Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-25 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: February 25, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 p.m. 4 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 The recording did not capture the first 3 minutes of audio. 9 10 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 11 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 12 13 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated ____ San Antonio Road Area Plan looking at potential 14 components for alternatives that would then go to Council for discussion in April and direction 15 in June. Staff expected to bring a Retail Ordinance to the PTC. Related to the San Antonio Road 16 Area Plan, an online community survey would run through March 29 and a community 17 workshop was scheduled for March 5. On March 9, Council would discuss the implementation 18 of SB 79; consider the de minimis exception, a zoning code amendment recommended by the 19 PTC; and there would be a prescreening for a zoning code amendment related to transfer of 20 development rights, particularly applicable to 51 Encina Avenue and if a formal application 21 should be submitted, it would be presented to the PTC for consideration. On March 16, Council 22 would consider the builder’s remedy project at 2100 Geng Road, which the PTC recommended 23 approval of, and the project at 4075 El Camino Way, the PC amendment the PTC considered last 24 September. 25 26 Senior Transportation Planner Ozzy Arce stated that staff was aware of 3 pedestrian fatalities in 27 the city and 1 nonfatal collision involving a vehicle on the tracks this year. Working with PAUSD, 28 Caltrain, and other partners, the City was exploring ways to increase safety. Council created a 29 Rail Safety and Youth Mental Health Ad Hoc Committee and a 24-hour human presence had 30 been deployed at all 4 rail crossings in Palo Alto. This was a cost-sharing partnership between 31 the City and the School District and the City approved the contract at the February 23 meeting. 32 Staff was initiating an analysis to evaluate what would be required to implement a temporary 33 closure at the train crossing at Churchill and Alma with possible Council action anticipated 34 within 60 days. The effort would include community engagement, assessment of potential 35 impacts, rerouting pedestrians and bicyclists, traffic circulation and the definition of potential 36 closure elements, including signage, signal changes, and closing materials for a diagnostic 37 review by CPUC staff. The City and PAUSD would host a community listening session on March 38 12 to share feedback on the temporary rail closure of Churchill Avenue. 39 40 Ozzy Arce voiced that the community feedback received through the listening session and the 1 website feedback form would be shared with Council in April when considering next steps. 2 More information could be found on the City’s Calendar Events Page. The City was moving 3 forward with quiet zones. Work at the Palo Alto Avenue crossing was complete and it was 4 expected that the zone would go into effect next month. For other crossings, funding was being 5 identified to start the design of required gate upgrades later in the year. In partnership with 6 Caltrain, the rail sentry system had been installed at several locations. Antitrespassing panels 7 and security fencing was being installed by Caltrain to prevent unauthorized access to the rail 8 corridor. In December 2025, Council reaffirmed the partial undercrossing for motor vehicles at 9 Churchill with a pedestrian bike undercrossing at Seale. City staff attended a ribbon cutting for 10 the New Hoover Elementary School campus on January 22. The Lunar New Year event was 11 hosted on February 22. Santa Clara County was undergoing a comprehensive update to the 12 circulation and mobility element to align County policy with travel trends. The project was in 13 the initial public engagement phase and the County had launched a resident survey to identify 14 specific transportation pain points across the region. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton asked if there were alternate SRTS routes to avoid Churchill and if 17 there would be alternate routes for emergency vehicles. 18 19 Ozzy Arce answered that the alternate SRTS routes to avoid Churchill were detailed on the Walk 20 & Roll maps. 21 22 Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo replied that Fire and Police had alternate routes, although it 23 would affect response time, which would be part of the initial analysis. 24 25 Commissioner Ji inquired which Council items would be on the Consent Calendar. 26 Commissioner Ji noted that the sensor that triggered the traffic light at Meadow and Alma did 27 not trigger about 1 in 10 or 15 times. 28 29 Jennifer Armer responded that the PTC Liaison did not need to attend the March 9 Council 30 meeting. On March 16, Council would discuss 2100 Geng Road and 4075 El Camino Way and an 31 alternate to represent that project might be needed. 32 33 Ria Lo commented that the Signals Team would investigate the sensors at Meadow and Alma. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton queried if anything had changed concerning the grade crossing since 36 Council reaffirmed the underpass at Churchill, what was meant by temporary closure in terms 37 of City planning, and if the Seale bike/ped crossing was a separate project. 38 39 Ria Lo answered that the latest direction staff had for the grade separation was from the 40 December 15 Council meeting and any change would require various changes in agreements. 41 Nothing was scheduled to discuss the grade crossing plan but staff was working on a schedule 42 with the Rail Committee. Staff was still exploring the definition of temporary closure. The Seale 43 Avenue bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing was considered part of the Churchill grade 1 separation. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton questioned if the Seale Avenue bicycle/pedestrian construction could 4 begin first. 5 6 Ria Lo answered that the beginning of the Seale Avenue bicycle/pedestrian construction would 7 be part of the implementation plan after getting to 100 percent. 8 9 Commissioner Peterson asked if there was a 24-hour guard at Churchill and recommended that 10 the guard have shelter. The roundabout on California Avenue near the Caltrain Station looked 11 incomplete and Commissioner Peterson asked if there were plans to finish it by the fountain. 12 13 Ozzy Arce answered that there was a 24-hour guard at Churchill but was not aware of the guard 14 facilities. 15 16 Jennifer Armer requested that Commissioner Peterson send questions related to California 17 Avenue via email and she would connect him with Public Works. 18 19 Chair Akin asked how the County CME update interacted with OOT. 20 21 Ozzy Arce answered that the effort just started, so part of it was trying to understand the 22 engagement plan but typically staff would be involved in a technical advisory group and 23 material would be shared for internal review before going to the public. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton asked if street changes fell under the Department of Transportation 26 or Public Works and if the PTC could have access to Transportation staff for projects adjacent to 27 each other on the same street. Commissioner Templeton suggested that the Transportation 28 Department regularly attend PTC meetings. 29 30 Ria Lo replied that a staff member would review transportation access and circulation and 31 implementation could vary. Typically Planning coordinated planning reviews and would be 32 involved as needed. 33 34 Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould added that when analyzing a project access to the 35 site would be analyzed. If both were happening at the same time, they would be looked at 36 together. Claire Raybold explained what would happen if one project came in after another. 37 38 Jennifer Armer added that transportation studies looked at pending projects in the area. 39 Development projects would be reviewed by relevant departments, including Public Works, 40 Utilities, and Transportation. 41 1 Commissioner Ji cited an example of a project where OOT’s expertise during deliberations 2 helped in making decisions. 3 4 Commissioner Peterson discussed why it was important to provide resources at the guard 5 station. 6 7 ACTION ITEMS 8 9 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 800-808/814 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00356]: 10 Recommend That the Planning and Transportation Commission Review the 11 Conceptual Plan to Rezone the Subject Properties From PC 5622 to a New Planned 12 Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Redevelop the Site With an Eight-Story 13 174-Unit Residential Building with 35 Below Market Rate Units and to Forward the 14 Project to the Architectural Review Board for Review in Accordance With Palo Alto 15 Municipal Code Section 18.38.065. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously 16 Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use 17 Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070) is Currently Being Prepared. Zoning District: Planned 18 Community (PC-5622). 19 20 Chair Akin requested commissioner disclosures and there were none. 21 22 Claire Raybould highlighted the nearby projects and provided an overview of the proposed 23 project. Exceptions to development standards included but were not limited to height and floor 24 area and there was a retail floor area requirement. A separate vesting tentative map to merge 25 the 2 parcels and subdivide for condominium purposes would be required as a condition of 26 approval if not filed prior to a decision on the project. A prescreening was presented to Council 27 but was different than the current proposal. At the time, Council was generally supportive of a 28 5-story development with 120 units. The applicant was proposing an 8-story development with 29 174 units and were not required to go back to prescreening. Council’s comments regarding a 30 similar project proposal at a neighboring property were noted in the Staff Report, which related 31 to parking and step-backs. If the PTC moved this forward to the ARB, it would be presented to 32 the ARB for a recommendation and then return to the PTC for a formal recommendation for 33 the ordinance and approval of the development plan and then it would go to Council for a final 34 decision. Staff anticipated that the project would fall under the addendum to the previously 35 adopted Environmental Impact Report. 36 37 Claire Reybould stated there would be an additional addendum to document the specific 38 changes to the project. The project had a previously approved PC applying to the site and the 39 zoning and there would be changes to the circulation based on staff's comments and concerns 40 related to the increase in the density and a desire to provide some of the facilities that were 41 previously offsite, which would now be on-site, so the applicant made some modifications to 42 the plans to provide, for example, trash pickup. Staff was exploring fire access but anticipated 43 there would be an option to not have the curb cut along San Antonio, which was previously 1 approved. Staff was trying to resolve that in coordination with the applicant to preserve the 2 right-of-way as much as possible for the San Antonio Road Area Plan. Claire Raybould supplied 3 a slide showing elevations and materials. The PTC might want to consider the policy 4 considerations related to floor area. The previously approved PC included ground-floor retail 5 but the current project would not include it. The ordinance would amend the uses to remove 6 commercial and allow 174 units. Seventy-five units were allowed per the current PC zoning. 7 Staff recommended that the PTC provide comments and forward the project to the ARB for 8 further consideration. 9 10 Principal at Lowney Architecture Mark Donahue provided pictures of the 8-story version of the 11 project with 174 units. The style was generally the same as the 5-story project. The base of the 12 building changed significantly in response to Planning comments. A fully automated ADA 13 compliant parking system was anticipated. Trash pickup would occur internally. Mark Donahue 14 displayed a slide showing an opening of 10 feet but it would be taller to accommodate the trash 15 trucks. Mark Donahue discussed the plans for fire access. High-rise requirements had been 16 incorporated related to fire protection, etc. Mark Donahue spoke of the elevations and the 17 step-backs. Mark Donahue noted that the slide showing the terraces was incorrect as it related 18 to sunlight exposure. The material palette would be the same as what was proposed for the 5-19 story building. 20 21 Commissioner Ji asked if the PTC could continue the item before sending it to the ARB or if the 22 PTC could have multiple hearings upon it returning to the PTC from the ARB. 23 24 Jennifer Armer responded that there could be multiple hearings at either stage. 25 26 PUBLIC COMMENTS 27 28 Herb B. spoke of there possibly being 3 issues that would require continuance – the public 29 notice, scheduling for the San Antonio Area Regional Plan, and the project shown on Permit 30 View. Herb B. indicated that more parkland was needed and possibly more consideration given 31 to groundwater level, sea level rise, and seismic activity before advancing this to the ARB. 32 33 Claire Raybould stated the item was property noticed as a public hearing. Information was filed 34 under 808 San Antonio and should be available on the portal. The San Antonio Road Area Plan 35 was an ongoing project and would come before the PTC on March 25 for further discussion. 36 Staff was not going to stop projects currently on file but was trying to preserve all options as 37 part of that Area Plan to ensure that anything moving forward would be a viable option in the 38 public right-of-way. 39 40 Jennifer Armer added that the Area Plan was in process but it was not expected that anything 41 would be adopted before 2027. Policy details and environmental review would be completed 42 prior to adoption. 43 1 Mark Donahue expressed that all buildings constructed had to meet the California Building 2 Code as it related to earthquakes. A secant wall was being proposed for the parking area to 3 address the underground water table, etc. Mark Donahue thought hydrology studies would be 4 part of the permitting process. 5 6 Chair Akin noted that the PTC was to decide if the design should be forwarded to the ARB but 7 there was an opportunity to provide a preview of PTC’s questions upon the item returning. 8 Packet Page 13 listed the items staff was requesting feedback on. Chair Akin asked 9 Commissioner Ji, the representative on the San Antonio Community Advisory Group, if there 10 was anything in the public record from the CAG’s deliberations that should be considered 11 before beginning general discussion. 12 13 Commissioner Ji responded that the CAG would meet on February 26 to address some 14 transportation items. In the last CAG meeting, different levels of appropriate density were 15 discussed. Traffic was congested on San Antonio and there was interest in having a mixed-use 16 presence to eventually make it a walking corridor. There were many utility boxes that might 17 impact the ability to do certain transportation projects in the special setback. Staff noted that 18 using that space as a buffer was an option. It could be interesting to show what staff had looked 19 at as potential alternatives for usage of the special setback especially in considering 20 transportation congestion management. 21 22 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang mentioned that the notice cards that were mailed indicated 23 this would be a study session, so the Commission could continue the item for re-noticing but it 24 might not be required because there was no requirement to send out such a notice. The only 25 legal requirement was that the agenda be published 72 hours in advance. When notices were 26 required, typographical errors would not be a basis for holding a hearing again. 27 28 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if it was necessary for the PTC to formally recommend that 29 this go to the ARB or if the PTC could have a discussion and provide input in a study session 30 context, which would naturally go to ARB. 31 32 Albert Yang answered that the code was not clear. This was a fairly unique process in the code 33 in which the PTC would have an initial review but it was not making a recommendation on the 34 project. The code indicated that the PTC must act favorably, which could be interpreted that it 35 should be an action item. This was an unusual preliminary step and the item would be heard by 36 the PTC again. 37 38 Jennifer Armer understood that it would be acceptable for the PTC to recommend that this be 39 forwarded to the ARB and that continuance and re-noticing to another meeting was not 40 required. 41 42 Commissioner Templeton expressed that the public had an opportunity to engage at this 1 meeting and would have an opportunity to do so at the ARB, on return to the PTC, on 2 presentation to Council, and at the San Antonio Project meeting. The spirit of law was satisfied. 3 4 Chair Akin was inclined to proceed because implications of the code could be dealt with in 5 reasonable ways. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman spoke of the auto label covering important information on Packet 8 Pages 21 and 23 and inquired what the max building height was and the number of long-term 9 bike spaces proposed. Packet Page 10 indicated this was not a Housing Inventory Site and 10 Packet Page 13 indicated it was and Commissioner Hechtman requested that be corrected. 11 Packet Page 21 noted there would be ground-floor retail but that was not being proposed. 12 Table 2 on Packet Page 22 did not appear to be related to this project. The proposed 203 13 parking spaces was a 27-percent TDM reduction. Those residing in 2- and 3-bedroom units 14 would likely own 2 cars. 15 16 Claire Raybould replied that max building height was 92 feet to the top of the mechanical 17 equipment and 88.5 feet to the top of a parapet. 18 19 Chair Akin noted that 174 bike spaces were required and 184 were proposed. 20 21 Claire Raybould stated that Packet Page 21 erroneously indicated there would be ground-floor 22 retail. Packet Page 22 was not related to this project. 23 Mark Donahue addressed the number of parking spaces and explained the possibility of fewer 24 folks owning cars in the future. 25 26 Property Owner York Lee spoke of parking and having a prescreen meeting and learned that 27 there was a plan for a City Transportation Management Program, which would result in less 28 traffic congestion, and the applicant felt that a 20- to 25-percent reduction in parking was 29 reasonable for the area. 30 31 Commissioner Ji requested that the applicant speak to this project being largely different from 32 the one presented at prescreen. 33 34 Mark Donahue spoke of the drawbacks of having a 5- or 6-story building next to an 8-story 35 building. In addition, the project being largely different related to financial calculus. The 36 applicant understood that Council was disappointed in the smaller project as it did not provide 37 enough. 38 39 Commissioner Ji understood that Council appreciated the size of the project but wanted to see 40 more 2- and 3-bedroom units. Commissioner Ji asked if the original project presented to 41 Council at prescreen would have penciled out, why ground-floor retail was removed, and what 42 drove the floor area ratio being 41-percent higher than neighboring projects and the El Camino 1 Focus Area. Commissioner Ji requested that the architect speak to the shadow represented on 2 Page A4.4. It appeared that the entire courtyard would be shaded even though it was stated 3 that the purpose was to provide more sunlight. 4 5 York Lee answered that he was trying to respond to Council’s desire for more 2- and 3-bedroom 6 units. The project presented to Council at prescreen was no longer financially feasible. Ground-7 floor retail was removed to accommodate on-site trash pickup. The footprint had not changed 8 but 3 stories were added. 9 10 Mark Donahue replied that the bottom of the courtyard would be shaded most of the year but 11 explained that light would be brought into the courtyard in general. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton recommended forwarding the project to ARB. Density was 14 appropriate for the area. Commissioner Templeton was concerned about traffic and 15 appreciated the on-site trash pickup. Shading could be a benefit and folks would have access to 16 sunlight via the rooftop or the neighboring parks and hopefully the whole community design 17 would play into that, not just the one building. Distance to public transit was at least a mile and 18 bike paths were needed. Related to bike paths, Commissioner Templeton requested that staff 19 find out who owned the bridge over Highway 101. 20 21 Commissioner James was concerned that the straight side elevation appeared to be a big wall 22 and wanted to see further refinements as the features of the 5-story building looked small on 23 the 8-story building. Commissioner James was concerned about light in the courtyard but 24 understood that light colored surfaces might provide nice light. Commissioner James asked how 25 fire equipment would access the parking area and if an EV battery fire could affect the steel 26 reinforcement of the parking area. 27 28 Mark Donahue replied that work was being done with the Fire Department to address parking 29 area fires. There would be staircase access and fire sprinklers in each bay. Mark Donahue would 30 speak to the structural engineer about how EV battery fires might affect steel reinforcement. 31 32 Chair Akin questioned, concerning parking, if one would drive onto a pallet and then the vehicle 33 would be moved into a storage cubby and once stored if the location of a vehicle would be 34 fixed or if it could be repacked. 35 36 Mark Donahue confirmed that one would drive onto a pallet and then the vehicle would be 37 moved into a storage cubby. The applicant was working with AutoMotion and videos showing 38 how the system worked could be found on YouTube. Mark Donahue understood that the deck 39 would be shuffled for efficiency, etc., but that needed to be confirmed. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman was not troubled by the absence of ground-floor commercial. A 7-42 story building with a rooftop garden would address the FAR, parking ratio, construction cost, 43 and the upper level setback. Commissioner Hechtman was concerned there would not be 44 enough parking and did not favor giving up housing for buildings to be more V-shaped at the 1 top. Commissioner Hechtman liked the size of the units, that there would be a number of 2- 2 and 3-bedroom units, and the amount of open space. The City needed to decide if a park was 3 needed on San Antonio and, if so, how to do that. Parkland in-lieu fees were the right approach 4 for this project. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton supported on-site trash pickup in lieu of ground-floor retail and did 7 not want the building to be smaller. Commissioner Templeton liked the parking structure but 8 requested that repair technicians be nearby to address possible problems. The step-back 9 seemed fine but Commissioner Templeton would provide more feedback after receiving the 10 ARB’s comments. Commissioner Templeton appreciated the unit size and affordability. The City 11 needed to ensure that crossing San Antonio Road and access to Cubberley would be safe. There 12 was a need for bike lanes to the Baylands. 13 14 Commissioner Ji supported trash pickup being on-site. Commissioner Ji pointed out the 15 following errors on Packet Page 21: There were 2 references to ground-floor retail and the 16 maximum floor area for HIP listed a commercial percentage. Commissioner Ji requested an 17 explanation of the below-grade parking encroachment referenced on Packet Page 20. 18 19 Mark Donahue replied that there was a 5-foot encroachment on Parking Level 1 but thought it 20 could be reduced. 21 22 Commissioner Ji requested that the table be updated for the ARB. Commissioner Ji asked if 23 Packet Page 20 was accurate in stating that below-grade parking would encroach 3 feet into 24 rear setback. Commissioner Ji was excited about the 2- to 3-bedroom units. Commissioner Ji 25 asked if the trash pickup loading zone would serve as a pedestrian pickup/drop-off area. 26 Commissioner Ji requested that the applicant watch the Council prescreen on the neighboring 27 project as Council was disappointed to see that ground-floor retail would not be preserved at 28 788. Commissioner Ji wanted ground-floor retail. Commissioner Ji suggested and height and 29 density be compared to the El Camino Focus Area. Commissioner Ji was concerned about 30 parking and noted that a TDM was essential if in a parking deficit. Commissioner Ji 31 recommended using something similar to the El Camino Focus area as it related to setbacks, 32 step-back, and daylight planes. Commissioner Ji desired to maintain the special setback because 33 the City had plans for usage. Commissioner Ji suggested that the below market rate unit 34 calculation on Packet Page 15 include unit type. Commissioner Ji hoped parkland in-lieu fees 35 could help promote some kind of parkland, although there was an ample amount close by. 36 37 Claire Raybould noted that Packet Page 20 should reflect that below-grade parking would 38 encroach 3 feet into the interior side yard. 39 40 Mark Donahue responded that the trash pickup loading zone could function for drop-offs, Uber, 41 etc. 42 1 Commissioner James spoke of ground-floor retail and desired that the area to be a walking area 2 but trading that off for on-site trash pickup was the right decision. A 7-story building would 3 solve some parking and FAR issues but housing was needed. Commissioner James hoped 4 thought would be given the large façade having slightly different massing with color, depth, or a 5 10-foot step-back and was in favor of the setbacks. Commissioner James was less concerned 6 about parking than some of the other Commissioners. Commissioner James had no comments 7 on the TDM. San Antonio would benefit from a special setback and perhaps there could be a 8 bike lane on the other side of the utility boxes. Commissioner James loved the unit affordability 9 and the size differentiation and requested that the table on Packet Page 15 include the unit 10 size, not just the number of units. 11 12 Chair Akin regretted eliminating ground-floor retail but it was necessary for the on-site trash 13 pickup. Chair Akin desired step-backs of some kind to improve daylight and massing on the San 14 Antonio Road side and next to 788 but that decision should be deferred to the ARB. The Fay in 15 San Jose had been foreclosed on and analysts reported it was because of poor occupancy due 16 to a lack of parking, which Chair Akin calculated was about 0.9 spaces per unit. This project 17 proposed about 1.17 spaces per unit, which was uncomfortably close to 0.9 and there was no 18 option for overflow parking on adjacent streets. Autonomous vehicles would increase traffic on 19 San Antonio. The TDM Plan was essential and had to be enforceable. The proposal was 20 acceptable as it related to unit size and affordability. The unit mix appeared to contain 21 numerous studios for an ownership project and Chair Akin asked if it was anticipated that some 22 would be leased. The applicant’s Development Program Statement was appreciated and useful. 23 24 York Lee responded that the trend for condo development was for smaller units. There were 25 30+ studio units and those who purchased them could lease them out. 26 27 Commissioner Ji commented that the loading zone was unusable for autonomous vehicles 28 because they could not make reverse maneuvers. If the 8th floor was set back, the 8th floor 29 could contain studios and the bottom floor could be used for 2- and 3-bedroom units, which 30 would keep the unit composition. The daylight plane standards should not consider what was 31 currently neighboring a property but instead what the neighboring projects would be. 32 Development should be thought of in a cohesive way for an area, not just each project in a silo. 33 34 Commissioner Templeton appreciated the conversation about the upper floor and mentioned 35 there could be mixing and matching and losing a floor, which would reduce the number of 36 units. The City had targets and Commissioner Templeton questioned where building would be if 37 not at this location. 38 39 MOTION 40 41 Commissioner Templeton moved that the proposed project application be forwarded to the 1 ARB for review of the Development Plan. 2 3 SECOND 4 5 Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. 6 7 VOTE MOTION 8 9 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 10 11 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Ji, Peterson, James, Templeton, Hechtman, Akin) (Chang absent) 12 13 [The Commission took a 12-minute break] 14 15 3. Request for a Zoning Text Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) 16 Section 18.18.120 (Noncomplying Uses and Facilities) to allow existing floor area to 17 be replaced in new buildings without increasing the degree of existing non-18 compliance. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061 (b)(3) (Common 19 Sense). 20 21 Senior Historic Planner Steven Switzer outlined the amendment, which was called the shrink 22 wrap rule, and provided a background. The project description was to remove the (a)(2)(c) and 23 (b)(2)(c) sections and the references to the term grandfathered. This would effectively allow 24 existing non-compliant floor area to be demolished and replaced with new structures that 25 could have differing heights, footprints, or building envelopes as long as they complied with the 26 governing zoning district. Staff was advancing only the applicant’s proposed text amendment. 27 At the PTC meeting on October 8, 2025, there was an additional staff proposed amendment 28 with considerations for retail and housing. At the previous discussion, there was general 29 support for reducing barriers to downtown development and several commissioners preferred 30 the simplicity of the applicant's proposal. 31 32 Steven Switzer stated there were a number of ongoing efforts and policies in the downtown 33 area that were underway and being reviewed, notably the Downtown Housing Plan, SB 79 with 34 a tentative Council date in March, and Housing Element 3.9 with a tentative March date for the 35 Policy and Services Commission. Consideration should be given to the Council housing and 36 retail priorities and the number of properties that would be affected by the ordinance. Forty-37 seven parcels would likely be affected, which were listed in Attachment C. Staff recommended 38 considering the applicant's request to modify the code section and recommend that Council not 39 pursue the amendment at this time due to the ongoing efforts of other policy considerations in 40 the downtown area. Alternatives were listed in the Staff Report. The PTC could continue to a 41 date certain or forward a recommendation of adoption of the modification or text amendment 42 to Council with or without modifications. 43 1 The Hayes Group Architects Principal Ken Hayes provided a history of what had occurred at the 2 October 2025 PTC meeting and remarked that the shrink wrap rule was suffocating legislation 3 for downtown. The rule added 2 sentences for noncomplying buildings, which included building 4 envelope, meaning the 3-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building, which 5 was not the maximum buildable potential of the site. Ken Hayes remarked that the rule 6 rendered noncomplying facilities frozen in time unless an owner eliminated existing floor area 7 exceeding the 1:1 requirement to build a better building and changing the building would 8 require the removal of noncomplying floor area, which might not be financially feasible. In the 9 last 10 years one building in the downtown area was remodeled under the shrink wrap rule and 10 two built and two remodeled that were not under the shrink wrap rule and prior to that there 11 had probably been dozens built in a 10-year period. 12 13 Ken Hayes displayed a color-coded slide showing the disposition of each parcel in the 14 downtown housing group study area and 98 properties were available for redevelopment with 15 42 being subject to the shrink wrap rule. Ken Hayes explained that the numbers were a little 16 different than staff’s. The text amendment would not increase floor area. Repealing the shrink 17 wrap rule could result in better building design. Some of these buildings were seismically unsafe 18 but there was no incentive for an owner to demolish a building if the floor area could not be 19 restored. Eliminating the shrink wrap rule would provide many benefits, including buildings 20 being energy efficient, safer, accessible, etc., and it would encourage mixed-use housing 21 projects. Ken Hayes requested that the shrink wrap rule sections be removed. 22 23 Commissioner Peterson asked what the primary concern was with removing the shrink wrap 24 rule. 25 26 Steven Switzer stated the proposed amendment would effectively restore redevelopment 27 flexibility that existed prior to 2016. Staff had a little pause related to the timing of making the 28 changes in the context of the other downtown initiatives. Staff supported revisiting the shrink 29 wrap rule but perhaps ongoing initiatives should be evaluated first. 30 31 Commissioner Peterson inquired if staff wanted to maintain downtown and its current state. 32 33 Steven Switzer answered that staff was in support of revisiting the shrink wrap rule and 34 revisions to it but it was a matter of when and having that consideration go before Council. 35 36 Jennifer Armer added that revising the shrink wrap rule was a component that was being 37 discussed as part of promoting housing as part of the Downtown Housing Plan. Removing it 38 completely without any tie to specific uses would eliminate one of the tools under 39 consideration. 40 41 Commissioner Ji queried what the difference was in recommending that Council not pursue 1 versus continuing to a date uncertain. 2 3 Steven Switzer stated that a recommendation to Council to not pursue would effectively stay 4 the motion, so it would be paused at Council’s discretion until the other initiatives were moved 5 forward. If continuing to a date uncertain, the item would return to the PTC and not advance to 6 Council. 7 8 Jennifer Armer noted that staff’s recommendation would allow the application to go to Council 9 for discussion and Council could determine whether to send it back to the PTC for 10 consideration, once certain things had been accomplished, or the application could be granted. 11 12 Commissioner Ji understood that staff supported revisiting the shrink wrap rule but queried 13 how long the delay would be and if the amendment would only apply to commercial 14 developments. 15 16 Jennifer Armer explained that it would most likely move forward later in the year. 17 18 Steven Switzer responded that the text amendment would apply to the commercial downtown 19 district. There were varying uses permitted by right or with a conditional use permit. Ground-20 floor office space was a noncomplying use. The majority of commercial or retail spaces would 21 be affected. 22 23 Commissioner Ji asked if SB 79 was pertinent to the discussion because hypothetically 24 residential could be on a commercial district space. 25 26 Steven Switzer confirmed that was correct. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton understood that some buildings might remain seismically unsafe until 29 changes were made to the shrink wrap rule. 30 31 Steven Switzer answered that not making changes to the rule would not mean buildings would 32 not remain seismically unsafe. 33 34 Claire Raybould added that the rule effectively stopped development in downtown. There were 35 options to redevelop sites with TDRs, which some projects were pursuing. TDRs were available 36 for seismic upgrades. There was still somewhat of a shrink wrap on the ground-floor space not 37 with TDRs. There was a restriction on higher ceiling heights. Maybe the whole rule should not 38 be changed but there could be some flexibility to allow for nicer spaces. 39 40 Jennifer Armer mentioned that on February 10 the Policy and Services Committee discussed 1 progress and direction for seismic hazard identification and there was an update on the Risk 2 Management Ordinance. There was an effort to identify buildings that were a seismic risk and 3 potentially upgrades would be required. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton asked if the City could require that property owners make buildings 6 safe or not be allowed to lease the building out but that they would not be allowed to 7 completely refurbish a building in modern standards unless the shrink wrap rule was removed. 8 9 Jennifer Armer answered that it depended on what was meant by modern standards but a 10 change in floor heights was not allowed under the current rule. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton asked what the applicant would do if the PTC followed staff’s 13 recommendation and what harm might be done to the housing process. 14 15 Steven Switzer replied that the PTC moving staff’s recommendation forward would advance the 16 discussion to Council to determine whether to modify the code text amendment. 17 18 Jennifer Armer responded, regarding possible harm to the housing process, that it would be a 19 question of what Council wanted to do in terms of implementation of SB 79. This portion of the 20 code was identified as an opportunity to encourage housing by loosening the constraint to 21 allow floor area to expand beyond an existing building. The Housing Element encouraged 22 finding housing particularly near transit. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton found the comments of staff and the applicant to be contrasting and 25 inquired what the problem would be if the change was made. 26 27 Jennifer Armer responded that staff recommended moving it forward and to not make the 28 complete change at this time because there were benefits to other options. 29 30 Claire Raybould added that there were 3 initiatives moving forward in March, July, and by end 31 of year. Staff was looking at how to make changes at the end of the year. It might be that the 32 changes would occur as part of something like the Downtown Housing Plan without the need 33 for a developer to make changes through their own pathway. The documents and information 34 staff reviewed indicated that it was difficult to provide housing downtown and providing 35 incentives was the only way to obtain that housing. Developers would not be incentivized to 36 develop housing downtown if there were no incentives or modifications to the code. Staff was 37 interested in allowing non-complying floor area and improving it. 38 39 Chair Akin commented that the Downtown Housing Plan and the implementations for SB 79 40 offered opportunities for more housing but he understood that the concern was that by 41 removing the shrink wrap rule unilaterally and early that sites might redevelop with smaller 1 projects and be unavailable for potentially more valuable projects under the new rules being 2 developed. 3 4 Albert Yang voiced that by removing the shrink wrap rule in a vacuum there would not be an 5 incentive for noncomplying commercial properties to redevelop with mixed use. Commercial 6 property owners would be able to redevelop with their noncomplying commercial floor area 7 and leave it at that. Staff was looking for ways to convert this commercial area to a mixed-use 8 area. 9 10 Commissioner James did not want to assume that all the sites would be suitable for housing. 11 12 Steven Switzer remarked that 66 parcels would be directly affected by the ordinance and 13 explained that there would be 47 potential properties for redevelopment. It should be 14 determined whether those properties could be developed with housing and the number of 15 possible units. 16 17 Claire Raybould added that not all 47 properties would be suitable for housing and felt it would 18 be a small number of units but maybe that needed to be taken advantage of since there were 19 minimal housing opportunities. 20 21 Commissioner Peterson inquired if potential housing sites had been identified and where they 22 overlapped. Commissioner Peterson wanted to know how many housing units this text 23 amendment would provide. 24 25 PUBLIC COMMENTS 26 27 John S. represented the Thoits family and stated if something should happen to the building at 28 174 University Avenue it could not be rebuilt due to losing square footage. John S. supported 29 the text amendment. 30 31 Ken Hayes expressed that housing and commercial spaces were needed. Nearby communities 32 were attracting retailers, office space, etc. The shrink wrap rule removed existing floor area 33 from commercial building owners. This might need to be presented to Council alongside SB 79. 34 35 Commissioner Peterson favored sending the item to Council and thought housing would come 36 with the General Use Permit for Stanford. 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman queried if the applicant had a sense of how many of the 42 sites 39 would be housing candidates and if the shrink wrap rule was removed only for those willing to 40 add housing units how many might participate. Commissioner Hechtman recommended 41 removing the rule and then Council could fold it in with their other discussions and determine 42 how things would work together. The PTC was not seeing all the pieces to make the call. 1 Commissioner Hechtman did not want to table the item and supported moving the version of 2 the shrink wrap rule in the Staff Report (Packet Pages 34 through 36) to Council. 3 4 Ken Hayes answered that some owners would not be amenable to a mixed-use project and 5 anything along University Avenue without an alley behind it should be removed from the list. 6 Ken Hayes guessed that 25 percent would be housing candidates but they were mostly small 7 lots. Another impediment to downtown housing was that the zoning code required multifamily. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. Uncertainty created tension 10 and frustration for the applicant. Council should navigate the order in which this should be 11 done. Improving properties benefitted property owners, people working in the buildings, and 12 the neighborhood. Many of the lots were small and not suitable for the hoped-for housing. 13 Commissioner Templeton recommended forwarding this to Council for adoption without 14 modification. 15 16 Commissioner Ji questioned when this would go to Council. 17 18 Steven Switzer predicted that it would go to Council in May. 19 20 Commissioner Ji stated that making a recommendation without modifications would mean that 21 Council would address it after addressing SB 79. Commissioner Ji referenced Packet Page 32, 22 stakeholder engagement, and asked if there was a subject property and questioned how the 23 time delay would impact the applicant. Commissioner Ji supported moving this to Council as the 24 PTC was not the right body to make such judgment calls at this time. One paragraph concerning 25 SB 79 did not do justice to the tremendous impact coming through. Commissioner Ji supported 26 Alternative Action 2 without modifications. 27 28 Steven Switzer explained that there was a concern with other ongoing efforts. 29 30 Claire Raybould noted that the first discussion on SB 79 would happen soon but it would be 31 only an initial discussion presenting some alternatives. Unless Council directed staff to do 32 nothing, staff would presumably return to Council in very short order given that SB 79 would be 33 effective July 1. A lot of the discussion was happening with the Downtown Housing plan and 34 that was an ongoing effort that should finish by the end of 2026. Related to stakeholder 35 engagement, there was no subject property. 36 37 Ken Hayes replied, regarding the time delay, there was not a current project tied to the 38 application but there were other potential and ongoing projects that had an interest in the 39 outcome. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman stated that the PTC recommending getting rid of the shrink wrap rule 1 could help Council’s thought process. Council’s timing would address staff’s concern of this 2 advancing prematurely. 3 4 MOTION 5 6 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to Council a modification of the 7 PAMC Section 18.18.120 as reflected in the applicant-proposed text amendment appearing on 8 Pages 34 through 36 of the PTC’s Staff Report for February 25. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. 13 14 VOTE MOTION 15 16 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 17 18 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Ji, Peterson, James, Templeton, Hechtman, Akin) (Chang absent) 19 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 21 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 22 Minutes of January 14, 2026. 23 24 PUBLIC COMMENTS 25 26 None. 27 28 MOTION 29 30 Commissioner Ji moved to approve the PTC Draft Summary and Verbatim Minutes as revised. 31 32 SECOND 33 34 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 35 36 VOTE MOTION 37 38 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 39 40 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Hechtman, James, Peterson, Ji, Templeton, Akin) (Chang absent) 41 1 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2 3 Commissioner Templeton appreciated Council and staff providing guards at the train tracks. The 4 community had expressed relief in response to that. 5 6 Commissioner Ji expressed appreciation for OOT’s presentation. Commissioners Ji and James 7 would hopefully attend the next meeting from the League of California Cities’ conference and 8 hopefully provide the PTC with an update. 9 ADJOURNMENT 10 11 The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. 12