177 9 was supposed to address situations in which builder's remedy projects posed major 10 safety concerns. Kerri Jung supported the merger of the front El Camino parcels to bring 11 needed high-density housing into Palo Alto but urged the Commission to reconsider the 12 merger of the back parcels because it affected a Safe Route to School and jeopardized 13 our children. 14 3. Star T. was supportive of high-density housing and thought it was exciting to have a 15 development address some of the Barron Park blight; however, she was shocked that 16 City staff had not mentioned safety. Star T. recommended that a traffic study of this 17 area include the developments at 3606, 3400, and 3781. Star T. felt that major changes 18 were needed, for example, for the turn at Kendall and to have the main entrance on El 19 Camino. Star T. suggested that the City's objective standard for entrances on side streets 20 include a clause for an entrance on El Camino Real when deemed necessary for safety or 21 other reasons, similar to San Mateo's clause. Barron Park was a landlocked 22 neighborhood. Star T. recommended consideration of AB 3177, which allowed the City 23 to require a dedicated service lane. Barron Park lacked sidewalks or bike lanes. Star T. 24 rode in Barron Park every day. Star T. urged the Commission to consider traffic and 25 pedestrian safety. 26 4. Carpenters Union Field Representative Oscar Mazariegos, representing Local 405 in 27 Santa Clara County, was here tonight because he had not received a response after 28 multiple attempts to contact the developer. Oscar Mazariegos urged the Commission to 29 consider who would build the project. Oscar Mazariegos wanted this project built 30 without exploiting the workforce. Oscar Mazariegos felt that choosing a responsible 31 general contractor was very critical. Oscar Mazariegos encouraged prioritizing 32 responsible contractors who valued the workforce, ensured that workers were paid 33 standard wages for the area so they could afford to live in the communities they work 34 in, provided health benefits, and offered retirement security so tradespeople could 35 retire with dignity after decades of physically demanding work. Equally important was a 36 strong apprenticeship program that created pathways for young men and women to 37 enter the trades, gain skills, earn while they learn, and become the next generation of 38 highly trained craftspeople. Apprenticeship programs provide safe job sites, higher -39 quality projects, and strong local economies. 40 5. Chris J. reiterated concerns about the project's safety, particularly for cyclists and 1 pedestrians. Chris J. urged the Commission to take 15 minutes to visit this site between 2 Kendall and Matadero. Cars have to be very careful when passing on Kendall. Taqueria 3 El Grullense, a popular Mexican restaurant, is on the corner. Chris J. believed the plans 4 and renderings in the packet were deceptive because they did not show the scale of the 5 surrounding area. Chris J. was concerned about the entrances and exits, especially 6 during the mornings and afternoons when there were many kids. Chris J. thought this 7 project needed a transportation traffic study. Chris J. opined that high -density housing 8 was a great idea, especially in vacant areas along El Camino. Chris J. cautioned that 9 doing it right the first time did not leave us open to trouble later. 10 6. Scott Anderson commented via Zoom while in Milan, attending the Olympics. Scott 11 Anderson lives in the Barron Park neighborhood, is the PTA President of Fletcher Middle 12 School, and is a former PTA President of Barron Park Elementary. Scott Anderson shared 13 that his son, who attends sixth grade at Fletcher but used to attend Barron Park, almost 14 got hit twice at Matadero and El Camino while riding his bike. One time, the crossing 15 guard pulled him out of the way of a BMW. Scott Anderson was driving to Barron Park 16 Elementary School when he almost hit some kids walking across the street. Other near-17 misses and reported hits have occurred in this neighborhood. Scott Anderson had 18 concerns about the safety in that area and wanted a safety study performed. Scott 19 Anderson referred to the drawing on Page 3, which depicted the building's driveways on 20 Kendall and Matadero, and noted that this would increase traffic. Given time 21 constraints, people would choose to go through neighborhood streets rather than wait 22 to get onto El Camino at a red light. You could use Google Maps to see how long it took 23 to get to Fletcher or to Foothills and Arastradero in the southwest direction. 24 7. Winter D. noted that several extremely narrow streets off El Camino provide access to 25 Barron Park but you could not exit Barron Park from the back. The proximity of the 26 Creekside Inn development, with over 200 housing units and other uses across the 27 street from this project, increases the impact on Matadero Avenue. Winter D. and her 28 husband measured Matadero Avenue, discovering that it was a normal width for the 29 first 100 feet and then narrowed to 17 feet for the rest of the way to Bol Park. The City's 30 infrastructure did not allow the widening of Matadero Avenue. Matadero Creek is 31 within 6 or 8 feet of Matadero. At the end of Matadero was the pedestrian/bike path 32 that goes from Los Altos, behind Gunn, Stanford Research Park, and into Stanford, 33 resulting in a lot of bike traffic. You can no longer turn right on red onto El Camino from 34 Matadero. For these reasons, the ingress and egress were not feasible at Matadero. 35 Chair Akin invited the applicant to respond to the public comments. 36 Jeff Smith pointed out that the public comments were more related to the project than the 37 vesting tentative map. On the 2 streets without sidewalks, this project would create sidewalks 8 38 to 10 feet wide, which was wider than most sidewalks in Palo Alto. Having 2 entrances ensured 39 that a single location would not bear the full traffic burden. The applicant will further address 40 this at the City Council and may deliver a presentation on the project. The applicant could show 1 examples of buildings with garages that they have built in urban areas, and have taken many 2 steps to make those entrances safe. For pedestrians passing by, the applicant would create 3 sidewalks, install large vision triangles, and place exterior signage to designate the garage 4 entrance. The applicant would be required to provide a transportation study as a condition of 5 approval, and the City staff would review it. A professional would outline safety items with 6 input from experts, such as visual and audio warnings when the gates go up and cars reach a 7 certain point, an interior stop sign, warning signs of potential pedestrian traffic, and convex 8 mirrors to see around corners. The applicant was building this project for the long term and did 9 not want accidents or unsafe conditions for any visitors, the neighborhood, or future residents 10 and guests of the project. 11 Commissioner Templeton lives in Barron Park and was familiar with the issues the public had 12 raised. Commissioner Templeton was excited about the project but thought the developer 13 would struggle to address the issues without at least another hearing with the PTC. 14 Commissioner Templeton inquired whether the ARB would address transportation-related 15 questions that the PTC usually addressed, such as streets, access, and sidewalks. Commissioner 16 Templeton hoped the Transportation Department would review the proposed development, as 17 they were unfortunately not present at tonight's meeting to ask questions, provide feedback, 18 and help the PTC gain the confidence needed to move forward with this project. Commissioner 19 Templeton felt extremely uncomfortable with the PTC making this decision without receiving all 20 the information, given that the Commission had many ways to improve the project. 21 Commissioner Templeton hoped the City would work with the developer and the neighbors to 22 identify the most reasonable way to address Kendall. Commissioner Templeton asked whether 23 there were houses and/or commercial property on Kendall across from this project. 24 Commissioner Templeton inquired whether the City considered going in and out of the 25 development on Kendall while having people from the other part of the neighborhood use a 26 different route. Due to concerns for the life and safety of the neighborhood's residents and 27 schoolchildren, Commissioner Templeton's decision hinged on the development's entrance and 28 exit. Commissioner Templeton questioned how the PTC could make the 7 findings and 29 determine the site was physically suitable for the type of development in the absence of 30 information about the development itself. 31 Steven Switzer mentioned that this project went before the ARB in December, and the 32 development of the 321-unit residential building was moving forward to the City Council. 33 Steven Switzer shared that the ARB provided feedback on the garage, the screening of garages 34 along side streets, and the placement of ingress and egress on the site. Steven Switzer stated 35 there was a commercial area along El Camino but residential development appeared as you go 36 down Kendall. Steven Switzer referred to Finding 4 and noted the proposed property density 37 met the requirements identified in the El Camino Real Focus Area standards. The site was 38 suitable for the proposed density, and the City had identified it for a high -density housing 39 project. For Finding 3, the suitability of the development meant assessing the lot width and 40 depth, the area, and whether it could accommodate the density in Finding 4. 41 Jennifer Armer pointed out that the proposed lot mergers did not need to include any details of 1 the proposed development because the development was not under review tonight. 2 Albert Yung explained that this item was before the PTC because the City’s code required 3 vesting tentative maps to be considered by the PTC and the City Council. Staff asked the PTC to 4 exercise its discretion in making the findings. If the PTC was unable to make the findings, the 5 City Council must approve the project and the subdivision because this project was subject to 6 the builder’s remedy. 7 Commissioner Peterson echoed Commissioner Templeton's comments. Commissioner Peterson 8 felt uncomfortable but understood the Commission's limitations with a builder's remedy 9 project. Since the PTC was only given a lot plan with parking lot lines, not a packet to review, 10 Commissioner Peterson requested more detail on this lot and the El Camino Real Focus Area 11 plan. Commissioner Peterson requested the staff to display the El Camino map on the screen. 12 Jennifer Armer explained that the PTC had little to review because only the question of merging 13 the lots was under review tonight, not the proposed development. The lot size was appropriate 14 per the City’s regulations. The rules for the El Camino Real Focus Area focused more on 15 development than on the parcel itself. 16 Steven Switzer noted that Packet Page 13 said the site was in the El Camino Real Focus Area. 17 The Council had identified the site as suitable for a high-density housing project, which related 18 to Findings 3 and 4 regarding sites suitable for types of residential development. The details of 19 what the development would look like were up to the developer. Builder’s remedy extended 20 the applicant some waivers and concessions from complying with the City’s Zoning Code and 21 standards, which could result in an undesirable project due to deviations from those standards. 22 Vice Chair Chang explained that the City created the El Camino Real Focus Area to plan for 23 housing targets on sites where density and height were appropriate, with infrastructure in 24 place, and that would not impact residential neighbors. The City made modifications to the El 25 Camino Real Focus Area because of the builder’s remedy, not necessarily because those sites 26 were ideal for density. Vice Chair Chang recalled that the PTC added this site to the El Camino 27 Real Focus Area because staff had presented to the Commission that one of the best ways to 28 exert some control was to provide the El Camino Real Focus Area as an alternative to the 29 builder’s remedy. 30 Steven Switzer displayed Figure 3 from Municipal Code 1814.020, the Housing Element 31 Opportunity Sites and focus areas, and pointed to the location under discussion. 32 Albert Yang noted that Figure 3 on the City’s Code website was outdated, so staff needed to 33 find the updated map. 34 Commissioner Peterson commented that the streets were narrow. Commissioner Peterson was 35 familiar with this area from going to the taqueria, which was incredibly popular. Commissioner 36 Peterson described it as a sleepy street and one of the few in Palo Alto where he was not 37 concerned about walking down the middle of the street in the shade of the trees. Because this 1 project bypassed CEQA, the PTC lacked a traffic plan, which Commissioner Peterson considered 2 a substantial oversight. Commissioner Peterson was unable to see how the traffic navigated 3 that side of Barron Park. Commissioner Peterson thought the PTC needed another meeting to 4 review the traffic plan. Commissioner Peterson thought that certain portions of the El Camino 5 Focus Area and high-density areas needed commercial-ready first floors. Commissioner 6 Peterson requested additional information regarding the builder’s remedy. 7 Steven Switzer heard the applicant mention their intent to provide a transportation study as a 8 condition of approval for the project development. Steven Switzer understood the PTC’s 9 concerns but reiterated that the only consideration for the vesting tentative map was whether 10 the site met the 7 findings, was suitable for the density and could accommodate a building of 11 that size. 12 Jennifer Armer added that, because the City had a short timeline to decide on this project, the 13 plan was to include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to comply with the 14 recommendations of the transportation study if the traffic study was not complete before the 15 Council made a decision. Usually, a traffic plan was a request as part of CEQA. The applicant 16 must hire a transportation professional to provide a traffic study. Unfortunately, State 17 limitations did not permit additional meetings on this project. Jennifer Armer explained that El 18 Camino had overlapping maps and plans. The El Camino Real Focus Area provided additional 19 development capacity and changes in height, setbacks, and daylight planes to encourage 20 development projects to proceed through the City's process rather than using State laws to 21 override the City's regulations. The map prepared for the Retail Preservation Ordinance 22 designated retail nodes with a greater retail preservation requirement, rather than requiring 23 only partial replacement of existing retail. The applicant did not need to preserve any retail 24 because it was a builder's remedy project. 25 Vice Chair Chang remarked that the City had not identified this site for retail preservation. 26 Albert Yang stated he was mistaken earlier and had misread the map. The staff had displayed 27 the correct map. Builder’s remedy was a provision in the Housing Accountability Act. The State 28 law limited the reasons a City could deny a housing project. When a housing project provided a 29 certain percentage of affordable housing, the reasons for denial were much more limited. Once 30 a project qualified for the builder’s remedy, the reasons for denial further narrowed. 31 Inconsistency with local standards contained in the City’s Zoning Ordinance or the policies in 32 the General Plan was not an allowable reason to deny a builder’s remedy project. Every year, 5 33 or 6 bills amended the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. 34 Commissioner Templeton inquired whether the traffic study would address how to ensure 35 safety. 36 Based on other developments of this size and the proposed density, Steven Switzer observed 37 that traffic studies evaluated left turns, the necessity for turning lanes, queuing, and the safety 38 of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. 39 Commissioner Hechtman requested that the staff display Finding 6 on the screen, located on 1 Packet Page 19: "That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause 2 serious public health problems." Commissioner Hechtman asked for confirmation of his 3 understanding that the "design of the subdivision" meant the PTC had to determine whether 4 the shape of the merged parcel was likely to cause serious public health problems. 5 Commissioner Hechtman wondered whether "type of improvements" referred to residential, 6 commercial, or industrial, the number of stories, or the design of the subdivision 7 improvements. Commissioner Hechtman thanked the public for participating in tonight's 8 meeting and acknowledged their concerns. When projects came before the PTC, Commissioner 9 Hechtman noted that commissioners often told the developer how to improve the project. On 10 many of those occasions, the developer made changes and came back with a better project, 11 demonstrating that the PTC review process worked. Normally, the PTC could address access 12 issues, shadowing, and height directly with the applicant; however, with this application, the 13 PTC could only review a map, and any concerns had to fit within the 7 findings. Commissioner 14 Hechtman was able to make the 7 findings. Although the staff told the Commission not to 15 consider the development project, Finding 4 was whether the property was suitable for the 16 proposed density. If the question is whether this property could accommodate a 321 -unit 17 building, the answer would be yes. 18 Albert Yang confirmed that Finding 6 referred to the shape of the lot lines. Albert Yang thought 19 there was some room for interpretation and discretion regarding the type of improvements. 20 Still, it would be more consistent with the Subdivision Map Act for Finding 6 to apply to the 21 construction type and use classification rather than the particular design. 22 Jennifer Armer said that a subdivision often created new roadways, so the access and sidewalks 23 associated with the public improvements were under consideration when evaluating a 24 subdivision. 25 Vice Chair Chang said the PTC valued the public's comments. Vice Chair Chang had 6 cars 26 behind her on Matadero as she attempted to turn onto El Camino when she visited the site 27 today at 9:15 a.m. Vice Chair Chang could not drive down the street today without slowing and 28 pulling over to let another car pass in the opposite direction. Vice Chair Chang was excited to 29 see vacant and unattractive lots turned into housing; however, she wanted the City to mitigate 30 this project's circulation and infrastructure challenges. The laws created a compressed timeline 31 and this is a builder's remedy application, so the outcome may not change if the PTC cannot 32 make the findings. Students' lives and safety were important, as events in the past 2 weeks 33 have highlighted. Kendall and Matadero were the Safe Routes to School for Barron Park. 34 Matadero was a Safe Route for the middle school and high school. Vice Chair Chang believed it 35 was the right place for housing; however, when she was working on the El Camino Real Focus 36 Area, she did not anticipate 2 builder's remedy projects on either side of Kendall, which 37 exacerbated the problems. The kids who will live in the over 1,000 housing units in the El 38 Camino Real Focus Area will commute to school through Kendall or Matadero. Barron Park 39 Elementary had between 200 and 230 students. This development has 321 units in addition to 40 the Creekside Inn project, Palo Alto Square, and housing across the street. 41 The PTC was the Planning and Transportation Commission, so Vice Chair Chang thought it was 1 critically important that the PTC address its concerns in the recommendation to the Council 2 tonight. Vice Chair Chang requested a PTC condition of approval to include easements for the 3 sidewalks along El Camino and on the sides. Vice Chair Chang emphasized that the applicant 4 needed to consider pedestrians and bicyclists, ensure that drivers could see bicyclists, and allow 5 bicyclists to move into the opposing lane of traffic if delivery vehicles blocked their path. Vice 6 Chair Chang suggested routing traffic away from Kendall and onto Matadero and adding a bike 7 lane on Matadero. Vice Chair Chang was concerned about traffic flow in and out of the 8 development from the driveways on Kendall and Matadero. The City's objective standards kept 9 driveways off El Camino. Vice Chair Chang did not have a specific recommendation on where 10 the ingress and egress should be, nor was the PTC given an option to study; however, one 11 solution could be an exception in the City's objective standards to allow ingress and egress on El 12 Camino. Vice Chair Chang believed there were major safety concerns and did not think she 13 could make Finding 6 because of unsafe ingress and egress on the side streets. 14 Commissioner Ji thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner Ji lives in Ventura, close 15 to this development. Commissioner Ji had attended the PAUSD K-12 public school system and 16 biked to school since kindergarten, so he was familiar with the Safe Routes to School programs. 17 Commissioner Ji had biked on Matadero. The bike connectivity in the BPTP update would bring 18 more people to Matadero as the City added connections to the South Palo Alto Bike Trail 19 through the neighborhood. Commissioner Ji saw on the vesting tentative map that the labels 20 for Kendall and Matadero were 40 and 60 feet wide, respectively; however, Kendall had a 23 -21 foot-wide egress while Matadero had a 20-foot-wide egress. Commissioner Ji found it 22 interesting to position the larger egress on the smaller street, and he wondered where the 23 applicant assumed most of the traffic would go. Commissioner Ji joined the PTC because he was 24 interested in transportation problems. Commissioner Ji wanted the transportation study to 25 include the projected demand of the 2 other projects. This project was large relative to the 26 community and caused an impact. The combined impact from the 3 projects would affect all 27 traffic entering and exiting the neighborhood, which Commissioner Ji wanted the developer to 28 keep in mind when creating the transportation plan. 29 Commissioner Ji had concerns about Finding 6 regarding the types of improvement and safety. 30 Commissioner Ji cited the City's Comprehensive Plan in Policy T-6.6, "Use engineering, 31 enforcement and educational tools to improve safety for all users on City roadways," and 32 Program T6.6.3, "Work with PAUSD and employers to promote roadway safety for all users, 33 including bikes, through educational programs for children and adults." Commissioner Ji 34 suggested consideration of expanding the easement to add bike infrastructure. Bike lanes in 35 California were about 4 to 6 feet wide. Commissioner Ji encouraged the developer to determine 36 what the members of the public wanted, for example, increasing the 8-foot easement, installing 37 a 1-block sidewalk and a bike lane instead of a 2 -block sidewalk, or pursuing other solutions. 38 Commissioner Ji was particularly concerned about Matadero due to the expected increase in 39 bike traffic. 40 Chair Akin thought the crux of the PTC’s decision was Finding 6, public safety. Chair Akin might 1 not make Finding 6 because the vesting tentative map needed additional improvements. Chair 2 Akin reiterated Commissioner Ji’s options, including increasing the easements on Matadero and 3 Kendall to allow space for a bike lane or other infrastructure to address safety issues. Chair Akin 4 was willing to eliminate a 4-foot planting strip in favor of a bike lane. Chair Akin thought the 5 PTC could recommend options, and staff could communicate those to the Council for their 6 consideration. Chair Akin asked the Commission to express their thoughts on adding conditions 7 of approval to this project. 8 Commissioner Templeton felt it was the PTC's responsibility to work with staff and the public to 9 mitigate the concerns. Commissioner Templeton agreed with Chair Akin's idea for the PTC to 10 suggest conditions of approval to the Council. Commissioner Templeton wanted the 11 Commission to consider connecting to the Bol Park Bike and Pedestrian Path via either Kendall 12 or Matadero, potentially through or adjacent to the development. Commissioner Templeton 13 hoped for greater separation between the bike lanes and roadways as the City moved forward 14 with its vision. Commissioner Templeton wondered whether the community would be 15 amenable to installing infrastructure to address the conflict between bikes and cars, as was 16 done in the past on Bryant with bollards that allowed bikes to go through but discouraged cars. 17 The bollard separation could be moved farther inward from El Camino toward the Barron Park 18 neighborhood, and the new building's driveway would go out toward El Camino. Commissioner 19 Templeton desired the Transportation team to review this conversation and suggest better 20 options before this project goes to the Council. 21 When Palo Alto annexed Barron Park, the intention was to keep it rural. Barron Park was no 22 longer rural due to Palo Alto's high-density growth and may need infrastructure for safety, such 23 as sidewalks. Commissioner Templeton could not make Finding 4 without conditions of 24 approval. Commissioner Templeton wanted the Commission to discuss infrastructure options as 25 conditions of approval. As the City grows, Commissioner Templeton felt it was incumbent on 26 the City to improve infrastructure to address the danger posed to children. For the vesting 27 tentative map, Commissioner Templeton believed that the safety of the neighboring roadways 28 should be a consideration when increasing the population density in an area. 29 Commissioner Hechtman noted that staff added his suggestion to the first sentence of Finding 30 1, stating that there was no adopted, specific plan for that project site. Finding 2 referred to 37 31 affordable units; however, the staff report mentioned 38 units. Commissioner Hechtman 32 advised the staff to correct that discrepancy to match the applicant's proposal before it went to 33 the Council. For long-range planning and consistency, Commissioner Hechtman thought the 34 staff should consider rezoning the merged parcel to a single designation, as it was undesirable 35 to have different zoning rules for the building's front and back. Commissioner Hechtman 36 thanked the applicant for proposing more parking than required for this project. Commissioner 37 Hechtman thought there was a bike lane across the frontage. El Camino was becoming a 38 regional bikeway with bollards and other protections. The Safe Routes to School map did not 39 include a route along any part of El Camino, so Commissioner Hechtman anticipated 40 reconsideration as to whether any part of the El Camino Bike Boulevard met the qualifications 41 to become a safe route as a result of Caltrans's changes. Commissioner Hechtman did not know 1 whether it was safer to move the project's entrance onto El Camino with cars driving out across 2 a dedicated regional bike lane or onto the side streets where there might be fewer bicyclists 3 but of a younger average age. Commissioner Hechtman was unsure whether the PTC could 4 impose the desired conditions of approval on this vesting tentative map. 5 Commissioner Peterson agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. Commissioner Peterson 6 discovered this was a Vittoria Management VRENT project. Commissioner Peterson was the 7 only renter on the PTC and has been a VRENT tenant for 12 years. Commissioner Peterson 8 noted VRENT is walkable. Commissioner Peterson asked staff whether he needed to recuse 9 himself from this topic. 10 Albert Yang said Commissioner Peterson did not need to recuse himself. 11 Commissioner Peterson agreed that the applicant should provide a traffic plan. Commissioner 12 Peterson thought this project, in combination with other large projects in the vicinity, would 13 yield overall benefits by widening streets and perhaps adding turn lanes. Commissioner 14 Peterson encouraged the developer to speak with Oscar Mazariegos from the Carpenters 15 Union, noting that they have an incredible workforce in this region and deliver higher quality 16 and productivity. More importantly, using local workers benefits the community. Commissioner 17 Peterson read that the developer proposed a podium project with a 5 -story wood-frame 18 building. The union had a training center in Morgan Hill. 19 After this project's construction, Chair Akin suggested that Transportation consider making 20 Matadero and Kendall one-way in opposite directions, as well as adding a lane for safe bike 21 infrastructure. 22 Albert Yang stated that, in general, conditions of approval were necessary to support the 23 findings; however, the City could not impose conditions that preclude a builder's remedy 24 project from being constructed as proposed, for example, it could not change elements of the 25 design. 26 Commissioner Templeton said the Council could ask the developer or Public Works to widen 27 the street, widen the sidewalks, or add a bike lane. Commissioner Templeton sought the staff's 28 input on how the PTC could offer suggestions to make this project successful. Commissioner 29 Templeton wondered whether there should be 2 motions, since a motion might not pass if it 30 included recommendations. Commissioner Templeton inquired if it was the staff's position that 31 this project would still proceed to the Council regardless of whether the Commission made the 32 findings. 33 As the PTC had expressed interest in additional easements or infrastructure for bike lanes, 34 widening roads, and ensuring that the sidewalk easements were on the map, Jennifer Armer 35 recommended that any motion for approval include conditions or modifications and note 36 whether any recommended changes might affect the ability to make the findings. Jennifer 37 Armer requested input from Albert Yang on whether the PTC should word it as a condition of 38 approval or a recommended modification. Jennifer Armer said the Commission could conduct a 1 straw poll. The Commission could allow individual members to speak on their vote. If a 2 commissioner could not make the findings, they would vote against recommending that the 3 Council approve the vesting tentative map. Jennifer Armer confirmed that the staff would 4 include the PTC's recommendation along with the details as part of the staff report to the 5 Council for their consideration of this project. 6 Commissioner Hechtman suggested that the Commission move the staff's recommended 7 motion and that the Council consider the following matters, which would then list the PTC's 8 concerns. 9 Commissioner Templeton asked if the Commission felt that Findings 4 and 6 were the areas of 10 dispute. 11 Vice Chair Chang could not make Finding 6 with the information provided. Vice Chair Chang had 12 not decided on Finding 4 but appreciated Commissioner Templeton's logic. The public access 13 easement for the sidewalks was shown only in the cross-sections and not elsewhere in the 14 diagrams or the staff packet; therefore, Vice Chair Chang suggested that the Commission 15 recommend a change to the vesting tentative map to include a public access easement for the 16 sidewalks. 17 Chair Akin noted the easements for the sidewalks on Matadero and Kendall were on the map, 18 so he wondered whether it was an intentional omission not to mention them in the staff report. 19 Steven Switzer replied that the recently submitted map was Cycle 2 and was not an attachment 20 to the packet or mentioned in the staff report because it was currently under review by City 21 staff. 22 Since the public access easement for the sidewalks was clearly of interest to the Commission, 23 Jennifer Armer advised including a PTC recommendation to ensure the easements included the 24 sidewalks on all 3 frontages. 25 Commissioner Hechtman thought that a recommendation on a public access easement for the 26 sidewalks would help the Commission make Finding 7; however, he pointed out that Finding 7 27 stated that the new easements were replacing existing access easements when there was no 28 elimination of existing easements. Commissioner Hechtman thought the Council should 29 consider reinforcing the submitted plan or ensuring the easements shown on Matadero and 30 Kendall. 31 Chair Akin agreed with including easements in the recommendations but thought the 32 easements applied to Finding 6 rather than to Finding 7 because Finding 7 was not applicable. If 33 the PTC approved the vesting tentative map, Chair Akin wondered whether that meant 34 approval of all the easements for El Camino, Matadero, and Kendall shown on the map. 35 Steven Switzer did not think a condition of approval was necessary because the improvements 1 shown on the map were within the scope of the approval. 2 Motion 3 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to the City Council that it approve 4 the proposed vesting tentative map, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of 5 approval in the draft Record of Land Use in Attachment B, and that the City Council consider 6 the following matters in its review of this recommendation. 7 Chair Akin invited commissioners to make recommendations before seconding the motion. 8 Commissioner Templeton did not believe she could make the findings without the following 9 changes. For this development not to cause safety or serious public health problems, 10 Commissioner Templeton wanted a transportation study and TDM that addressed 11 neighborhood bike, pedestrian, and vehicular safety on Matadero and Kendall, and specifically 12 that the design of the property's ingress and egress did not cause a safety hazard when turning 13 onto El Camino when considering this project in combination with known neighboring projects. 14 Chair Akin called for a straw poll to recommend to the Council that it consider a traffic study to 15 ensure safety, particularly at ingress and egress points on Matadero and Kendall, as well as at 16 known neighboring projects. Commissioner Templeton, Vice Chair Chang, Commissioner Ji, 17 Commissioner Hechtman, and Chair Akin were interested in adding the recommendation. 18 Commissioner Peterson abstained. Therefore, the Commission added the recommendation to 19 the motion. 20 The proposed underpass at El Dorado would increase traffic from Margarita to Matadero and 21 then to Bol Park, so Commissioner Templeton wanted to connect the bike paths. Chair Akin 22 asked the Planning staff to communicate Commissioner Templeton's recommendation to the 23 Transportation staff and the Council. 24 Vice Chair Chang recommended that the Council ensure public access easements for sidewalks 25 in the development. 26 Chair Akin called for a straw poll on whether the PTC recommended that the Council consider 27 ensuring public access easements for sidewalks in the development. Commissioner Templeton, 28 Vice Chair Chang, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Hechtman, and Chair Akin were interested in 29 adding the recommendation. Commissioner Peterson abstained. Therefore, the Commission 30 added the recommendation to the motion. 31 Vice Chair Chang commented that a bike path through the development, moving the driveways, 32 and one-way streets might improve this project and address future traffic problems. A bike 33 path could be in the planter strip along the edge of the property. 34 Chair Akin advised the Commission to focus on recommendations directly related to the 35 project, for example, changing ingress/egress points rather than rerouting streets. 36 Commissioner Templeton wondered if the Commission could ask staff to share a summary of 1 the commissioners’ suggestions with the Transportation team for them to address not as part 2 of the project but in adjacency to this project, thereby making the project more successful. 3 The staff will provide a summary of this PTC discussion to the Council, and Jennifer Armer will 4 recommend that the staff include the items discussed and recommended, including those 5 outside the specific recommendations for this project. 6 Chair Akin requested that staff specifically communicate the commissioners' suggestions to the 7 Office of Transportation, and Jennifer Armer agreed to do so. 8 Chair Akin called for a straw poll on whether the PTC recommended that the Council consider 9 relocating ingress and egress points to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians and reduce 10 congestion. Commissioner Templeton, Vice Chair Chang, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner 11 Hechtman, and Chair Akin were interested in adding the recommendation. Commissioner 12 Peterson abstained. Therefore, the Commission added the recommendation to the motion. 13 Commissioner Templeton raised the question of how to separate bikes at the points of 14 congestion and conflict near El Camino. A Safe Routes to School diagram for Barron Park 15 suggested a route on Kendall that passed the elementary school and went toward the Bol Park 16 bike path. A quarter-mile or half-mile in, Commissioner Templeton noted there was space on 17 the north side of Matadero Road that could be suitable for a bike path. Commissioner 18 Templeton recommended that the developer consider a bike path through their property. 19 Commissioner Templeton wanted the PTC to encourage the City to develop a vision for this 20 area, similar to an area plan. To make the congestion point safer, the Commission could 21 recommend a bike lane in the other direction, where another property was under development 22 across the street. 23 Commissioner Hechtman wondered whether a portion of the public access easements for the 24 sidewalks could include a bike lane. 25 Chair Akin did not want to constrain where the Council considers a bike path. 26 Commissioner Ji thought that part of the 8-foot easement on Matadero could be a bike lane. 27 Commissioner Peterson commented that with biking becoming more popular and with 1,000 28 tenants living in this 321-unit development, there would be a bike lane somewhere, whether 29 built by the developer or created by people exiting the building. 30 Chair Akin called for a straw poll on whether the PTC recommended that the Council consider a 31 bike path incorporating parts of the property. Commissioner Templeton, Vice Chair Chang, 32 Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Hechtman, and Chair Akin were interested in adding the 33 recommendation. Commissioner Peterson abstained. Therefore, the Commission added the 34 recommendation to the motion. 35 Second 36 Chair Akin seconded the motion. 1 Vote 2 The motion failed 2-3-1 by roll call vote. Chair Akin and Commissioner Hechtman voted yes. 3 Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Templeton, and Vice Chair Chang voted no. Commissioner 4 Peterson abstained. Commissioner James was absent. 5 Chair Akin invited commissioners to speak to their no votes. 6 Commissioner Templeton's primary reasons for not supporting this motion were the rushed 7 nature of the application and the PTC's lack of adequate information. Commissioner Templeton 8 was excited about the project and acknowledged that the Commission's vote did not prevent 9 the project from moving forward. Commissioner Templeton desired that the Council consider 10 safety. Rushing the process led the PTC to vote on proposals that were not ready, thereby 11 putting the developer at a disadvantage. The PTC's responsibility was to consider the safety and 12 suitability of a development; therefore, Commissioner Templeton's perspective was that she 13 could not make her decision on approval unless she could consider all aspects of the 14 development. 15 As a point of order, Commissioner Hechtman thought the commissioners spoke to no votes 16 when a motion passed despite their no votes. The motion failed, so Commissioner Hechtman 17 believed the next step was for the Commission to consider a motion not recommending 18 approval to the Council. 19 Jennifer Armer confirmed Commissioner Hechtman was correct. The motion to recommend 20 approval had failed, so the Commission needed to vote on a recommendation to deny the 21 vesting tentative map, with specific details about the findings that supported that denial. 22 Chair Akin added that staff should include the Commission's recommendations for Council 23 consideration. 24 Jennifer Armer said the staff would provide a summary of this discussion to the Council, 25 including the concerns. 26 Motion 27 Vice Chair Chang moved that the PTC not recommend this vesting tentative map to the City 28 Council for approval because the Commission could not make Finding 6. The Commission 29 believed that the subdivision's design or the type of improvements was likely to cause serious 30 public health problems, namely conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians along Safe Routes to 31 School for elementary, middle, and high schools. The PTC recommended that the City Council 32 consider the following matters in its review: a traffic study to ensure safety, particularly ingress 33 and egress on Matadero and Kendall with this and known neighboring projects; ensuring public 34 access easements for any sidewalks that were part of the development; relocating ingress and 35 egress points to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians as well as reduce congestion; and a 36 bike path incorporating parts of the property. 37 Second 1 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 2 Vote 3 The motion passed 3-2-1 by roll call vote. Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Templeton, and Vice 4 Chair Chang voted yes. Chair Akin and Commissioner Hechtman voted no. Commissioner 5 Peterson abstained. Commissioner James was absent. 6 Regarding his no vote, Commissioner Hechtman believed that Finding 6 had to be made and 7 that the commissioners were considering matters outside the parameters of appropriate 8 consideration for that finding. Commissioner Hechtman was in support of the additional 9 recommendations for the Council’s consideration despite his no vote on the motion. 10 Chair Akin had serious doubts about his ability to make the negative Finding 6; however, he 11 believed it was fixable and wanted to forward it to the Council for correction. 12 The PTC took a break at 9:20 p.m. and resumed at 9:35 p.m. with all members present. 13 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 929 Laurel Glen Drive [25PLN-00005]: 14 Recommendation to the City Council on a Major Site and Design Application for the 15 Construction of a New 6,581-Square-Foot Single-Family Residence and Associated 16 Site Improvements on a Vacant 4.23-Acre Site. CEQA Status: Exempt Per CEQA 17 Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning District: Open Space (OS). 18 Chair Akin invited commissioners to voice any disclosures. Chair Akin and Vice Chair Chang 19 visited the site. Commissioner Ji visited the site and saw deer. 20 Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius delivered a presentation on the review of the major site 21 and design application for the property at 929 Laurel Glen Drive, a vacant 4.23 -acre site at the 22 end of a cul-de-sac within the Foothills Open Space neighborhood, in the Open Space (OS) 23 Zoning District. The site was surrounded primarily by Open Space and Public Facilities zoning. 24 Arastradero Creek and the associated trail were approximately 500+ feet from the proposed 25 development area. The development of 1 single-family residence was consistent with the Open 26 Space designation. The project included the removal of 15 native oak trees, 14 of which were 27 protected trees under the City's Tree Ordinance, Title 8. The City's standards required the 28 replacement of 60 native oak trees. The applicant proposed a combination of on -site planting 29 and in-lieu fees. The property was within a high -severity fire hazard area. Sensitive habitat 30 areas included woodrat middens and scrub vegetation, which constrained on -site planting. The 31 staff supported the applicant's approach. The City's consulting biologist reviewed these 32 constraints and was present to address the Commission's questions. 33 Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius stated that the proposed development consisted of a 34 new 2-story single-family residence of approximately 5,802 square feet with an attached 3 -car 35 garage of 779 square feet (total combined area of 6,581 square feet). The 16-foot-wide 36 permeable turf-stone driveway would reduce the impervious surface area. The tandem 37 driveway parking complied with zoning requirements. The residence was on the front portion 1 of the site to minimize grading and disturbance, consistent with Open Space review criteria. The 2 residence would be oriented parallel to Laurel Glen Drive and set back approximately 74 feet 3 from the front property line, outside an existing 30 -foot-wide sewer easement. The plans and 4 elevations for the first and second floors, as well as renderings of the building materials and 5 design, were displayed on the screen. The simple massing followed the site's natural 6 topography, reducing the need for extensive grading. The articulated roof forms helped to 7 break up the structure's overall scale and mass. The structure's setting avoided ridgelines and 8 maintained separation from sensitive vegetation areas. The applicant provided sample building 9 materials. The architectural design was contemporary. Exterior materials included wood siding, 10 smooth stucco, and asphalt roof shingles. The proposed color palette consisted of earth -toned, 11 muted colors and finishes with low reflectivity. There would be low -intensity, shielded exterior 12 lighting aimed downward. 13 The staff evaluated this project's consistency with the review criteria for the Open Space and 14 Controlled Development designations. The proposed development met the allowable density 15 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's designation, zoning standards, and applicable code 16 requirements. The intent was to preserve open space and allow limited development. The 17 applicant clustered the project closer to existing residential developments on both sides to 18 minimize environmental impacts. Staff was awaiting final conditions of approval from waste, 19 gas, water, and electric utilities to incorporate into the final Record of Land Use Action 20 presented to the Council. The project qualified for a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA. 21 The staff recommendation was for the PTC to recommend that the City Council approve this 22 project based on the analysis presented in the staff report. 23 Vice Chair Chang asked if this project would go on the Council’s consent calendar. Vice Chair 24 Chang noted the report stated the applicant would plant 28 trees onsite but the landscaping 25 plans showed many more. 26 Kristina Dobkevicius confirmed that this application would go on the Council's consent 27 calendar. The latest resubmittal did not address tree replanting. The arborist report in the 28 document file (Attachment D) included the correct number of replacement trees. The 29 applicant's project description included the updated arborist report and required 60 30 replacement trees, as shown on Slide 2. Based on the location of the sensitive habitats 31 mentioned in the biology report, the staff would likely ask the applicant to plant fewer trees, 32 plant as many as possible outside the sensitive areas, and pay in-lieu fees for the remainder. 33 Commissioner Ji questioned what the blue line represented on Slide 1. Commissioner Ji recalled 34 reading in the staff report about the distance from a creek or stream. 35 Kristina Dobkevicius replied that the biologist's report mentioned an unidentified stream. The 36 500-foot distance in the staff report referred to the wider blue line on Slide 1, which was 37 Arastradero Creek. 38 Commissioner Templeton asked whether the unidentified stream represented a channel. 39 Kristina Dobkevicius answered that it was definitely not a creek but Abe Leider from Rincon 1 Consultants could elaborate more on the stream. 2 Abe Leider mentioned that the biologist for this project was not present at tonight’s meeting. 3 The biological analysis identified an unnamed drainage. Abe Leider knew that the project would 4 not affect the unnamed drainage but he did not know all the drainage characteristics. 5 Commissioner Templeton encouraged staff to use the term "unnamed drainage" consistently. 6 Chair Akin inquired whether the unnamed drainage was intermittent. 7 Kristina Dobkevicius responded yes, the unnamed drainage was intermittent. 8 Commissioner Ji questioned whether the streamside ordinance was relevant to the unidentified 9 drainage. Commissioner Ji asked if the staff report included the distance from the unidentified 10 drainage. 11 Jennifer Armer thought the draft streamside ordinance would be part of the PTC’s discussion at 12 the next hearing. 13 The applicant was online from San Diego. Ken, the homeowner, was present to answer 14 questions. 15 Daniel Hruby mentioned the challenges associated with this site included the wide easement 16 for the sewer line running across the front of the property, the City’s maximum slope 17 requirements for the driveway, minimizing tree removal, and not exceeding 150 feet of 18 driveway length to avoid the necessity for a firetruck turnaround. Daniel Hruby said the house 19 site was as low as possible, and the 9-foot ceiling height was within the height limit. 20 Commissioner Hechtman asked whether the applicant was comfortable with the staff’s 21 suggestion to plant fewer trees, plant as many trees as possible while remaining outside the 22 sensitive areas, and pay in-lieu fees for the remainder. Commissioner Hechtman wanted to 23 know the location of the front yard on Packet Page 37. On Table 1 -A, the proposed front yard 24 was 33.29 feet while the interior side yard was 73.59 feet. 25 Daniel Hruby was open to continuing to try to replace as many trees as possible with the in -lieu 26 fee as a backup option. The applicant may be able to find locations to provide additional 27 screening from the street at the front of the property. Daniel Hruby said the front yard depth 28 was 74 feet. 29 Kristina Dobkevicius explained that the faint dashed line on the site plan indicated the required 30 30-foot front setback. Kristina Dobkevicius pointed out the sewer easement on the site plan 31 displayed on the screen. Kristina Dobkevicius said that staff would correct Table 1 -A, the zoning 32 comparison table, before it goes to the Council to reflect the accurate furthest setback 33 measurement from the property as 74 feet. 34 Vice Chair Chang asked whether the biologist’s study examined bird hazard installations. 1 Kristina Dobkevicius responded that the biologist considered the bird nesting season. 2 Jennifer Armer clarified that the biologist looked at the existing site, not the proposed project. 3 The City passed a dark skies ordinance that applied to outside lighting. Vice Chair Chang 4 requested that the applicant speak about light spillage through windows at night and whether 5 there would be window coverings. Because this project was in the Open Space Zoning District, 6 Vice Chair Chang was concerned about light spillage affecting the environment. 7 Daniel Hruby replied that the lighting would be traditional, likely recessed can lights aimed 8 downward. Nobody was below this property. After the intended landscape screening grows in, 9 it should minimize the appearance of interior lighting from the street. Most of the larger 10 windows were on the rear of the house. There were 2 houses at the end of the cul -de-sac. 11 Therefore, Daniel Hruby did not anticipate the interior lighting having much impact on anyone. 12 There would likely be motorized blinds. The applicant planned to have only necessary, minimal, 13 shielded exterior lighting for circulation off the decks and rear patio walkways. Given the area it 14 was in, Daniel Hruby did not intend for this to be a brightly lit project, and it met the exterior 15 lighting guidelines. Daniel Hruby was unaware that the applicant had to consider the exterior 16 impact when designing the interior lighting. 17 Public Comment 18 Sam Tavera did not receive any public comment cards for this item, and there were no raised 19 hands on Zoom. 20 Vice Chair Chang hoped the applicant would mitigate the glass railings and larger windows. Vice 21 Chair Chang asked if the applicant had considered a bird-friendly design. The Commission 22 forwarded a bird-friendly design ordinance to the Council to prevent large windows or large 23 areas of reflective surfaces. A neighbor had expressed concerns about this home being visible 24 to her. Vice Chair Chang wondered whether the color could blend better with the surroundings 25 because the coconut-colored stucco appeared too white in the renderings. Planting more 26 replacement trees between the house and the street might be helpful. Vice Chair Chang 27 wanted to add a condition of approval for the applicant to comply with the dark skies ordinance 28 that the Council recently approved. 29 Commissioner Peterson supported dark skies and bird -friendly glazing. Commissioner Peterson 30 thought favorably of the project. 31 Commissioner Ji echoed Commissioner Peterson's comments. Commissioner Ji was pleased to 32 see that the zoning comparison table did not request exemptions. Referring to Packet Page 34, 33 Commissioner Ji asked for the staff's definition of a qualified biologist. 34 Kristina Dobkevicius replied that a qualified biologist was part of the project to identify any 35 sensitive areas, and the information came from the consultant's CEQA report. 36 Jennifer Armer explained that the site was reviewed for biologically sensitive areas, not to 1 evaluate the building design for bird hazards. 2 Commissioner Hechtman inquired whether the City had adopted a dark skies ordinance; if not, 3 this project would be exempt if the ordinance was not in effect on the date of project approval. 4 Commissioner Hechtman appreciated the sensitivity of the project's design, with extensive 5 natural screening, avoiding tree removal to the extent possible, and providing a clear space 6 around the house as the fire department desired. On Packet Page 46, the first line stated that 7 the term of approval was valid for 2 years but the last line mentioned a 1 -year expiration, so 8 the staff needed to correct the discrepancy. 9 Jennifer Armer confirmed that the City adopted a dark skies ordinance; however, because the 10 project was deemed complete, she would defer to Albert Yang. Jennifer Armer said the staff 11 would correct the discrepancy in the approval length. 12 Albert Yang said the dark sky ordinance applied to this project. There was a timing question 13 about whether the bird-friendly glass ordinance would apply, depending on which went to the 14 Council first and whether the second reading and completion of the 30 -day referendum period 15 occurred. 16 Chair Akin was comfortable with the siting and architectural approach. Chair Akin enjoyed 17 reviewing the drainage and seismic engineering documents. Chair Akin appreciated the 18 clarification regarding the trees. The glass guardrail and the large windows not under the 19 overhang posed a bird hazard. Chair Akin wondered if the applicant was receptive to mitigating 20 those issues, regardless of whether the bird-friendly ordinance applied. Chair Akin requested 21 the staff to provide information on potential bird-hazard mitigation measures for the applicant 22 and owner to consider if they were interested in implementing any of them. Chair Akin said the 23 Commission could discuss adding conditions of approval for dark-sky and bird-friendly design. 24 Daniel Hruby was amenable to mitigations but he had to defer to the owner, Ken. 25 To avoid light spillage from the interior of the house, Ken agreed to select windows that were 26 not transparent when interior lighting was on, thereby improving dark -sky conditions. Ken is an 27 engineer and knows about dark skies. For the final design, Ken would consider selecting 28 materials and technologies to enhance environmental protection, as well as full-cutoff light 29 fixtures projected downward. 30 Kristina Dobkevicius stated that the staff would provide the applicant with information on bird 31 hazard mitigation measures. 32 Albert Yang corrected his earlier statement. The dark skies ordinance included a clause that it 33 did not apply to projects deemed complete on the date the ordinance became effective; 34 therefore, it did not apply to this project. 35 Commissioner Templeton asked whether the ARB had reviewed this application. Commissioner 1 Templeton inquired whether the staff had spoken with the applicant about surrounding a 2 house in the hills with a glass railing and whether the applicant had discussed options with his 3 client. In fairness to the applicants, Commissioner Templeton encouraged the staff and 4 developers to keep bird-friendly design in mind, as the PTC had raised concerns about it for 5 several years, and it was more enjoyable for homeowners not to see birds flying into the glass. 6 Commissioner Templeton expressed her appreciation to the owner for being present to discuss 7 this project with the PTC. Commissioner Templeton was aware that it was difficult to obtain 8 bird-safe glass for residential properties, so she suggested a cable design for its ease of 9 installation and maintenance while also providing a good view. 10 Kristina Dobkevicius said this project did not go to the ARB. 11 Jennifer Armer did not know whether anyone mentioned the glass railings to the applicant but 12 they might not have, because at the time the staff reviewed this project, the ordinance 13 requirements were unknown. The PTC recommended the bird-friendly ordinance in December. 14 Daniel Hruby mentioned that he had offered his client the option of cable railing or metal 15 dowels in the railing but the client wanted an unobstructed view as much as possible and chose 16 glass. Daniel Hruby felt it was up to the owner if he was open to modifications. 17 Ken said the cable railing was fine. 18 Zoltan Eordogh, Senior Architect at Spacial, wanted to confirm that glazing was a 19 recommendation, not a requirement, since the bird-safety ordinance was not yet effective. 20 Jennifer Armer answered that the Council had not adopted the ordinance yet; however, the 21 PTC could recommend a condition of approval specifying where to apply bird -friendly design, 22 for example, an alternative material or application of a bird-friendly treatment to the glass 23 railing along the edge. 24 Vice Chair Chang wished that the staff had advised the applicant about the upcoming 25 ordinance. Particularly in Open Space, the PTC considered uninterrupted reflective surfaces 26 greater than 24 square feet and situations in which birds could see through 2 panels of glass to 27 be bird hazards. Vice Chair Chang noted that the corners of the glass guardrails were 28 problematic because the birds could see through 2 panels of glass. The exterior stair on the side 29 of the house had a glass guardrail in the middle of an opening, allowing birds to pass through 30 safely. Vice Chair Chang noted that the W-15 and W-10 windows, as well as the D-1, D-5, and D-31 6 second-story doors, had panes of uninterrupted glass measuring more than 24 square feet. 32 The downstairs door was not a concern because the overhang prevented reflectivity. Vice Chair 33 Chang felt it was not the PTC's role to prescribe solutions, so she wanted a condition of 34 approval to address bird-hazard concerns without specifically dictating how to do so. 35 Mitigations included interrupting the panes of glass, but that interrupts the view, and special 36 glass treatments, but those were hard to obtain for residential use. Because this type of project 37 did not go to the ARB, the PTC needed to ensure the buildings used natural materials and earth 38 tones or subdued colors. The roof color and wood paneling were great but the white color of 1 the back of the house in the A0.8 rendering stood out from everything else. Vice Chair Chang 2 suggested camouflaging the house from the neighbors' view. 3 Daniel Hruby asked whether the PTC had the materials board to view a better representation of 4 the stucco. The applicant spoke with the neighbor after she made her comments, and the 5 neighbor was more receptive to the applicant's use of earth-tone colors. The applicant would 6 obtain the neighbor's approval of the colors. The applicant intended a sandy, earth -toned 7 building, not a light-colored one. Daniel Hruby will design cable railings instead of glass railings. 8 Daniel Hruby preferred not to reduce or divide the windows to avoid disrupting the views from 9 this expensive property. The applicant could investigate whether there was a product or type of 10 glass for large windows that addressed bird safety. 11 It appeared to Commissioner Templeton from the renderings that the foundation walls were 12 exposed, and she wondered whether there would be landscaping with plantings; otherwise, the 13 wall color would be more visible. Commissioner Templeton agreed with Vice Chair Chang's 14 suggestion of subdued coloring. 15 Daniel Hruby replied that there was a 5-foot-wide perimeter on the downhill side of the 16 building where they were not allowed to have any leafy or bushy plants. 17 Commissioner Hechtman noted that it was unknown whether the Council would approve the 18 project before adopting the bird-friendly ordinance. W-10 and W-15 were in excess of 24 19 square feet. The PTC's version of the ordinance required treatment of windows larger than 24 20 square feet. Commissioner Hechtman was uncomfortable imposing conditions on applicants 21 that were not in an adopted ordinance, because owners were entitled to know the rules before 22 hiring and paying a lot of money for someone to create a design. Commissioner Hechtman 23 appreciated the owner's willingness to consider making modifications. To prevent birds from 24 seeing through the 2 panes of glass at the corners of the wraparound railing on the second 25 floor, Commissioner Hechtman suggested a clear glass railing across the frontage that stops 26 short of the corners. Commissioner Hechtman voiced his support for the project. 27 Commissioner Templeton preferred to make recommendations to the Council because it was 28 unfair to change the rules for the applicant when no ordinance was in place, and because the 29 applicant might have difficulty finding materials. The applicant could then prepare a response 30 to the Council, and the Council could determine what to do. 31 Chair Akin pointed out that this item would appear on the Council's consent agenda. 32 Vice Chair Chang was concerned about the 5-panel and 3-panel doors on the back, which the 33 applicant could address with a larger overhang or another bird-friendly solution. Referring to 34 the glass railing on A3.1, the right side of the bottom elevation, Vice Chair Chang was most 35 comfortable with a condition of approval for no glass railings, and the remaining items listed as 36 recommendations. 37 If the Council adopted the bird-friendly ordinance, Commissioner Ji asked whether it would 1 apply to this project. 2 Jennifer Armer answered that the bird-friendly ordinance would likely not apply to this project 3 because the ordinance had to go to the Council for initial discussion, then a second reading 4 either 2 weeks or a month later, and then it would go into effect 30 days afterward. This project 5 was anticipated to go to the Council in April and was likely to get approved before the second 6 reading and 30 days had passed. 7 Commissioner Hechtman noted that it was unknown whether the Council would include a 8 provision in the bird-friendly ordinance stating that it did not apply to applications that were 9 complete on the date of adoption. If the Council decides that the ordinance does not apply to a 10 project that was complete as of the date of adoption, the Council would reasons for that 11 decision. Commissioner Hechtman did not think it was appropriate to ignore an explicit Council 12 decision that the dark sky ordinance does not apply to projects that were complete on the date 13 of adoption. Commissioner Hechtman liked the idea of phrasing this issue as a recommendation 14 for consideration rather than a condition of approval. 15 Zoltan Eordogh knew of various types of glazing, such as acid-treated guardrails with stripes, 16 squares, polka dots, or an interesting pattern that prevented birds from flying through. If the 17 PTC added a condition of approval, Zoltan Eordogh preferred a general reference to bird -18 friendly solutions rather than asking for steel cable guardrails or another specific product. 19 Chair Akin said that fritted glass was allowed. 20 Commissioner Templeton reiterated that it was unfair to change the rules for this applicant in 21 the middle of a project. 22 Motion 23 Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation together with a strong recommendation 24 that the applicant: Work with the neighbors to select a color for the dwelling that would 25 camouflage it, adhere to the new dark skies ordinance regarding external lighting, consider 26 ways to prevent light spillage from interior lighting, and mitigate all bird -hazard installations as 27 defined by the PTC's recommended ordinance. 28 Second 29 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 30 Vote 31 The motion passed 6-0 by roll call vote. Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 32 Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton voted yes. 33 Commissioner James was absent. 34 Approval of Minutes 35 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 1 Minutes of November 12, 2025 2 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 3 Minutes of December 10, 2025 4 Sam Tavera noted that all PTC commissioners were present at the November 12 and December 5 10 meetings. 6 Motion 7 Chair Akin moved approval of the Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and 8 Verbatim Minutes of November 12 and December 10, as revised. 9 Second 10 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 11 Vote 12 The motion passed 6-0 by voice vote. Commissioner James was absent. 13 Commissioner Questions, Comments, and Announcements or Future Meetings 14 and Agendas 15 Commissioner Templeton and Councilmember Reckdahl were on the XCAP when they 16 recommended to the Council that Churchill be closed. Commissioner Templeton encouraged 17 the commissioners and the Council to consider how to make Churchill safe and to talk to people 18 about how they feel about Churchill. Commissioner Templeton hoped the PTC would soon have 19 the opportunity to discuss Churchill with the Transportation team. On Monday, the Council said 20 that the Public Works team would work on the closure of Churchill. Since last week's incident, 21 Commissioner Templeton has been having community conversations, including about what the 22 City could do for other crossings, such as Meadow. The southern part of Palo Alto lacked an 23 undercrossing. Charleston was a major thoroughfare going from 280 to 101, which made it 24 more difficult to address because closing that crossing was not an option. 25 Commissioner Ji said the San Antonio Road Area Plan Community Advisory Group met recently. 26 In attendance at that meeting was Presidio Bay Ventures, the developer for the Charleston 27 project in Mountain View, where Best Buy and REI used to be. One of the Community Advisory 28 Group's main discussion points was the development of various uses. The Presidio Bay Ventures 29 team was interested in mixed-use and offered a tour of their Springline development, located 30 near downtown Menlo Park. Matthew with Presidio Bay Ventures had told Commissioner Ji 31 that the PTC was welcome to join the tour tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, February 18. 32 Commissioner Ji would forward the invite to the Commission when he had more details. 33 Commissioner Ji viewed this as an interesting case study of a mixed-use development in a 34 neighboring city, as it was pertinent to the PTC's discussion topics on ground -floor retail 35 ordinances on El Camino and retail revitalization. Presidio Bay Ventures said retail would not 36 survive in certain projects, such as the one in Menlo Park, but the developer was subsidizing 37 ground-floor retail. 38 Since it was related to a project that would come before the PTC for review on the tentative 1 agenda for the end of March, Jennifer Armer advised caution and not allowing a majority of the 2 PTC to participate in the tour. Jennifer Armer was concerned about having a group of the PTC 3 together in the same place to look at something to inform a future decision but she will confirm 4 with Legal whether it was a Brown Act concern. Jennifer Armer was on the email thread. Any 5 commissioners who were interested in participating in the tour could reach out to Jennifer 6 Armer. After Jennifer Armer confirmed with Albert Yang any applicable restrictions, she would 7 share that information with the Commission. 8 Albert Yang would discuss the details with Jennifer Armer, and they may be in touch with 9 Commissioner Ji. 10 Commissioner Peterson commented that the high school students initiated a petition 11 requesting a security guard at the Churchill Road crossing near the high school. Commissioner 12 Peterson used the analogy of having a lifeguard at the swimming pool. 13 Adjournment 14 11:04 p.m. 15