Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-08 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: April 8, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6 7 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 8 9 Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared that Vice Chair Chang and 10 Commissioners James and Templeton were absent but there was a quorum and Vice Chair 11 Chang was expected to join the meeting later. 12 13 Commissioner Peterson appeared remotely under the Brown Act due to having a contagious 14 illness. No one in the room was under the age of 18. 15 16 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 17 18 There were no changes. 19 20 PUBLIC COMMENT 21 22 Conner W. provided public comment not related to an agenda item and shared their views. 23 24 Dillem Y. provided public comment not related to an agenda item and shared their views. 25 26 Chris S. provided public comment not related to an agenda item and shared their views. 27 28 Chair Akin denounced messages of discrimination and hate. Palo Alto is committed to a culture 29 of belonging. All members of the community should feel included, safe, and respected. The 30 speech was allowed because the First Amendment required that everyone have an equal 31 chance to express their views. 32 33 Vice Chair Chang joined the meeting. 34 35 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 36 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 37 38 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced that the agenda on April 30 would include Chair 39 and Vice Chair elections and an update on parking programs and downtown parking 40 modernization initiatives and a tentative map for 4103 Old Trace Road would be considered. On 1 May 13, it was expected that consideration would be given to the Stream Protection Ordinance 2 and an updated ADU ordinance. The San Antonio Road Area plan was expected to return to 3 Council in June for direction. On April 13, Council would consider the project at 3606 El Camino 4 Real and it was expected that the appointment of 2 PTC Commissioners would be addressed. 5 On April 20, there would be a prescreening for a proposed PHZ for 910 Webster Street. There 6 was no Transportation update but one was expected to occur at the next meeting. 7 8 Commissioner Ji asked if the PTC liaison needed to attend the April 20 Council meeting. 9 10 Jennifer Armer answered that the PTC liaison did not need to attend the April 20 Council 11 meeting but an update would be provided if that changed. 12 ACTION ITEMS 13 14 2. Study Session on Housing Element Program 6.5: Alternative Housing Program, 15 Objective B. CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. 16 17 Senior Planner Vishnu Krishnan voiced that Program 6.5 focused on enabling more innovative 18 housing types, particularly microunits, shared housing, and intergenerational models. A key 19 objective was to remove regulatory constraints, especially density limits where appropriate 20 while engaging stakeholders in updating zoning regulations. A one-size-fits-all approach would 21 not work when implementing the program. Vishnu Krishnan discussed different housing 22 typologies and provided examples. Although not required, senior housing had been included for 23 consideration as there was a need for it near transit and services. The state provided definitions 24 of housing types and how units counted toward RHNA. Some shared housing configurations 25 might not be counted but the State was exploring changes, which created opportunities and 26 challenges to local policy. State law provided definitions and incentives for senior housing. 27 Independent senior units would count toward RHNA but assisted living components typically 28 would not. There were density bonus provisions that could support such developments 29 particularly when affordability was included. At a local level, existing policies supported housing 30 diversity, walkability, and increased density near transit but current zoning definitions and 31 standards for micro-housing and shared housing were somewhat limited and might need 32 refinement to fully enable such housing types. State and regional transit-oriented development 33 policies were key considerations. SB 79 would go into effect on July 1, 2026, and the scope for 34 increased density around transit centers would increase dramatically. 35 36 Vishnu Krishnan stated that staff was working with the Council Ad Hoc Committee to determine 37 the right approach to implement the State law. Recent legislation changes reduced parking 38 requirements near transit. Staff was seeking PTC direction on the appropriate zoning districts 39 and geographic areas where the preferred alternative housing types might be accommodated. 40 Based on the PTC’s feedback, staff would start work on the potential approaches that would 41 focus on shared characteristics. A broader approach would involve defining new housing types 42 and updating zoning regulations accordingly. It could include allowing the uses in appropriate 43 districts by adjusting standards like density, FAR, parking, and open space. Design criteria could 1 be tailored to better fit the housing types. Zoning districts that were well aligned with 2 alternative housing objectives had been identified and included high-density, transit-oriented 3 areas, such as RM40 commercial districts around downtown and the North Ventura 4 Coordinated Area Plan areas. Focusing on these areas would help ensure compatibility with 5 existing land use patterns and available public infrastructure. Staff would develop potential 6 approaches and propose zoning changes for the ARB’s consideration and present the changes 7 to the PTC for recommendation in the fall of 2026. Staff requested the PTC’s feedback on the 8 housing types and appropriate locations to develop the regulatory approaches. 9 10 Vice Chair Chang addressed Bullet 4 on Packet Page 15 and inquired what was being referred to 11 and if the percentages noted for inaccessible housing data were cumulative. 12 13 Vishnu Krishnan replied that Bullet 4 referred to properties between 101 and the City of East 14 Palo Alto. Vishnu Krishnan believed the percentages noted for inaccessible housing data were 15 cumulative. More than 31 percent of Palo Altans were spending more than 30 percent of their 16 monthly income on housing. 17 18 Commissioner Peterson queried if home care facilities would count toward RHNA. 19 20 Vishnu Krishnan responded that a house, apartment, mobile home, group of rooms, or a single 21 room occupied as separate living quarters would count toward RHNA. Multiple beds in one unit 22 would not count. 23 24 Vice Chair Chang questioned if there were built examples of alternative housing on the 25 Peninsula. 26 27 Vishnu Krishnan answered that there were examples of micro-housing units in the East Bay 28 downtown area. 29 30 Chair Akin asked if microunit housing differed from the SRO facilities downtown and the 31 difference between co-living and unrelated renters sharing a house. Chair Akin requested that 32 in the future there be a map displaying where overcrowding was worst in the city. 33 34 Vishnu Krishnan answered that microunits were purpose-built and had private bathrooms and 35 kitchenettes. SROs were generally individual rooms with a shared kitchen and community 36 bathroom and considered transitional housing, which was not the case for micro-housing and 37 the cost of micro-housing was high. Co-living spaces were not programmatic and co-housing 38 could be multiple individuals signing a lease and sharing common communal areas. Krishnan 39 Vishnu would provide a map displaying city overcrowding at the next presentation. 40 41 PLACEWORKS Associate Principal Greg Goodfellow added that shared housing, cohousing, and 42 co-living were formal HUD terms. Co-housing generally referred to a development with private 43 units around a shared space. Co-living was more of an urban housing model where individuals 44 rented private, furnished rooms in a multifamily building with a shared kitchen and potentially 1 a living space. Shared housing was a private unit potentially with a shared kitchen and outdoor 2 open area. The packet contained each HUD definition. 3 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS 5 George F. provided public comment not related to an agenda item and shared their views. 6 7 Mark H. requested that the program be rejected. 8 9 Chair Akin echoed the previous statement related to the First Amendment. 10 11 Vice Chair Chang considered the program to be an economics and transportation issue rather 12 than a regulatory issue and was concerned about financial feasibility. Vice Chair Chang 13 discussed the lack of parking and office space and did not feel the references to Berkley, San 14 Francisco, and Seattle to be similar situations. Vice Chair Chang did not want dense housing to 15 result in spillover effects. Vice Chair Chang asked if there could be residential parking programs, 16 incentives to be carless, etc., because the area was car-centric and Palo Alto was not as transit 17 rich as Berkeley, etc. The area should be transit rich before building dense housing because 18 there would be traffic issues. 19 20 Greg Goodfellow responded that the lack of parking spaces would attract those without cars. 21 The memo did not try to compare Palo Alto to Berkeley but shared types of housing for PTC’s 22 feedback. The other types of housing being considered were small detached homes around a 23 community garden and kitchen. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman was familiar with micro and shared housing. Commissioner Hechtman 26 understood that the ask was for the code to accommodate some/all of the uses rather than 27 which to incentivize, so he was focused on which housing type would most likely yield a result 28 rather than making ordinance changes to allow all the housing types. Commissioner Hechtman 29 asked if the market favored one housing type over the others. The Cal Avenue PTOD was a 30 logical place for micro-housing because of transit options, and parking regulations and open-31 space requirements could be relaxed. Another possible area was the corner south of the Forest 32 Area. There might be an opportunity for shared or cohousing around the California Avenue 33 station as it contained a fair amount of low-density housing. Public transportation was critical 34 to the potential success of any of these housing types and regulations could be created. 35 36 Vishnu Krishnan replied that a feasibility analysis for the alternative housing prototypes had not 37 been done but an economic and financial feasibility analysis had been done for the Downtown 38 Housing Plan looking at units just over 450 to 780 square feet and none were feasible. Staff was 39 trying to find the missing middle and determine if incentives could be put in place for 40 developers to build when the market was better. Property owners had shown an interest in co-41 living and cohousing spaces. A microunit housing development was presented to the 42 Commission a couple decades ago but it was unknown if there was a current interest. 43 1 Greg Goodfellow had had interviews with stakeholders and the feasibility of microunits could 2 be challenging as the needed density would not be supported in Palo Alto. There was interest in 3 cohousing, which would be applicable to RHNA. This was one tool for the City. Greg Goodfellow 4 suggested locating an area where one would be allowed. It did have to be a massive 5 architectural or density model. 6 7 Commissioner Ji referenced the first bullet on Packet Page 47, which indicated the problem was 8 financing, not zoning and asked which housing options would count toward RHNA. 9 10 Vishnu Krishnan answered that a microunit or condo in a shared development would count 11 toward RHNA. Shared, co-living, and co-spaces with a single entrance and student development 12 housing would not count. 13 14 Jennifer Armer added that shared, co-living, and co-spaces would likely count per kitchen rather 15 than individual units. 16 17 Commissioner Ji requested that future packets supply that information. Commissioner Ji asked 18 if developers could build microunits and if they were considered studios. Commissioner Ji 19 suggested the program topic be folded into the SB 79 Ad Hoc discussion because whatever was 20 decided would impact the decision as the SB 79 areas were transit dense areas. Commissioner 21 Ji referenced the map and circled 2 regions as potential areas, which included the new Town & 22 Country project. Maybe there should be conversations with those in the Stanford grad student 23 housing. Consideration should be given to places where cars were not needed, such as the 24 northern region Commissioner Ji circled on the map. Some form of housing could be 25 incentivized in the Stanford Research Park as reduced parking might not cause drastic parking 26 impacts. 27 28 Vishnu Krishnan replied that microunits were considered studios and could be built. 29 30 Commissioner Peterson stated Commissioners Ji and Hechtman addressed the topics he 31 wanted to cover. Commissioner Peterson favored the program. University Avenue could be 32 expanded to El Camino because higher density was going in with shared facilities, yards, and 33 community space. Commissioner Peterson asked how many units had been approved in the 34 Town & Country Center. Commissioner Peterson lived in the strategic zoning area of Cal Ave 35 and had not needed a car in over a decade. Commissioner Peterson requested that 36 consideration be given to community parking garages, which could be underground, within the 37 strategic zoning locations and that they include chargers and solar. 38 39 Jennifer Armer answered that a small project at 70 Encina had been approved and a 40 prescreening for a larger project had been received. 41 42 Greg Goodfellow stated there could be an indirect, expanded, structured parking objective 1 design standard or a zoning or allowable approach. The selected options did have to apply to 2 the entire program. 3 4 Chair Akin found eliminating the parking requirements unacceptable if the parking demand 5 would shift to nearby locations because it would not be sustainable or fair. There were similar 6 problems with not adhering to common open space requirements. The City could acquire 7 nearby land for parks and other open space uses but if that should be the chosen solution, 8 Chair Akin was reluctant to eliminate impact fees altogether. There might not be broad market 9 acceptance for some of the housing types but it might not matter because a small gain could be 10 sufficient. Microunits should be prioritized because they would be the most likely to succeed. 11 The microunits the City lost should be replaced. There was a greater demand for senior housing 12 than co-living, cohousing, and shared housing. Chair Akin questioned whether larger units for 13 larger families should be addressed with general incentives rather than this program focusing 14 on it. The program was a great reason to rezone the Stanford Research Park to make housing 15 development easier there and there could be a demand for microunit projects. It was the 16 largest concentration of jobs in the city, so it might make sense to put housing and jobs 17 together there for sustainability and parking could be shared between commercial and 18 residential uses. If the goal was to eliminate the use of private vehicles, the area was close to 19 the Cal Ave zones and the Ventura and El Camino retail nodes. 20 21 Vice Chair Chang inquired if the PTC could restrict residents from participating in the RPP if they 22 resided in certain buildings that did not provide parking. The areas on the map and those that 23 Commissioner Ji mentioned might be great for folks not needing cars. If open space 24 requirements and parking requirements should be waived, specific development requirements 25 should be required and staff should consider socialization of a private need. The SOFA area 26 might not be as good as Cal Ave but a development requirement definition added in the code 27 might allow for expansion to other areas and the market would indicate if it would work. Vice 28 Chair Chang wondered if cottage clusters could be incentivized, although it might be lower on 29 the priority list than the microunits and senior housing. Senior housing was a big opportunity 30 and that should be considered because the stakeholder interviews indicated it was unlikely that 31 alternative models would provide below market rate housing. Vice Chair Chang stated that 32 housing could be freed up senior housing was less expensive and folks wanted to relocate. Vice 33 Chair Chang queried if something like the Schwab Residential Center would count toward 34 RHNA. 35 36 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang replied that boundaries of an RPP district could be drawn to 37 exclude certain sites. 38 39 Greg Goodfellow did not think something like the Schwab Residential Center would count for 40 RHNA but it appeared that there was a movement to expand what would count as a RHNA unit. 41 1 Vice Chair Chang felt that tweaking something like the Schwab Residential Center might enable 2 counting it toward RHNA, such as units being leased, and suggested that be investigated. The 3 San Antonio area, the ROLM Housing Element, and the RM-40 should not be the focus at this 4 time because it would involve a sweeping change and there was a transportation issue. Vice 5 Chair Chang asked if homes with 3+ bedrooms could be considered multigenerational housing 6 depending on how they were used. 7 8 Vishnu Krishnan responded that intergenerational housing was program oriented. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman did not want to focus on RHNA because there was a housing shortage 11 and the RHNA number for this cycle was unachievable. The focus should be on the micros. It 12 was okay if units would not count toward RHNA because the focus should be on providing 13 housing, not satisfying the State. 14 15 Chair Akin hoped to see the program bear fruit and find opportunities to connect to other 16 programs. 17 18 [The Commission took a 15-minute break] 19 20 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-21 00294]: Review of a Conceptual Plan to Rezone the Subject Properties From Service 22 Commercial (CS) to a New Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to 23 Redevelop the Site With an Eight-Story Mixed Use Building with 167 Residential 24 Units, including 28 Below Market Rate Units, and Approximately 1,400 Square Feet 25 of Ground Floor Retail Space, and Recommendation to Forward to the Architectural 26 Review Board. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Housing 27 Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 28 2019090070) is Currently Being Prepared. 29 30 Chair Akin requested disclosures and there were none. 31 32 Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould noted that the project location was within the 33 boundaries of the proposed San Antonio Road Area Plan. Claire Raybould discussed nearby 34 projects and provided a brief overview of this project. Requested exceptions included, but were 35 not limited to, height limit, floor area, lot coverage, and retail floor area. A separate certificate 36 of compliance to merge 2 lots was required and would be a condition of approval. Claire 37 Raybould summarized what had taken place since May 2025. There would ARB hearings and an 38 ARB recommendation and then it would return to the PTC to consider the formal PC Ordinance 39 and the development plans and then it would go to Council for a final decision. Regarding 40 CEQA, staff planned to do an addendum to the previously adopted Housing Incentive Program 41 (HIP) expansion EIR. No significant environmental impacts were expected but all adopted 42 mitigation measures must be complied with, which included impacts associated with the 1 historic building located on the property. 2 3 Claire Raybould provided context as it related to the site plan, including setbacks, trash pickup, 4 and fire access. Key exceptions to the development standards for the existing CS zoning 5 included a decrease in floor area ratio, an increase in building height and lot coverage, 6 reduction in ground-floor commercial, and an increase in dwelling units per acre. Staff 7 requested that the PTC provide feedback on the proposed public benefits; parking, which was a 8 key item raised by Council; retail, which Council requested; retail as it related to parking; and 9 transition to neighboring properties. Council requested step-backs for the San Antonio Road 10 frontage elevations, which were incorporated, and step-backs adjacent to 808 San Antonio 11 Road, which were not incorporated. At the time it was presented to Council, it was adjacent to 12 an approved 5-story development. This week, staff received a resubmittal of the 808 San 13 Antonio Road Project and minor step-backs were provided but balconies would still encroach 14 into the area. The item had not yet been presented to the ARB. Staff recommended that the 15 PTC provide feedback and recommend that staff forward the proposed project to the ARB for 16 further review. 17 18 Senior Director of Development at Grubb Properties Megan Watson discussed what had been 19 done to help tone down the scale and break up massing. Retail had been incorporated for 20 street activation and included landscape and streetscape treatments. The project was about 5 21 years out, so the project could evolve with the San Antonio Road Area Plan and be delivered 22 cohesively with some of the initial phases. Leghorn would be utilized for back-of-house needs, 23 such as garage entry, trash, etc. The 25-foot setback was designed for activation. The parking 24 ratio would be 0.44 and the bike parking ratio 1:1. Car share would be located at the entry and 25 there would be 7 cars for residents. Reduced parking would work because of ride share, work 26 from home/hybrid models, cost of car ownership, and the availability of deliveries. Grubb did 27 not build and sell projects but held and operated them. The property manager was Megan 28 Watson’s colleague. Megan Watson spoke of a similar project in Oakland that had excess 29 parking with a parking ratio of 0.5, was 97-percent leased, had a mechanical parking system, 30 and was a self-select type of housing for those who did not own cars. Megan Watson 31 recognized that Oakland and Palo Alto was not an apples-to-apples comparison. Megan Watson 32 discussed the jobs to household ratio and noted that public transit would make this project 33 successful. Grubb was focused on local connectivity and getting folks the last 1 to 2 miles. The 34 project would be close to parks, key employers, etc. 35 36 PUBLIC COMMENTS 37 38 Joan L. was concerned about safety, San Antonio Road having no bike lanes or bus service, and 39 the number parking spaces possibly creating parking issues. Joan L. opined that another grocery 40 store was not needed. 41 42 Steve L. supported the 2-part staff recommendation and requested that it move forward as the 1 location was appropriate for high-density housing. Steve L. understood that development of the 2 3 big projects would take 5 to 10 years and wanted to know what car, bike, and pedestrian 3 improvements would occur in that time. 4 5 Oscar M., a field representative with the North Coast States Carpenters Union, urged that the 6 PTC consider how the project would be built and who would build it and requested that the 7 work be done by a responsible contractor who paid area standard wages, provided healthcare 8 and benefits, and offered retirement and an apprenticeship program. 9 10 Mike B., a representative with the North Coast States Carpenters Union, echoed Oscar M’s 11 comments. The developer hiring a responsible contractor would be a public benefit. 12 13 John P. requested that the Housing Element requirements be distributed across Palo Alto 14 neighborhoods and that the PTC consider the appropriate density level for this section of San 15 Antonio Road before accepting the requested project exceptions. John P. objected to reduced 16 parking requirements and an 8- or 9-story building in the neighborhood and noted that 2 or 3 of 17 such buildings could produce unexpected circumstances. 18 19 Jeremy L., Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, supported moving the project forward and 20 discussed the benefits of not owning a car and hoped the PTC would support a transit oriented, 21 walkable, and bikeable corridor. 22 23 Chair Akin noted that the item would return to the PTC and requested that Commissioners 24 voice concerns so the ARB and the applicant would have time to prepare for future questions. 25 26 Megan Watson mentioned that the vision for San Antonio Road was ambitious and 27 acknowledged that the viability of the project required collaboration and a shared vision with 28 the City and regional stakeholders and Grubb looked forward to refining the project based on 29 the feedback from the PTC and the ARB. 30 31 Commissioner Peterson noted that Attachment H (the project plans) was not included in the 32 packet. Commissioner Peterson queried what material would be used to construct the building. 33 Commissioner Peterson was sympathetic to the comments made by the North Coast States 34 Carpenters Union, which was a great resource for a high-quality workforce. 35 36 Jennifer Armer noted that the project plans were mislabeled and included as Attachment G. 37 38 Megan Watson answered that the building would be 5 levels of wood frame on 3 levels of 39 concrete. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman questioned if the project version that went to Council last May had 42 retail and if this version had 1,400 square feet of retail. 43 1 Staff answered that the project version presented to Council last May did not have retail and 2 this version had 1,400 square feet of retail. 3 4 Commissioner Hechtman asked how Grubb felt about retail, if the Oakland project was located 5 at 412 Madison, and if it would take 3 years to construct the project after breaking ground. 6 Commissioner Hechtman was enthusiastic about the project overall. 7 8 Megan Watson had developed retail but was reticent about it. Retail should be clustered and 9 nodes worked well. It was important to be intentional with where retail would be located. It 10 was concerning because the neighbor to the south did not have retail and it was questionable 11 whether the neighbor to the north would have it. It was presenting as fragmented. If retail was 12 desired, Megan Watson requested it be more strategic in location and that it be clustered 13 throughout the corridor. The success of retail was driven by the characteristics of the 14 neighborhood. The Oakland project was located at 412 Madison. At best, it could take 32 15 months to construct the project after breaking ground but 3 years was being allocated. 16 17 Commissioner Ji referenced Packet Page 63 and requested that staff elaborate on the daylight 18 plane and the build-to-lines. Commissioner Ji queried if the road was too narrow for a bus; if 19 the City had decided to build 8 stories as a part of the San Antonio Area Plan; what was around 20 the project in Oakland in terms of supermarkets, parks, transit, etc.; how the amount of retail 21 square footage had been decided; if 74 parking spaces included the 7 for shared vehicles; and if 22 the property manager would reside in 1 of the 167 units. 23 24 Claire Raybould explained that in certain circumstances the daylight planes of neighboring 25 properties could be matched. Claire Raybould explained why the daylight plane of the 26 neighboring property was not well defined. As for the build-to-lines, the building was set back 27 slightly farther than the setback line, so they would not build up to the exact setback line. The 28 distance was a very small amount. 29 30 Jennifer Armer replied that the road was a truck route and not too narrow for a bus. There 31 might be limitations in terms of room for bus stops, etc., but it would be part of the San 32 Antonio Road Area Plan discussions. 33 34 Staff replied that the City had not decided to build 8-story buildings as a part of the San Antonio 35 Area Plan. 36 37 Megan Watson answered that the Oakland project was on a freeway; the neighborhood was 38 walkable but had been impacted by COVID-era retail vacancies and it was a couple blocks from 39 the waterfront, which served as a park; there were 2 key transit accesses; and there were no 40 supermarkets within walking distance. The retail calculation related to a code that referenced 41 replacement retail and it was based on some of the existing commercial square footage Grubb 42 had onsite. There were 74 total parking spaces, which included the 7 for car share, 2 dedicated 1 spaces for guests or perspective residents, and 2 ADA spaces. The property manager would 2 reside in 1 of the 167 units. 3 4 Vice Chair Chang noted that the plan indicated there would be 167 bike spots but the TDM plan 5 indicated 120. Vice Chair Chang queried if the reference to 20 percent of the units being below 6 market rate was a weighted average, if there was data on the parking usage for other under-7 parked PCs, what the average length of tenancy was in Oakland and other developments Grubb 8 had in California, and if the parking concern had been addressed with Council. Vice Chair Chang 9 noted that retail would be much less than 6,000+ square feet and asked if additional retail had 10 been considered on the side of the building where bike parking would be located. 11 12 Claire Raybould replied that there was a discrepancy in the plans and the TDM related to bike 13 parking. The reference to 20 percent of the units being below market rate was a weighted 14 average. Claire Raybould would further investigate data on the parking usage for other under-15 parked PCs and return to the PTC. 16 17 Megan Watson voiced that there would be 167 bike parking spots and the TDM typo would be 18 corrected. Megan Watson could provide information on the average tenancy in Oakland but the 19 project was delivered in the summer of 2024, so there was not a long history. The renewal rate 20 in the past year was close to 60 percent. Grubb had other developments in the pipeline but 21 Oakland was the only operational asset in California. Grubb’s renewal rate nationally was 22 around 50 percent. Grubb understood that Council was concerned about parking but Grubb 23 believed in their typology. The TDM was not available at the time. Since then, Grubb provided 24 additional information to support this type of parking ratio. Additional retail on the side of the 25 building where the bike parking would be located had not been studied. The 6,000 square feet 26 of retail was a new metric to Grubb as of this report. The replacement retail code was used to 27 determine the square footage. 28 29 Vice Chair Chang asked if the applicant would be open to more retail and if there was a concern 30 about the viability of current retail. 31 32 Megan Watson replied that parking impacts would be the biggest concern with 6,000 square 33 feet of retail. There would be a substantial reduction in some of the amenities. Megan Watson 34 was concerned about the viability of retail in general. 35 36 Chair Akin noted that his questions had been asked and answered. As for comments, the 37 parking and TDM plans were unrealistic, so parking would be a concern when the item 38 returned. It appeared that Link Four12 had 8 bus stops, the Jack London transit station, BART, 39 and the ferry and there were only 2 bus stops within a quarter mile of 788 San Antonio and the 40 proposal had fewer parking places per unit than Link Four12. Excluding the car-share spaces, 41 the resident parking spaces equaled about 0.38 spaces per unit. General Palo Alto statistics 1 indicated 70 percent of Palo Altans worked in other cities and just under 50 percent commuted 2 more than 10 miles, so there would likely be difficulties unless drastically different residents 3 were attracted. Silicon Valley dealt with a geographic distribution of jobs different from many 4 parts of the Bay Area, so transit access was needed not only where people lived but where the 5 jobs were located. 6 7 Chair Akin voiced that a major transit issue had to be solved to make this project viable. At one 8 point, the average tenure in a tech job was around 2 years, so that should be considered. It was 9 likely that at some point in one’s life a job would need to be accessed by car. With limited 10 parking, residents would have to choose to move or pass on a job opportunity, which was a 11 potential weakness. Chair Akin spoke of The Fay and the alleged poor occupancy rates due to 12 the project being under-parked. In the premeeting, Chair Akin suggested increasing the size of 13 the car-share facility either within the project or nearby on San Antonio but withdrew that 14 request because commuting was going to be the biggest problem and car-share services were 15 not a great solution. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman noted that Packet Page 56 indicated there would be a 40-percent 18 parking reduction but thought it should read 60 percent. Commissioner Hechtman supported 19 the requirement of an easement on the street setback. Commissioner Hechtman questioned if 20 Finding B on Packet Page 61 could be made because this project would provide additional BMRs 21 compared to the base zoning. 22 23 Assistant City Attorney Yang confirmed that Finding B on Packet Page 61 could be made 24 because the zoning would provide additional BMRs. Additional affordability was required, 25 although rental projects did not require any on-site affordable units. The basic requirement for 26 rental projects was that a housing impact fee be paid. As an alternative to paying the fee, the 27 project could provide units. The PHZ provided more units. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman was comfortable with that. There was no need for a step-back next to 30 808 because the building would be roughly the same elevation. Commissioner Hechtman 31 inquired what was proposed for retail at the other Leghorn-San Antonio corner. 32 33 Claire Raybould responded that the existing building at the very corner of Leghorn-San Antonio 34 was not going to change. Plans had been resubmitted for an 8-story residential-only building at 35 762 San Antonio, which was being analyzed and it was expected to be presented to the ARB in 36 early June. 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman was concerned about the micro-retail site. Commissioner Hechtman 39 liked the idea of the San Antonio corridor having retail clustered on the corners if the corner 40 across Leghorn had more retail but without that, it might be more valuable to have additional 41 parking on the ground floor. The San Antonio Plan should have a big retail cluster at San 1 Antonio and Middlefield. Commissioner Hechtman wanted to hear Council’s feedback on 2 parking after reviewing the TDM. Under-parking was scary but the City had to test it at some 3 point and this was a good location for a pilot program because of the lack of a nearby single 4 family neighborhood for overflow parking to bleed into. Commissioner Hechtman wanted to 5 forward the item to the ARB. 6 7 Jennifer Armer clarified that after the ARB review the item would return to the PTC before 8 going to Council, so Council would not react to the TDM before the item returned to the PTC. 9 10 Commissioner Ji commented that the project would have no spillover effects for R1 and no 11 height impacts on neighboring buildings because the buildings would be approximately the 12 same height. The plans listed some street parking but that would likely go away as would the 13 loading zone on San Antonio. Commissioner Ji preferred that every San Antonio corridor project 14 have ground-floor retail and that the project have more of it, although 6,583 square feet might 15 not be the correct number. Commissioner Ji addressed the TDM strategy on Packet Page 111 16 and questioned how the 21-percent reduction was arrived at, as there appeared to be a 9-17 percent discrepancy. 18 19 Megan Watson would have to defer that question to the TDM consultant who was not present 20 at the meeting. 21 22 Commissioner Ji expressed that the TDM Program for the Palo Alto Commons provided parking 23 counts. Commissioner Ji asked what the baseline data was for the graphs on Packet Pages 102, 24 103, 108, and 109 and wanted to know if projections applied to the anticipated demand for the 25 project. The 57 percent referenced on Packet Pages 110, 111, and 112 was incorrect because 26 there were discrepancies in the sums across the percentages. Accurate numbers would help 27 soothe some of the Commission’s parking viability concerns. Commissioner Ji asked if the 28 applicant was willing to provide the easement referenced in the packet. The applicant should 29 look into some of the San Antonio Road Area Plan designs because there were bike plans that 30 could be incorporated into the design. Commissioner Ji asked if the balconies would intrude 31 into the setback. Commissioner Ji preferred a standard setback on San Antonio instead of some 32 being against the street and some farther back. 33 34 Megan Watson was willing to provide the easement referenced in the packet, which would 35 likely be forthcoming. 36 37 Staff responded that the balconies would intrude into the setback on both sides. 38 39 Vice Chair Chang was pleased that the affordability would be in the 50- to 80-percent range. 40 The design was beautiful. Vice Chair Chang felt that a cluster of retail on the corner would 41 eventually be successful and suggested 3,000 square feet with 3 storefronts. There were no 1 height concerns in the location. If traffic and safety were addressed, Vice Chair Chang would 2 have no problem with 8-story buildings in the entire area. Vice Chair Chang was concerned 3 about car and bike parking. TDMs were by and large unenforceable, so there should be a way to 4 encourage a contribution to the City's efforts for the San Antonio transportation corridor. It was 5 challenging that the road had 4 lanes and there were essentially no amenities or transportation. 6 It was concerning that Greg Goodfellow did not highlight that the area would be good for 7 parking reductions. Vice Chair Chang did not think the desired transportation changes would 8 occur in 5 years. As parking would be unbundled for all new developments, folks would have a 9 choice to pay or not pay for parking. If car parking should be reduced, more than 167 bike 10 parking spaces would be needed. 11 12 Commissioner Peterson wanted there to be a commercial space even if it was small. Since 13 restaurants would be decoupled from bars, Commissioner Peterson questioned if the space 14 allowed a bar. The street would change and be bikeable and walkable and it was near a Caltrain 15 station. The building would be tied into a larger network and the population density going into 16 the corridor would dictate public transportation. Commissioner Peterson did not consider 17 rideshare to be less or more expensive than personal vehicle ownership. Commissioner 18 Peterson did not promote driverless vehicles but the price point would come back in and a fully 19 autonomous housing development like this would be dependent on public transit or rideshare. 20 21 Jennifer Armer responded that the regulations had not been changed but a bar would be 22 possible with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 23 24 Chair Akin was happy to see the boost in unit affordability and supported the U-shape design 25 that would break up the massing on San Antonio. It was not a requirement but since the U-26 shape was deep, consideration might be given to making it shallower above level 3, so some 27 upper floor units could be moved or the size distribution of units changed. Chair Akin wanted 28 step-backs elsewhere but would defer that to the ARB. Chair Akin suggested that the applicant 29 give thought to what retail uses might work in the space and if allowances were needed to find 30 a workable use, it should be negotiated with staff. Chair Akin supported the easement. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman commented that with less car parking more bike parking would be 33 needed. According to the Staff Report, 184 spaces were required but the TDM indicated that 34 201 were required, so that needed to be clarified. Half of the number of car parking spaces not 35 being provided should be replaced with bike spaces. 36 37 Commissioner Ji discussed the project being sorely under-parked and there being no place for 38 spillover parking. Commissioner Ji was concerned about retail with no retail parking and the 39 construction workers needing parking. The project was not comparable to other projects in the 40 area. It was more extreme than any project in the area as it related to height, floor area, 41 parking ratio, and shading. Commissioner Ji did not want what happened to The Fay to happen 1 to this project as it could cause a ripple effect. Commissioner Ji was nervous about Finding 3. 2 Commissioner Ji echoed comments about the easement and additional bike parking. Guest 3 parking was incredibly important. Commissioner Ji wanted step-backs against the 808 property. 4 5 Vice Chair Chang noted that starting the U at a higher point could provide more parking. The 6 applicant should consider the need for visitor parking and extra bike parking. 7 8 MOTION 9 10 Chair Akin moved the staff recommendation. 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 15 16 VOTE MOTION 17 Samuel Tavera conducted a roll call vote. 18 19 MOTION PASSED 3-2-2 (Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Peterson, Chair Akin) 20 (Commissioner Ji and Vice Chair Chang voted no) (Commissioners James and Templeton were 21 absent) 22 23 Vice Chair Chang had no objection to forwarding the item to the ARB but voted no because the 24 PTC did not indicate to Council in February that 8-story buildings were right for the corridor and 25 it was not clear the larger community supported it. Though the PTC would not have the benefit 26 of Council's thoughts on the TDM before the item returned, Council was concerned with 27 density. The corridor had a big transportation problem, so it would not make sense to have 28 such a level of density until it was clear that it would not increase the traffic problem. The Level 29 of Service was F and even rideshare would increase the transportation problem. More bikes 30 would be helpful but there would be a safety problem. Vice Chair Chang was not confident that 31 the transportation problems were solvable. 32 33 Commissioner Ji had no problem forwarding the item to the ARB but forwarding and moving 34 projects along signaled to Council that the projects were approved. Commissioner Ji’s no vote 35 was primarily around the same issues he brought up related to 800-808 San Antonio. 36 Commissioner Ji could not make one finding. The City had a significant transportation problem 37 and San Antonio Road was a transit desert. Commissioner Ji was concerned about parking and 38 did not want the project to experience the same fate as The Fay. 39 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 1 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 2 Minutes of February 25, 2026. 3 4 MOTION 5 6 Commissioner Ji moved to approve the minutes as revised. 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 11 12 VOTE MOTION 13 Samuel Tavera conducted a roll call vote. 14 15 MOTION PASSED 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner 16 Hechtman, Chair Akin) (Vice Chair Chang abstained) (Commissioners James and Templeton 17 were absent) 18 19 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS AND 20 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS 21 22 Commissioner Peterson encouraged the applicant to get business cards from the North Coast 23 States Carpenters Union. 24 25 Commissioner Ji applauded all who were working on the OSV issue. Bike lane safety on Park 26 Boulevard had improved. Commissioner Ji thanked the team for the street striping. The 27 community had expressed appreciation. 28 ADJOURNMENT 29 30 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. 31