Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-29 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: April 29, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 p.m. 4 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 9 10 Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared there was a quorum. 11 12 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 13 14 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced that, per City Council direction, public comment 15 on non-agendized items will be split between in-person and Zoom participants. In-person 16 comments will occur at the usual time as listed on the agenda, while Zoom comments will be 17 taken following approval of minutes. 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENT IN PERSON 20 21 There were no in-person public comments for non-agendized items. 22 23 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 24 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 25 26 Jennifer Armer announced that the May 13 PTC meeting is expected to include review of the 27 Stream Protection Ordinance and additional revisions to the Accessory Dwelling Unit 28 Ordinance. The May 27 meeting is expected to include the CIP Annual Report and the delayed 29 Parking Programs Update. It was reported that City Council approved the project at 3606 El 30 Camino Real on their April 13 meeting. Vice Chair Chang and Commissioner Peterson were 31 congratulated on their reappointments to the PTC. Upcoming City Council items include 32 discussion of SB 79 and the Downtown Housing Plan on May 4, and consideration of the 33 Builder’s Remedy project at 3781 El Camino Real on May 11. 34 35 Office of Transportation Senior Planner Ozzy Arce provided transportation updates, beginning 36 with the Rail Corridor Stabilization Project following erosion caused by the 2023 storms 37 affecting the rail corridor and the El Palo Alto Tree. The project is intended to provide a 38 permanent long-term solution to protect the heavy rail bridge and adjacent Alma Street 39 bike/ped bridge. A virtual community meeting will be held on May 7 at 5:30 p.m. to review 40 staging plans prior to construction. Mobilization is expected in May with active construction 1 beginning in June. The traffic control plan prioritizes keeping the bike/ped path open when 2 possible, though temporary full closures may be required for safety. Construction notices will 3 be distributed through City communication channels and Caltrain weekly construction emails. 4 The Quarry Road Transit Connection was reviewed, noting that 74 percent of Palo Alto voters 5 approved Ballot Measure D in November 2024 to undedicate a portion of El Palo Alto Park for 6 the project. The partnership between the City and Stanford University is focused on improving 7 transit access and bike/ped circulation in the area. An in-person public meeting will be held at 8 the Community Meeting Room at Palo Alto City Hall on May 7 at 7 p.m. following the PABAC 9 meeting to discuss opportunities and challenges related to access within the area. Additional 10 information is available at this link. 11 12 Ozzy Arce reported on the Churchill Avenue Temporary Closure analysis, noting that City 13 Council considered the potential temporary closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing at 14 a special meeting on April 15. More than 200 comments were received prior to the meeting and 15 nearly 50 speakers provided public comment at the meeting. Council discussion continued with 16 deliberations scheduled to resume on May 11. On April 20, City Council approved the Phase 1 17 Embarcadero Road Improvements construction contract for the segment between Alma Street 18 and Emerson Street. A positive update was shared regarding the signal behavior at Meadow 19 Drive and Alma Street previously discussed by the PTC. The OOT Traffic Engineering team and 20 City Utilities identified loose wiring in mid-April that was causing intermittent signal skips and 21 corrected the issue. Appreciation was expressed for bringing the matter to staff’s attention. 22 Upcoming activities for National Bike Month were announced, including Bike to Wherever Days 23 organized in partnership with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. The local celebration will 24 culminate on May 14 with 3 energizer stations throughout Palo Alto offering treats and 25 commemorative bags for cyclists. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton was grateful to staff for resolving the signal issue at Meadow/Alma, 28 noting that the signal functioned properly during a recent trip through the intersection. 29 30 Vice Chair Chang thanked staff for distributing the PABAC collision and accident reports and 31 expressed support for continuing to include the newly added injury-level column in future 32 reports. Vice Chair Chang noted that the November report reflected significantly more bike/ped 33 collisions than the following months and asked whether the increase may be related to 34 seasonal trends or Daylight Savings Time. Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo stated that the 35 period following Daylight Savings Time is typically among the most dangerous times of the year, 36 which may account for part of the increase. 37 38 Commissioner Ji likewise appreciated staff addressing the signal issue at Meadow Drive and 39 Alma Street and asked whether the Meadow crossing is intended to operate similarly to the 40 crossings at Churchill Avenue and Charleston Road, which include marked waiting areas. Ria Lo 41 confirmed that it is. Commissioner Ji suggested adding a marked X or other warning feature at 42 the Meadow crossing to improve consistency among the 3 crossings. 43 44 Commissioner Ji expressed appreciation for inclusion of the injury-level column in the collision 1 reports and thanked staff for their work on the reports. 2 3 Commissioner Ji asked why the Parking Program Update was delayed. Jennifer Armer 4 responded that staff needed additional time to finalize a complete report. 5 6 Chair Akin supported making signage consistent across the Meadow, Churchill, and Charleston 7 crossings, noting that clearer markings would help reduce confusion. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton added that the Meadow crossing historically operated differently, 10 with the trigger located on the opposite side of the tracks, which explains the differing roadway 11 markings. Support was expressed for updating the pavement markings to reflect the current 12 crossing configuration if feasible. 13 14 ACTION ITEMS 15 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4103 Old Trace Road [25PLN-00298]: 16 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Tentative Map to Allow 17 for the Subdivision of a Vacant 1.02-Acre Lot to Create Nine Residential Lots and One 18 Private Street to Facilitate Construction of Nine New Single-Family Residences and 19 Seven Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (25PLN-00296). CEQA Status: Exempt 20 Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66). Zone 21 District: RE (Residential Estate). 22 23 Chair Akin requested Commissioner disclosure of any information that was not part of the 24 public record related to this quasi-judicial item. 25 26 Vice Chair Chang disclosed familiarity with the area and traffic patterns based on personal 27 experience commuting through the corridor while attending Gunn High School. 28 29 Associate Planner Nishita Kandikuppa presented the Tentative Map application for 4103 Old 30 Trace Road, a vacant 1.02-acre site in the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, zoned RE 31 (Residential Estate). Surrounding uses include low-density residential development and the 32 VMWare office campus within the Research Park district. The proposal would subdivide the site 33 into 9 residential lots and 1 private street parcel to facilitate development of 9 single-family 34 residences and 7 attached junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) under a separate housing 35 application currently under staff review. Lot 9 would contain an attached single-family 36 residence designated as a moderate-income BMR unit for households earning up to 100 37 percent AMI. Nishita Kandikuppa reviewed the proposed circulation design, including a 20-foot-38 wide vehicular right-of-way within a 30-foot, 6-inch-wide private street section with sidewalks 39 and landscaping. Red curbs are proposed throughout the private street to maintain emergency 40 and service vehicle access. To address prior safety concerns discussed during ARB study 41 sessions, the project proposes restricting eastbound right turns from Arastradero Road into the 42 private street through reduced curb radius design and signage. Proposed bike/ped 43 improvements include new 4-foot sidewalks, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at the 1 existing Arastradero crosswalk, and green bike lane markings at the private street entrance. 2 Residential access would be provided through a combination of individual and shared 3 driveways. No guest parking is proposed on site and parking remains prohibited along 4 Arastradero Road. Staff is evaluating parking restrictions along Old Trace Road to preserve 5 emergency access. 6 7 Nishita Kandikuppa stated that the application is being reviewed pursuant to State Density 8 Bonus Law, AB 130, and the Housing Accountability Act. Requested waivers include minimum 9 lot area, site depth, private street width, and Arastradero Road setback requirements, with 10 additional waivers and 1 concession anticipated under the housing application. Based on the 11 submitted materials, staff recommends that the PTC recommend approval of the Tentative 12 Map to City Council subject to the proposed findings and Conditions of Approval. 13 14 Commissioner James requested clarification regarding the City’s authority under applicable 15 State housing laws, noting that many project standards appear governed by State law rather 16 than local discretion. Jennifer Armer indicated that characterization was generally accurate and 17 deferred to legal counsel. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang explained that local regulation 18 related to public health and safety is narrowly limited to specific adverse impacts tied to 19 objective written standards in effect when the application was submitted, such as requirements 20 contained in the Fire Code. 21 22 Commissioner Ji asked whether any written objective transportation standards applicable to 23 the project had been identified, referencing prior discussion of transportation impacts for 3606 24 El Camino Real. Albert Yang stated that no such standards had been identified and deferred to 25 Transportation staff for additional detail. Ria Lo confirmed that conclusion, noting that staff 26 conducted an L1 analysis of the crossing. Commissioner Ji expressed support for the applicant’s 27 proposed RRFB and no additional transportation improvements were deemed necessary. 28 29 Commissioner Ji asked whether other jurisdictions have adopted transportation-related health 30 and safety standards applicable to projects of this type. Albert Yang stated that he was not 31 aware of such standards and noted that transportation standards historically have focused on 32 traffic level-of-service considerations. Ria Lo added that some cities incorporate safety-related 33 research and engineering judgment into application of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic 34 Control Devices. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton questioned whether the City has regulations governing new curb cuts 37 along major roadways and whether Arastradero Road is treated similarly to corridors such as 38 Middlefield Road, Alma Street, and Embarcadero Road. Ria Lo stated that standards exist for 39 roadways such as El Camino Real and indicated that staff would need to confirm how 40 Arastradero Road is classified. Commissioner Templeton stated that the information would be 41 helpful for future discussion of the project. 42 43 Chair Akin additionally expressed interest in receiving information regarding curb cut standards 1 applicable to Arastradero Road. 2 3 Development Member Melanie Griswold of Steel Bridge Homes Palo Alto, LP, described the 4 proposed development, named The Oaks, as a missing middle housing project intended to 5 provide varied architectural character, landscaping, multigenerational living opportunities, and 6 family-oriented housing near schools. It was reiterated that the subdivision would include 9 7 lots, 16 units, attached and detached single-family residences, 7 JADUs, and a moderate-income 8 BMR unit. An artist was commissioned to incorporate public art into the project’s exterior. First-9 floor en-suites were described. Additional driveway parking was highlighted as part of revisions 10 made in response to neighborhood and ARB feedback. Melanie Griswold stated that the 11 reduced private street width was intended to allow additional landscaping and that traffic and 12 safety considerations were evaluated with transportation consultants. The subdivision entrance 13 and exit were described as meeting applicable spacing guidelines from the nearby intersection. 14 Proposed red curbing, driveway parking, and garage parking were intended to minimize 15 overflow parking impacts into the neighborhood on Old Trace Road. Traffic generation was 16 described as limited, with projected peak-hour trips of approximately 6 morning trips and 7 17 evening trips. Melanie Griswold additionally reviewed proposed bike/ped improvements, 18 including new sidewalks within the proposed subdivision, upgraded ADA ramps at the Old Trace 19 Road/Arastradero Road intersection, and a voluntary RRFB installation. 20 21 PUBLIC COMMENT: 22 23 Shailesh M., speaking on behalf of Andy S., Bill S., Madhuri N., Sania M., and Khosrow R., 24 opposed the project due to safety, emergency access, evacuation, traffic, and parking concerns. 25 The commenter stated that the Esther Clark Park neighborhood has 1 ingress/egress point at 26 Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road, narrow streets, and older residents who may be affected 27 by increased density and emergency access limitations. Concerns were raised that the traffic 28 study does not adequately account for organic growth, service vehicles, spillover parking, or 29 wildfire evacuation. The commenter questioned the project’s reliance on State housing laws 30 and the CEQA exemption under AB 130, requested further review of the safety analysis, and 31 argued that the proposed RRFB would not address emergency access or evacuation concerns. 32 33 Marilyn S., a longtime resident of Mockingbird Lane, expressed concerns regarding traffic 34 safety, visibility, congestion, and emergency access at the Old Trace Road/Arastradero Road 35 intersection. The commenter stated that the area lacks sidewalks and experiences significant 36 traffic associated with nearby schools, churches, and existing congestion at Foothill Expressway. 37 Concerns were raised regarding prior construction-related parking impacts that impeded 38 emergency vehicle access and the project’s potential to worsen parking and circulation 39 conditions in the neighborhood. 40 41 Kanwar D., a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, raised concerns regarding traffic 42 safety, circulation, and the adequacy of the project traffic study. The commenter stated that 43 the area includes more schools than identified in the project materials and described existing U-1 turn activity and increased traffic associated with greater occupancy at the nearby VMWare 2 campus. Questions were raised regarding compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, fire and 3 safety requirements, and the project’s reliance on CEQA exemptions. The commenter 4 contrasted the project location with higher-density areas near Caltrain and El Camino Real that 5 were described as more appropriate for similar development. 6 7 Jeannie C., a longtime resident of Old Trace Road, opposed the requested waivers and 8 concessions and expressed concern that the project conflicts with the low-density and semi-9 rural character intended for the area west of Foothill Expressway. The commenter questioned 10 the appropriateness of the proposed public art feature and argued that the reduced lot sizes 11 and proposed structures within the Arastradero Road setback area are inconsistent with the 12 General Plan, scenic roadway protections, and surrounding development patterns. Concerns 13 were raised regarding the accuracy of the Arastradero Road right-of-way calculations, potential 14 encroachment into the roadway corridor, and the project’s impacts on wildfire evacuation and 15 emergency access along Arastradero Road. The commenter opposed the proposed reduction in 16 private street width from 32 feet to 20 feet. 17 18 Jeff W., a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, expressed support for proposed 19 Condition of Approval #6 requiring review of the private street name by the Palo Alto Historical 20 Association and encouraged selection of a name reflecting the area’s historical significance. The 21 commenter described the neighborhood street network as intentionally designed with 22 narrower dimensions in the 1960s based on expectations of very low-density residential 23 development. Concerns were raised that the proposed density would exceed the intensity 24 originally anticipated for the area and would create spillover parking, circulation, and safety 25 impacts on streets not designed for higher-density development. The commenter requested 26 additional analysis and mitigation related to parking, emergency access, and neighborhood 27 safety and expressed concern that approval of the project could establish a precedent for 28 similar developments in the area. 29 30 Heather C. opposed the requested reduction in private street width from 32 feet to 20 feet, 31 arguing that the project does not satisfy the conditions required for a narrower roadway. The 32 commenter raised concerns regarding vehicle maneuvering, emergency access, and potential 33 illegal U-turns associated with the project circulation pattern. Additional concerns were raised 34 regarding bicycle safety near the Arastradero Road/Foothill Expressway intersection and the 35 project’s proposed affordable housing concession request. The commenter argued that the 36 requested concession could undermine the basis for the project’s eligibility for Density Bonus 37 incentives and waivers. 38 39 Ellen S., a resident of Mockingbird Lane, expressed concerns regarding traffic speeds, parking 40 demand, and distance from public transit in the neighborhood. The commenter speculated that 41 the proposed development could generate more vehicles per residence than anticipated and 1 stated that vehicle speeds along Arastradero Road frequently exceed the posted limit. Concerns 2 were raised regarding the distance to nearby transit service and the practicality of relying on 3 transit access in the neighborhood. 4 5 Shoshanna L. (Zoom), a resident of Old Trace Court, expressed concerns regarding traffic 6 congestion, emergency access, visibility, and the neighborhood’s ability to accommodate 7 higher-density development. The commenter stated that existing congestion near Foothill 8 Expressway has worsened following roadway changes in the area and questioned whether the 9 traffic study accurately reflected school-period traffic conditions or the increased number of 10 delivery vehicles. Additional concerns were raised regarding wheelchair-accessible 11 transportation services, wildfire risk, homeowners insurance impacts, and visibility limitations 12 when turning onto Arastradero Road. The commenter expressed frustration regarding 13 communication about the proposed private street naming process. 14 15 John C. (Zoom) expressed support for the project and the addition of affordable and higher-16 density housing in Palo Alto. The commenter stated that concerns regarding street width and 17 emergency access should be viewed in the context of other Palo Alto neighborhoods with 18 similarly narrow streets, including Barron Park, where residents continue to feel safe. Support 19 was expressed for future housing projects that include affordable housing components. 20 21 Chair Akin invited the applicant team to respond to public comments and answer Commissioner 22 questions. 23 24 Melanie Griswold responded to public comments regarding traffic, safety, and density 25 concerns, stating that the project is a low-density residential development consistent with the 26 General Plan following application of State Density Bonus Law. It was reiterated that projected 27 traffic generation is limited and based on objective standards contained in the 2025 Trip 28 Generation Manual, which were reviewed by City staff. Melanie Griswold argued that the 29 project would improve neighborhood egress by providing an additional connection to 30 Arastradero Road and said that the proposed 20-foot private street width complies with 31 California Fire Code standards. It was further stated that the subdivision was designed to 32 comply with applicable objective standards and would not create increased safety risks if 33 constructed as proposed. 34 35 Vice Chair Chang asked how the proposed public art and project design respond to the scenic 36 corridor character of Arastradero Road and the environmental emphasis of the RE zoning 37 district. Melanie Griswold answered that the selected artist has previously completed work in 38 Palo Alto and creates nature-based art. The project design was described as using natural 39 materials and colors intended to complement the surrounding environment and maintain a 40 landscaped setback along Arastradero Road. 41 42 Commissioner James asked the applicant to address concerns regarding the proposed 20-foot 1 private street width, parking availability, and revisions made in response to ARB comments 2 regarding visitor parking. Melanie Griswold stated that the project was redesigned to provide 3 longer driveways capable of accommodating guest parking in lieu of dedicated visitor parking 4 spaces. It was explained that widening the private street would significantly reduce the number 5 of units. The project includes 2-car garages for each residence and was described as intended to 6 encourage use of nearby bike infrastructure and alternative transportation options. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton asked about the proposed naming of the private street. Melanie 9 Griswold responded that the current street name is a placeholder and that the final naming 10 process would proceed in coordination with the City. 11 12 Commissioner Ji inquired about the applicant’s communication and working relationship with 13 neighborhood residents. Melanie Griswold described multiple early outreach meetings with 14 neighbors prior to formal public hearings and stated that project plans were shared for 15 community review. The commenter indicated that attempts to continue discussions following 16 the most recent ARB meeting were unsuccessful. Openness was expressed for further 17 discussion with neighbors and the City regarding sidewalk connections, intersection 18 improvements, and other safety-related concerns associated with the project. 19 20 Commissioner Ji requested clarification regarding whether the proposed transportation 21 improvements would be funded by the developer or the City. Ria Lo stated that the 22 improvements would be incorporated as part of the development. Commissioner Ji further 23 inquired whether the applicant supported the identified transportation improvements. Melanie 24 Griswold confirmed the developer's support for the proposed improvements, including 25 voluntary safety measures beyond those required by code. 26 27 Commissioner Ji questioned how the project could be characterized as low-density 28 development while relying on State Density Bonus Law. Melanie Griswold explained that the 29 project remains within the General Plan’s low-density residential designation, which allows up 30 to 7 dwelling units per acre and up to 14 units per acre when including JADUs. It was stated that 31 the project exceeds the underlying RE zoning density but remains consistent with the General 32 Plan designation. It was further explained that State Density Bonus Law is being used primarily 33 to obtain waivers and concessions associated with the project design rather than to increase 34 density beyond the applicable General Plan category. 35 36 Commissioner Ji questioned the traffic analysis assumption that the proposed JADUs would not 37 independently generate vehicle trips, describing that conclusion as unreasonable. Melanie 38 Griswold responded that the traffic analysis treated the JADUs as part of the primary residences 39 and stated that trip generation estimates vary based on housing type and size. Detailed analysis 40 was deferred to the traffic consultant, though it was noted that even if trip generation was 41 higher than projected, the project would still generate relatively low traffic volumes. 42 43 Commissioner Ji referenced comments on Packet Page 33 regarding prohibited direct storm 1 drain connections and questioned whether the plans would be revised accordingly. Melanie 2 Griswold confirmed that the storm drain design remains under review in coordination with the 3 City. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman commented on language in the applicant’s March 30 letter regarding 6 recording of a deed-restricted affordability covenant and sought confirmation that the 7 applicant would agree to include the requirement as a Condition of Approval. Melanie Griswold 8 confirmed that the affordable unit is foundational to the subdivision proposal and stated that 9 an affordable housing compliance plan and deed-restricted covenant would typically be 10 required as part of the building permit process. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman asked whether Old Trace Road is a dead-end street and Nishita 13 Kandikuppa confirmed that it is. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman discussed the relationship between setback requirements, buildable 16 area, and the City’s authority under State housing law, questioning whether reducing buildable 17 area without reducing density would justify denial of requested waivers. Albert Yang explained 18 that the applicable statute is primarily the State Density Bonus Law, which requires approval of 19 requested waivers if denial would physically preclude the housing development. It was noted 20 that courts have interpreted the law to prohibit requiring applicants to eliminate project 21 amenities, including unit size, even if the same density could theoretically be achieved through 22 a different design configuration. Commissioner Hechtman reflected on the limited flexibility 23 available under State Density Bonus Law regarding setback requirements and questioned the 24 extent to which setback-related issues fall within the scope of the Tentative Map before the 25 Commission. Clarification was sought regarding which waiver requests are relevant to the 26 Tentative Map as opposed to the separate housing application. Albert Yang responded that the 27 relevant waiver requests for the Tentative Map include lot size, Arastradero Road special 28 setbacks, private street width, and site depth, as identified in the staff report. 29 30 Chair Akin discussed the new vehicle and bicycle conflict point created at the proposed private 31 street connection to Arastradero Road and sought additional information regarding the 32 proposed right-turn restriction and related mitigation measures. Melanie Griswold indicated 33 that the proposed design was intended to reduce conflicts between vehicles and cyclists near 34 the bike lane by eliminating right-turn movements into the new subdivision's private street. 35 Melanie Griswold stated that the approach was discussed with City staff and considered 36 preferable from a visibility and safety perspective. It was added that bollards were considered 37 during the design process, though the curb design was viewed as the cleanest and least 38 obstructive mitigation option. 39 40 Vice Chair Chang requested clarification regarding when the traffic study was conducted and 41 whether the updated analysis changed the conclusions. Melanie Griswold stated that the study 42 was refreshed on April 20 and that the conclusions remained unchanged. Ria Lo clarified that 43 traffic counts were collected on August 26 and later updated through additional review. 44 1 Vice Chair Chang commented that public concerns appeared focused more on potential 2 overflow parking and related safety impacts than on traffic volumes alone and invited the 3 applicant to address how overflow parking would be managed if it occurs. Melanie Griswold 4 responded that the project redesign incorporated 2-car driveways intended to accommodate 5 guest parking demand. It was noted that guest parking requirements could otherwise be 6 requested as a waiver under State law and that the driveway design was voluntarily 7 incorporated to address neighborhood concerns. Vice Chair Chang expressed appreciation for 8 inclusion of the driveways. 9 10 Vice Chair Chang sought additional explanation regarding how the Comprehensive Plan land 11 use designation affects calculation of the project’s base density and whether a different 12 designation tailored to the RE zone could have resulted in a lower allowable density. Albert 13 Yang explained that the City could theoretically amend the Comprehensive Plan in the future to 14 establish a lower-density land use designation for such sites. However, it was added that 15 reducing allowable density in one area would require a corresponding increase elsewhere to 16 maintain overall housing capacity. Vice Chair Chang stated that the question was intended to 17 better understand the legal framework governing the project. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton questioned why the site was not identified as a Housing Element 20 opportunity site despite being a vacant parcel and commented that the proposed 21 redevelopment appeared unexpected to nearby residents. Jennifer Armer explained that the 22 site was not included in the Housing Element inventory because staff had not identified 23 redevelopment interest or other indicators suggesting likely development within the planning 24 period. It was noted that projects on non-Housing Element sites still count toward the City’s 25 housing obligations and that changing State laws and market conditions can result in 26 redevelopment proposals on previously unanticipated sites. Commissioner Templeton further 27 inquired about the timing of the current ownership’s property acquisition. Jennifer Armer 28 responded that staff became aware of redevelopment interest approximately a year ago. Albert 29 Yang added that there was no legal reason the parcel had been excluded from the Housing 30 Element inventory. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton referenced public comments questioning whether the project 33 qualifies for the requested Density Bonus incentives and waivers and requested clarification 34 regarding the project’s unit calculations. Albert Yang responded that staff does not agree with 35 that interpretation and stated that he was uncertain about the specific basis for the 36 commenter’s argument. 37 38 Commissioner Templeton requested clarification regarding whether the legal limitations on 39 approving or denying housing projects apply to City Council or to the PTC. Albert Yang clarified 40 that the PTC does not approve or deny projects. Commissioner Templeton acknowledged the 41 clarification and commented on frustration with the limited discretion available to local 42 agencies under State housing laws. 43 44 Commissioner Templeton questioned how many units could be developed on the site absent 1 the requested State Density Bonus provisions and waivers. Nishita Kandikuppa responded that 2 under the underlying RE zoning regulations, the site could accommodate at most 2 units, 3 excluding ADUs. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton raised questions regarding neighborhood concerns about wildfire 6 evacuation, emergency vehicle access, and potential homeowners insurance impacts associated 7 with the project. Clarification was sought regarding the scope of the Fire Department’s review 8 and whether broader neighborhood circulation and evacuation concerns had been evaluated. 9 Nishita Kandikuppa stated that the Fire Department reviewed the proposed private street and 10 adjacent frontages along Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road associated with the project site, 11 not the entire existing neighborhood streets. It was noted that proposed red curbing 12 restrictions were intended to preserve emergency access and prevent parking conflicts along 13 the private street and portions of Old Trace Road. Jennifer Armer discussed concerns regarding 14 potential congestion caused by vehicles associated with the new development and 15 acknowledged the neighborhood concerns raised during public comment. Commissioner 16 Templeton emphasized the importance of understanding whether the project could affect 17 emergency response, evacuation conditions, or homeowners insurance availability for 18 surrounding properties. Nishita Kandikuppa stated that additional information regarding 19 insurance considerations could be researched further. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton requested clarification regarding how the project proposes 9 single-22 family residences on a site with a calculated base density of 8 units. Nishita Kandikuppa 23 explained that the site’s 1.02-acre size results in a rounded base density of 8 units under the 24 General Plan calculation. It was noted that the applicant is proposing 1 density bonus unit in 25 addition to the base density. Under State Density Bonus Law, the proposed JADUs do not count 26 toward the project’s base density even though they contribute to the total unit count on the 27 site. Commissioner Templeton inquired whether the City has taken any legislative position 28 regarding such provisions. Jennifer Armer responded that the City has not taken a position on 29 this specific issue. 30 31 Commissioner Ji requested clarification regarding the distinction between a Vesting Tentative 32 Map and a standard Tentative Map. Albert Yang explained that a Vesting Tentative Map locks in 33 applicable City policies and development standards as of the date the application is deemed 34 complete, preventing subsequently adopted regulations from applying to the project. It was 35 noted that the practical need for vesting has diminished under SB 330, though many applicants 36 continue to use Vesting Tentative Maps as a matter of practice. 37 38 Commissioner Ji referenced a statement on Packet Page 22 regarding the proximity of Barron 39 Creek to the project site and noted that a public commenter had questioned the accuracy of 40 the distance identified in the staff report. Nishita Kandikuppa stated that the distance was 41 derived from GIS records and indicated that staff would recheck the measurement. 42 Commissioner Ji emphasized the importance of responding to concerns raised during public 43 comment. 44 1 Commissioner Ji requested additional information regarding the specific written fire safety 2 standards applicable to the project, noting repeated public concerns related to wildfire 3 evacuation and emergency access. Nishita Kandikuppa stated that staff could follow up with the 4 Fire Department regarding the applicable standards. Jennifer Armer commented that the Fire 5 Department reviewed the project for compliance with applicable standards and that any 6 identified inconsistencies would have been flagged by staff during project review. 7 Commissioner Ji suggested that additional information regarding fire safety standards could be 8 helpful in future staff materials and remarked that evolving development patterns may warrant 9 future consideration of updated objective safety standards. 10 11 Commissioner Ji sought clarification regarding parking access and the shared driveway 12 configuration serving Lots 6 through 9. Melanie Griswold explained that those lots share a 13 common driveway and stated that the applicant is exploring possible parking opportunities 14 near the end of that access area. It was noted that the shared driveway cannot be used for 15 parking as it would block garage access for adjacent units. 16 17 Commissioner Ji inquired whether the proposed private street could operate as a one-way 18 roadway as a potential response to congestion concerns on Old Trace Road. Ria Lo indicated 19 that additional input from Transportation colleagues may be needed regarding alternatives that 20 were evaluated during project review. Melanie Griswold explained that a one-way 21 configuration could create unsafe circulation patterns due to the median configuration on 22 Arastradero Road, which limits turning movements. It was stated that the proposed dual-access 23 arrangement is intended to distribute outbound traffic between the new private street and Old 24 Trace Road during peak periods. Ria Lo added that the proposed 20-foot street width is tied to 25 Fire Code requirements in addition to transportation considerations. Chair Akin noted that the 26 possibility of a one-way private street had previously been discussed during the ARB review 27 process and presumed that the current design reflects follow-up evaluation of those earlier 28 comments. 29 30 Commissioner James sought confirmation that the proposed 20-foot private street width 31 satisfies applicable objective health and safety standards under the Fire Code. Jennifer Armer 32 confirmed that the requirement is established through the Fire Code. Commissioner James 33 asked for further clarification that the Fire Department determined that the proposed street 34 width adequately accommodates emergency vehicle access and Nishita Kandikuppa confirmed 35 this. 36 37 Commissioner James requested clarification regarding the proposed affordable unit on Lot 9, 38 including whether unit size factors into eligibility for the project’s density bonus and whether 39 the affordable unit must be comparable in size to the market-rate units. Albert Yang explained 40 that State Density Bonus Law bases bonus eligibility on the number and affordability level of 41 units rather than square footage. It was noted that the City has local comparability standards 42 for affordable units, though applicants may request concessions from those standards under 43 State law. Melanie Griswold confirmed that the applicant is requesting such a concession and 44 stated that the proposed affordable unit would remain a 3-bedroom residence, though smaller 1 than the market-rate units. Approximate sizes discussed included market-rate units around 2 2,600 square feet and the affordable unit around 1,500 square feet. 3 4 Chair Akin concluded the clarifying questions portion of the discussion, thanked the applicant 5 representative for responding to Commissioner questions, and opened general Commission 6 deliberations. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton expressed support for redevelopment of the long-vacant site but 9 commented that the project is not in line with the surrounding neighborhood properties. 10 Concerns were raised regarding impacts extending beyond the project boundaries, including 11 traffic safety along Arastradero Road, wildfire evacuation, and potential homeowners insurance 12 implications for nearby residents. Commissioner Templeton acknowledged the limited 13 discretion available to the Commission under State housing law and stated that the addition of 14 16 dwelling units gives her pause. Appreciation was expressed for the public comments. 15 Commissioner Templeton was hopeful that neighborhood residents and the developer would 16 continue efforts to communicate regarding project concerns. 17 18 Commissioner Ji thanked neighborhood residents for participating in the hearing and 19 acknowledged concerns regarding parking overflow, traffic, fire safety, and neighborhood 20 impacts associated with the project. Concerns were expressed regarding assumptions in the 21 traffic analysis, including expectations related to vehicle use and trip generation from JADUs. 22 Commissioner Ji expressed appreciation for the Transportation Department’s efforts to 23 evaluate potential safety improvements and encouraged consideration of additional 24 transportation measures where feasible. Commissioner Ji acknowledged the limited discretion 25 available to the PTC under State housing law. 26 27 Vice Chair Chang was appreciative of neighborhood residents for their participation and 28 expressed support for proposed bike/ped improvements, multigenerational housing 29 opportunities, affordability provisions, and the possibility of selecting a historically meaningful 30 street name through a Condition of Approval. It was stated that the projected traffic volumes 31 themselves were not the primary concern. Vice Chair Chang expressed significant concern 32 regarding wildfire evacuation, parking impacts, insurance availability, and increased density 33 within the wildlife/urban interface area west of Foothill Expressway. Concerns were raised 34 regarding assumptions about reduced vehicle use in an area with limited transit access and less 35 extensive bike infrastructure than other parts of Palo Alto. Vice Chair Chang commented that 36 some project features, including public art and additional lighting, does not align with the 37 natural and semi-rural character associated with the RE neighborhood context. Disappointment 38 was expressed regarding the broader impacts of State Density Bonus Law and increased 39 housing density in wildfire-prone areas. 40 41 Chair Akin characterized the project as an example of development intensity exceeding what 42 would traditionally be expected for the site but commented that the Commission’s role is 43 limited to the applicable legal framework. Chair Akin stated that many project concerns had 44 previously been raised during the ARB review process and observed that the project highlights 1 broader limitations in existing laws related to transportation and fire safety impacts. It was 2 reiterated that the Commission is required to make its recommendation within those 3 constraints. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman thanked neighborhood residents for participating in the hearing and 6 stated that while the project is residentially compatible with the development in the vicinity of 7 the site, the proposed density differs substantially from the surrounding low-density 8 neighborhood. He noted that the Commission’s review authority over the Tentative Map is 9 limited and voiced support for forwarding identified concerns to City Council as part of an 10 approval recommendation. Appreciation was noted for the applicant’s responsiveness to prior 11 ARB comments regarding safety issues. Concerns were raised regarding guest parking, the 12 design of the restricted right-turn movement into the private street, and assumptions in the 13 traffic study regarding JADU trip generation. He observed that some neighborhood circulation 14 concerns have been ongoing and predate this project and may warrant broader future City 15 evaluation as density increases over time. Commissioner Hechtman stated that the Fire 16 Department and Transportation staff had completed the required objective safety reviews and 17 indicated support for the staff recommendation. Support was expressed for adding a deed 18 restriction requirement as part of the Conditions of Approval. 19 20 Commissioner James commented on the limited discretion available to the Commission under 21 current State housing laws and stated that the project differs significantly from the existing 22 neighborhood character and level of privacy. It was observed that similar development 23 proposals are being encouraged statewide and may serve as models for future projects. 24 Commissioner James reiterated that absent a violation of objective written health and safety 25 standards, the Commission has limited authority to deny or modify the proposal. 26 27 Vice Chair Chang revisited earlier discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan and suggested 28 that future updates to land use designations or zoning policies could help address projects in 29 wildfire-prone areas. It was noted that the existing RE zoning may have originally been intended 30 to reflect transition areas and fire risk considerations. Vice Chair Chang suggested that the 31 project highlights broader policy issues that may warrant future City Council consideration, 32 including potential land use approaches related to wildfire risk. 33 34 Commissioner Ji developed proposed motion language incorporating amendments discussed by 35 the Commission and asked whether dark sky regulations or similar nature-based mitigation 36 measures would apply to the project. Jennifer Armer stated that the dark sky regulations would 37 apply. Albert Yang pointed out that applicability could depend on the timing of the project’s SB 38 330 preliminary application relative to the effective dates of the ordinances. Commissioner Ji 39 stated that the question was separate from the motion itself and invited any additional 40 comments about the motion. 41 42 Vice Chair Chang proposed an amendment to Finding #2 on Packet Page 21 to revise the final 43 sentence to state, “The project contributes to the housing inventory,” commenting that the 44 original language was overly optimistic. The amendment was accepted by the maker of the 1 motion. 2 3 The Commission and staff further discussed and refined the final motion language. 4 5 MOTION: Commissioner Ji moved, seconded by Chair Akin, the staff recommendation with the 6 following amendments: 7 • Add to Condition of Approval #4 to specify deed restriction for the BMR unit. 8 • For Condition of Approval #6, there was interest by the PTC to ensure the City and 9 developer work with the Palo Alto Historical Association and, if feasible, the neighbors 10 to choose the private street name. 11 • For Conditions of Approval #8 and #41 through #48, there was interest by the PTC to 12 ensure the developer work with the Office of Transportation to include all of the 13 transportation improvements. 14 • For Conditions of Approval #50 and #51, there was interest by the PTC to ensure the 15 plan be revised to be consistent with the Public Works engineering requirements. 16 • The project should have a construction management plan. 17 • In the future, the City Council should consider looking at objective fire safety standards, 18 fire risk and homeowners insurance, the density numbers for the Comprehensive Plan, 19 and the cumulative impacts outside the scope of individual projects. 20 • The PTC expressed concern about sufficiency of guest parking and JADU parking. 21 • Edit Finding #2 on Packet Page 21 to state, “The project contributes to the housing 22 inventory,” as the last sentence. 23 24 VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. 25 26 3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 27 28 Chair Akin asked whether a staff presentation was needed for the item or whether the 29 Commission should proceed directly with the documented process. Jennifer Armer stated that 30 no staff presentation was necessary and noted that staff remained available for questions. 31 Chair Akin then opened nominations for Chair of the PTC. 32 33 Commissioner James nominated Vice Chair Chang for Chair, seconded by Commissioner Ji. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman nominated himself for Chair, seconded by Commissioner Templeton. 36 37 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 38 39 Vice Chair Chang and Commissioner Hechtman accepted their nominations for Chair. 40 41 Commissioner James described his reasons for nominating Vice Chair Chang, citing her long-42 standing connection to Palo Alto, analytical approach, meeting preparation, and experience 43 serving as Vice Chair. Commissioner James noted that Vice Chair Chang values communication, 1 has developed strong community and City Council relationships, and was recently unanimously 2 reappointed by City Council to another term on the PTC. 3 4 Commissioner Ji commented that Vice Chair Chang is consistently well prepared and detail 5 oriented in reviewing agenda materials. It was noted that advancing the Vice Chair to Chair is a 6 longstanding Commission tradition. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman discussed Commission traditions regarding seniority in leadership 9 selection and advancement from Vice Chair to Chair while noting that exceptions have occurred 10 in prior years, including his own previous service as Chair without having first served as Vice 11 Chair. Commissioner Hechtman commented that Vice Chair Chang is highly qualified for the 12 role and referenced her prior service as Chair. He stated that, regardless of the Chair vote 13 outcome, he intended to nominate Commissioner Ji for Vice Chair and viewed the current 14 election as a final opportunity to lead with Commissioner Ji before supporting Commissioner Ji 15 for Chair next year. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton commented on the importance of newer Commissioners stepping 18 into leadership roles and noted that serving as Chair requires significant effort and experience-19 building opportunities. Appreciation was expressed for working with Vice Chair Chang, while 20 support was voiced for newer Commissioners having the opportunity to work more closely with 21 Commissioner Hechtman given his land use experience and prior service as Chair. 22 23 Vice Chair Chang thanked Commissioner James for the nomination and reflected positively on 24 serving with fellow Commissioners and staff. Appreciation was expressed for the diversity of 25 perspectives on the Commission and for the professionalism and dedication of staff. Vice Chair 26 Chang stated that, if selected, she would work to support transparent and inclusive Commission 27 processes. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton asked whether differing votes in the Chair election would create any 30 hard feelings among Commissioners. Vice Chair Chang strongly emphasized that they would not 31 and stated that respectful disagreement is an important part of the Commission’s work. It was 32 noted that Commissioners may disagree on motions while still maintaining mutual respect and 33 working collaboratively. 34 35 Chair Akin commented that each nominee was highly qualified for the role of Chair and asked 36 staff to explain the voting procedure. Jennifer Armer explained that the Commission would 37 conduct a private written ballot vote to allow Commissioners to cast their selections 38 independently without influence. 39 40 MOTION FOR ELECTION OF CHAIR: Commissioner James moved, seconded by Chair Akin, to 41 elect a new Chair for the Planning and Transportation Commission. 42 43 VOTE: Samuel Tavera announced the results of the Chair election. Vice Chair Chang received 1 votes from Commissioner Ji, Commissioner James, Vice Chair Chang, and Chair Akin. 2 Commissioner Hechtman received votes from Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner 3 Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton. Therefore, Vice Chair Chang was elected Chair. 4 5 Chair Akin opened nominations for Vice Chair of the PTC. 6 7 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman nominated Commissioner Ji for Vice Chair, seconded by Vice Chair 10 Chang. 11 12 Commissioner Ji accepted the nomination for Vice Chair. 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman highlighted Commissioner Ji's preparation, energy, perspective, and 15 use of technology in Commission work. Confidence was expressed in Commissioner Ji’s future 16 leadership on the Commission. 17 18 Vice Chair Chang commented positively on Commissioner Ji’s preparation, diligence, and 19 transportation expertise and expressed enthusiasm about the prospect of him serving as Chair 20 in the future. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton emphasized that all Commissioners contribute valuable perspectives 23 to the Commission regardless of tenure and encouraged newer members to view themselves as 24 equals in Commission discussions and leadership opportunities. 25 26 Chair Akin expressed appreciation for Commissioner Ji’s contributions to the PTC and stated 27 that his service as Vice Chair would further benefit the Commission and the City. 28 29 Commissioner Ji echoed Commissioner Templeton’s comments regarding the value and 30 contributions of all Commissioners and reflected on the high standards demonstrated by the 31 Commission prior to his appointment. Appreciation was expressed for the opportunity to learn 32 from fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Ji noted an interest in continuing to introduce 33 additional technology-related improvements to Commission processes. 34 35 Jennifer Armer stated that the Vice Chair election could proceed by voice vote. 36 37 MOTION FOR ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR: Commissioner Hechtman moved, seconded by Vice 38 Chair Chang, to elect a new Vice Chair for the Planning and Transportation Commission. 39 40 VOTE: Motion carried 7-0 for the election of Commissioner Ji as the Vice Chair. 41 42 Commissioner Templeton left the meeting at this point. 43 44 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 2 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 3 Minutes of March 11, 2026 4 5 Chair Akin noted that Commissioners Ji and James were absent from the meeting on March 11, 6 2026, and therefore needed to abstain from voting on the corresponding meeting minutes. 7 8 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 9 10 MOTION: Chair Akin moved, seconded by Commissioner Hechtman, to approve the minutes of 11 March 11, 2026, as revised. 12 13 VOTE: Passed 4-0-2. Commissioner James and Commissioner Ji abstained. Commissioner 14 Templeton was absent. 15 16 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 17 Minutes of March 25, 2026 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 20 21 MOTION: Chair Akin moved, seconded by Commissioner Ji, to approve the minutes of March 22 25, 2026, as revised. 23 24 VOTE: Passed 6-0. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 25 26 PUBLIC COMMENT VIA ZOOM 27 28 There were no public comments via Zoom for non-agendized items. 29 30 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 31 MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 32 33 Commissioner Peterson reported on a walkthrough of California Avenue conducted with local 34 business owners, primarily restaurant operators, to discuss upcoming ordinances related to 35 restaurant and bar uses. It was noted that business owners generally had limited familiarity 36 with the proposed changes but identified several streetscape and maintenance concerns along 37 the corridor. Commissioner Peterson relayed concerns regarding nonfunctioning tree lights in 38 front of Protégé and the appearance of the area near the Caltrain station, including 39 deteriorated barriers and fencing. Business owners emphasized the importance of improving 40 the station gateway area to better connect visitors arriving from transit with businesses along 41 California Avenue. 42 43 Vice Chair Chang reminded Commissioners about the upcoming May Fete Parade and noted 1 that Commissioners had not received the usual invitation distributed to BCCs by City staff. Vice 2 Chair Chang encouraged participation and commented that the event provides an opportunity 3 for the Commission to engage with the community. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman requested additional information regarding participation logistics for 6 the May Fete Parade, noting that Commissioners had not recently received invitation details, 7 and asked whether staff could provide information regarding staging location and timing. Vice 8 Chair Chang requested that staff look into how the PTC could be included on the invitation 9 distribution list for the May Fete Parade, noting the value of interacting with members of other 10 BCCs during the event. Jennifer Armer stated that staff would look into the details and 11 distribute the information to Commissioners. 12 13 Commissioner Ji congratulated Vice Chair Chang and Commissioner Peterson on their 14 reappointments to the PTC. Commissioner Ji suggested that Commissioner Peterson coordinate 15 with City staff involved in California Avenue revitalization efforts regarding the feedback he 16 received from local restaurant owners. Appreciation was additionally expressed to 17 Transportation staff for repairs at the Meadow crossing. 18 19 Chair Akin reflected on serving as PTC Chair over the past year and expressed appreciation for 20 the strength and professionalism of the Commission. Thanks were extended to Jennifer Armer, 21 Samuel Tavera, and other City staff for their support throughout the year. 22 23 ADJOURNMENT 24 25 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. 26