Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-13 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: May 13, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 p.m. 4 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Chang called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 9 10 Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared there was a quorum, noting 11 that Commissioner Hechtman was absent. 12 13 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 14 15 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer reported that there were no agenda changes or deletions. 16 17 IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT 18 19 There were no in-person public comments for non-agendized items. 20 21 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 22 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 23 24 Jennifer Armer provided updates on upcoming PTC meetings. The May 27 agenda is expected 25 to include the annual CIP consistency review, discussion of the City’s proposed Prohousing 26 Designation application, and study sessions on the Parking Program Update and Downtown 27 parking modernization initiatives. The June 11 agenda is expected to include rezoning of 470 28 Olive Avenue and consideration of a special setback modification on Hansen Way. 29 30 Recent and upcoming City Council items were summarized. Discussion of SB 79 and the 31 Downtown Housing Plan was postponed from May 4 and is expected to occur on June 1. The 32 Builder’s Remedy project at 3781 El Camino Real was approved on May 11. Upcoming May 18 33 items include the Tentative Map for 4103 Old Trace Road, the Cubberley project, and 156 34 California Avenue. It was noted that if the Old Trace Road item remains on the consent 35 calendar, City Council is expected to consider the Retail Ordinance; however, if the item is 36 pulled for discussion, consideration of the Retail Ordinance would likely be postponed. 37 38 Jennifer Armer reminded public speakers to submit comment cards as early as possible to the 39 clerk. 40 1 ACTION ITEMS 2 2. Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code 3 (PAMC) Chapters in Titles 16, 18, and 21 to Address Changes in State Law and 4 Direction from City Council Regarding Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling 5 Units. CEQA Status: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental 6 Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA 7 Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 8 9 Principal Planner Garrett Sauls introduced the proposed ADU/JADU ordinance update, which is 10 intended to address recent State law changes and prior City Council direction. Key provisions of 11 AB 1154 were outlined, including a prohibition on short-term rentals in JADUs and revisions to 12 owner-occupancy requirements. Changes under SB 9 included new reporting deadlines and 13 response requirements related to HCD review, with failure to meet those deadlines rendering 14 an ordinance invalid. SB 543 revised how floor area, lot coverage, and impact fees are 15 calculated for ADUs and JADUs; established an appeal process; increased the number of ADUs 16 permitted on single-family properties; and reduced the initial completeness review period from 17 30 days to 15 days. A tentative City Council hearing date of September 14 was noted. Garrett 18 Sauls explained that the draft ordinance would exclude exterior walls of ADUs and JADUs that 19 are not shared with the primary residence from floor area and lot coverage calculations. State 20 law now permits 1 additional ADU on single-family properties, while multifamily allowances 21 remain unchanged. The proposed appeal process would provide applicants 60 days to receive a 22 final written determination following an appeal of an incomplete or denied application, with 23 staff recommending that appeals initially be placed on the City Council consent calendar within 24 45 days. 25 26 Garrett Sauls reviewed 2 policy topics previously identified by City Council for further study. The 27 first concerned whether to increase the maximum size of an ADU from 1,000 square feet to 28 1,200 square feet, consistent with State law. City data from the previous 5 to 6 years showed 29 limited demand for larger ADUs, with only 3 applications exceeding 1,000 square feet, all 30 involving conversions of existing space. It was noted that conversions are not subject to a 31 maximum size limit under current regulations. The presentation additionally addressed the 32 option of allowing separate sale of ADUs. While State law requires cities to permit separate sale 33 of ADUs developed by qualifying nonprofit organizations, no such applications have been 34 received in Palo Alto. Approximately 10 California jurisdictions have adopted broader provisions 35 allowing separate sale of ADUs, though application activity has remained limited. Barriers 36 identified through outreach to those jurisdictions included lender consent requirements and 37 the cost and complexity of the application process. The draft ordinance would allow up to 3 38 ADUs to be sold separately from the primary residence, administered through a process similar 39 to SB 9 applications. JADUs would not be eligible for separate sale. Because participation is 40 optional under State law, the City could establish additional requirements, including alternative 41 application procedures, affordability restrictions, or limits on the number of separately sold 42 units. Garrett Sauls concluded by recommending approval of the draft ordinance and 1 consideration of the provisions contained in Attachment C for City Council review. 2 3 Vice Chair Ji requested clarification regarding examples of ADUs exceeding 1,000 square feet 4 despite the City's current size limit. Garrett Sauls explained that State law has allowed 5 conversions of existing structures into ADUs without a maximum size limit since 2020. It was 6 noted that large existing structures may be converted to ADUs, even when their size exceeds 7 the City's standard maximum, provided the conversion does not involve exterior expansion. 8 9 Commissioner Akin inquired about the calculation of livable space, noting that the illustration 10 on Packet Page 11 includes closets while the proposed ordinance language excludes separate 11 storage areas. Garrett Sauls explained that storage areas not directly connected to and 12 intended for use by the ADU or JADU would not be included in the unit's square footage 13 calculation. Shared or detached storage spaces accessible to either the primary residence or the 14 ADU would be treated differently from storage integrated into the ADU itself. Commissioner 15 Akin indicated that the clarification would help avoid confusion for future applicants. 16 17 Commissioner Akin asked whether the provision on Packet Page 30 allowing parking for ADUs in 18 front and side setbacks represents a change from existing regulations. Garrett Sauls stated that 19 the provision pertains to JADUs and is intended to restore an allowance that previously existed. 20 It was noted that references to JADUs were removed from a code table during prior State-21 mandated revisions, creating confusion. The proposed amendment would continue an existing 22 incentive for JADUs and avoid requiring applicants to first construct a garage and later convert 23 it into a JADU. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton requested additional information regarding the proposed separate 26 sale of ADUs, including implications for ownership, taxation, and property designations. Garrett 27 Sauls explained that separate sale would occur through a condominium-style ownership 28 structure that allows ownership of ADUs to be separated while retaining a single parcel. The 29 proposal was intended to expand homeownership opportunities while preserving the units' 30 ADU status. Jennifer Armer clarified that separately owned ADUs would remain on the same 31 parcel and continue to be regulated as ADUs. Regarding taxation, it was noted that the County 32 already administers similar arrangements for condominium developments. Assistant City 33 Attorney Albert Yang advised that the County can assign separate parcel numbers in a manner 34 similar to condominium units and explained that separately sold ADUs would remain subject to 35 all applicable ADU regulations rather than becoming primary dwelling units. 36 37 Chair Chang asked whether lender consent requirements have been identified as an actual 38 barrier to separate sale of ADUs or are based primarily on speculation. Garrett Sauls responded 39 that feedback received from the City of Santa Cruz indicated that lender approval had been a 40 significant obstacle for residents interested in pursuing separate sale of ADUs. It was noted that 41 staff consulted with other jurisdictions to better understand implementation challenges 42 associated with the relatively new policy. Chair Chang questioned whether staff had any 43 information regarding how Palo Alto compares with other jurisdictions in the proportion of 44 properties without outstanding liens and Garrett Sauls stated that he was unable to provide 1 that information. 2 3 Chair Chang inquired whether a separately sold ADU could later be returned to unified 4 ownership and how difficult that process would be. Jennifer Armer indicated that reunification 5 of ownership would likely involve buying back the ADU and eliminating the separate ownership 6 arrangement, to which Albert Yang concurred. Garrett Sauls clarified that the property would 7 remain on a single parcel and that the process would eliminate the separate condominium-style 8 ownership and associated parcel number. 9 10 Commissioner James questioned whether allowing separate sale of ADUs could create an 11 incentive for developers to purchase properties without liens, subdivide ownership interests, 12 and increase returns through separate sales. Garrett Sauls responded that neither State law nor 13 the draft ordinance would prohibit such activity but noted that feedback from other 14 jurisdictions has not indicated that developers are using the process in that manner. 15 16 PUBLIC COMMENT: 17 1. John K. spoke in support of expanding ADU opportunities, describing ADUs as a 18 means of creating smaller, more attainable homeownership options similar to 19 traditional court-style housing. Enthusiasm was expressed for increasing the 20 maximum ADU size and allowing separate sale of ADUs, with comments that the 21 changes could improve housing affordability, provide financial flexibility for 22 homeowners, and help older residents remain in the community. Concerns were 23 raised regarding the impact of taxes and development fees on homeowners 24 pursuing ADU projects. 25 2. Jeremy L. (Zoom), speaking on behalf of Palo Alto Forward, voiced support for the 26 proposed ADU ordinance updates. Comments highlighted the success of ADUs in 27 helping the City exceed its Housing Element projections and providing 28 opportunities for multigenerational living, rental income, and homeownership. 29 The importance of maintaining a clear and predictable approval process and 30 reducing barriers to ADU development was emphasized. The commenter stated 31 that allowing separate sale of ADUs could improve project financing by enabling 32 homeowners to recover development costs more quickly. 33 3. Scott O. supported the comments of previous speakers and expressed support for 34 increasing the maximum ADU size and allowing separate sale of ADUs. Comments 35 focused on the flexibility such changes could provide for older homeowners 36 seeking to remain in the community while generating income, downsizing on-site, 37 and/or accommodating family members. The commenter further contended that 38 separately owned ADUs would function as bona fide housing units and could 39 contribute to the City's housing supply. 40 1 Out of respect for the numerous public commenters in attendance for Item #3, Chair Chang 2 proposed discussing the State-mandated amendments in Attachments A and B before 3 addressing the discretionary policy topics in Attachment C, including separate sale of ADUs. 4 Chair Chang noted that discussion could be continued to a future meeting if needed. 5 6 Commissioner Peterson stated that he generally opposes ADUs due to efficiency concerns but, 7 after hearing public comments regarding the potential benefits for longtime homeowners 8 seeking to remain in Palo Alto, was persuaded to support the proposed ordinance changes. 9 10 Vice Chair Ji asked how frequently appealed items are pulled from the City Council consent 11 calendar. Jennifer Armer indicated that it occurs infrequently. Vice Chair Ji expressed support 12 for Attachment A. 13 14 Chair Chang expressed support for Attachment A and invited a motion from the Commission. 15 16 MOTION: Vice Chair Ji moved, seconded by Commissioner Akin, Attachment A as in the staff 17 report. 18 19 VOTE: 6-0, Commissioner Hechtman absent. 20 21 Chair Chang opened discussion of Attachment C, which addressed increasing the maximum 22 ADU size to 1,200 square feet and allowing separate sale of ADUs. 23 24 Commissioner Akin expressed support for increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,200 square 25 feet and allowing separate sale of ADUs. It was suggested to consider restrictions on short-term 26 rentals and observed that Palo Alto's high rate of all-cash home purchases could reduce the 27 significance of lender-related barriers. Garrett Sauls noted that State law prohibits ADUs from 28 being rented for periods shorter than 30 days. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton supported increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,200 square feet, 31 commenting that it could help provide additional starter-sized housing opportunities in Palo 32 Alto. 33 34 Vice Chair Ji voiced support for increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,200 square feet and 35 questioned whether a separately sold ADU could be used for commercial purposes rather than 36 housing. Garrett Sauls indicated that existing home occupation regulations would continue to 37 apply and suggested that additional restrictions could be incorporated into the ordinance if the 38 City wished to limit certain nonresidential uses. Jennifer Armer added that home occupations 39 are generally required to operate at an intensity comparable to residential use and typically do 40 not allow customer traffic. 41 42 Vice Chair Ji remained uncertain about allowing separate sale of ADUs, citing the number of 43 recent State law changes and a desire to first evaluate the effects of existing regulations. 44 1 Chair Chang approved of increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,200 square feet, citing the 2 additional flexibility it would provide property owners. Chair Chang was generally supportive of 3 allowing separate sale of ADUs but raised concerns that the policy could encourage purchases 4 by developers and investors. Support was voiced for limiting separately sold ADUs to residential 5 uses and for maintaining an administrative approval process rather than requiring hearings. 6 Chair Chang suggested exploring affordability restrictions tied to AMI levels as a means of 7 creating additional affordable homeownership opportunities. 8 9 Commissioner James supported increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,200 square feet but 10 expressed reservations about allowing separate sale of ADUs, citing uncertainty regarding its 11 potential effects and concerns that it could increase competition between homebuyers and 12 developers. Support was indicated for limiting separately sold ADUs to residential uses and 13 exploring AMI deed restrictions as a potential mitigation measure. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton opposed requiring AMI deed restrictions on separately sold ADUs, 16 commenting that such restrictions could limit financial benefits for homeowners, particularly 17 longtime residents seeking to realize the value of their property. It was suggested that 18 affordable housing requirements are more appropriately applied to larger development 19 projects. 20 21 Chair Chang stated that additional information would be needed before supporting a specific 22 AMI restriction level for separately sold ADUs, though such restrictions could still provide 23 substantial financial benefit to homeowners given Palo Alto property values. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton opined that affordability restrictions should remain voluntary rather 26 than be incorporated into the ordinance. 27 28 Chair Chang noted that the Commission appeared to have consensus regarding increasing the 29 maximum ADU size to 1,200 square feet and requested a motion on that item before 30 proceeding to discussion of ADU condoization. 31 32 Vice Chair Ji observed that increasing the maximum ADU size could slightly increase potential 33 impacts on neighboring properties because ADUs are permitted with 4-foot setbacks, though 34 any additional impacts would likely be limited. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton asked whether a 1,200-square-foot ADU could be constructed with 37 the existing 4-foot setbacks. Garrett Sauls confirmed that the proposed size increase would not 38 alter current setback requirements and that a 1,200-square-foot ADU could be built within the 39 setbacks permitted by code. 40 41 Commissioner Akin observed that setback requirements may vary depending on the type of 42 ADU and questioned whether all 1,200-square-foot ADUs would be subject to a 4-foot setback. 43 Garrett Sauls responded that the City generally cannot require setbacks greater than 4 feet 1 unless a utility easement is present. 2 3 MOTION: Commissioner Templeton moved, seconded by Vice Chair Ji, the staff 4 recommendation of increasing ADU maximum size to 1,200 square feet. 5 6 VOTE: 6-0, Commissioner Hechtman absent. 7 8 Chair Chang sought clarification regarding City Council's prior direction on allowing separate 9 sale of ADUs. Garrett Sauls explained that City Council directed staff to study and evaluate the 10 concept rather than pursue its adoption. Chair Chang noted that the Commission therefore had 11 broad discretion in considering the policy and its potential advantages and disadvantages. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton noted the limited data available regarding separate sale of ADUs and 14 suggested additional discussion before moving forward. Public interest in the concept and its 15 potential to expand homeownership opportunities were acknowledged. 16 17 Commissioner Peterson sought additional information regarding the number of separately 18 owned ADUs that could be created on a property and whether the proposal could encourage 19 new development patterns. Garrett Sauls stated that the draft ordinance would allow up to 3 20 ADUs to be sold separately on a single-family parcel. It was indicated that staff has limited 21 information regarding how frequently the process is being used in other jurisdictions and 22 therefore cannot predict the level of interest in Palo Alto. Responding to a comparison with the 23 4103 Old Trace Road project, Jennifer Armer noted that that project involves a subdivision 24 creating separate lots, whereas the proposed ADU ordinance would allow separate ownership 25 of ADUs while maintaining a single parcel. 26 27 Vice Chair Ji agreed with fellow Commissioners that limited data is available regarding separate 28 sale of ADUs and stated that he does not view the policy as an urgent priority. Concerns were 29 raised that the approach could create additional opportunities for developer acquisition of 30 residential properties. Vice Chair Ji indicated that he was not prepared to support moving the 31 proposal forward. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton sought clarification regarding how condominium ownership of ADUs 34 differs from a subdivision. Jennifer Armer explained that a subdivision creates separate land 35 parcels, whereas condominium ownership separates ownership of structures or airspace while 36 maintaining a single underlying parcel. Albert Yang added that condominium ownership creates 37 separate ownership interests within a defined 3-dimensional space rather than dividing the 38 land itself. 39 40 Commissioner Templeton asked whether the proposed approach could allow multiple ADUs to 41 be stacked on a property. Albert Yang stated that State ADU regulations govern the number 42 and placement of ADUs, including requirements regarding attached and detached units. 43 Commissioner Templeton commented that additional information from other jurisdictions may 44 be helpful before making a recommendation for Palo Alto, citing the need to better understand 1 potential outcomes and unintended consequences. 2 3 Chair Chang questioned whether the agenda description clearly signaled that the Commission 4 was evaluating whether to pursue separate sale of ADUs. It was asked whether public comment 5 could be reopened if discussion were continued. Jennifer Armer indicated that additional public 6 comment could be accepted if new information were brought back for consideration. It was 7 suggested that the Commission could recommend against moving forward with the proposal at 8 this time and revisit the topic in the future if additional information becomes available. 9 10 Commissioner Peterson stated that he had sufficient information to evaluate the proposal and 11 commented that allowing homeowners to remain in the community was a compelling benefit 12 of separate sale of ADUs. Commissioner Peterson added that, if the discussion is continued, 13 additional information regarding the relationship between subdivisions and condominium 14 ownership would be helpful. 15 16 Commissioner James commented that separate sale of ADUs may offer opportunities to expand 17 needed housing options but agreed that additional information is needed before making a 18 recommendation. Support was expressed for revisiting the topic after further study. 19 Commissioner James made a motion to allow the issue of separate sale of ADUs to come back 20 to the PTC in a year with more data and more insights. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton believed that, if additional study is pursued, the topic should return 23 to the PTC sooner than a year given the pace of regulatory changes and the potential for new 24 examples to emerge. 25 26 Commissioner James asked when staff expects sufficient information to become available from 27 other jurisdictions to better evaluate separate sale of ADUs. Garrett Sauls reiterated that San 28 Jose has approved only 2 applications since adopting the policy nearly 2 years ago, with 2 29 additional applications under review, and indicated that it remains difficult to predict when 30 enough data will be available to draw broader conclusions. 31 32 Vice Chair Ji raised concerns that future State changes to ADU laws could create unintended 33 consequences if the City adopts a separate sale ordinance now. Garrett Sauls acknowledged 34 that State ADU legislation has changed annually since 2017 and that future amendments 35 remain possible. It was added that State law would supersede conflicting local regulations. Vice 36 Chair Ji indicated that uncertainty regarding future State actions contributed to his reluctance 37 to support separate sale of ADUs at this time. 38 39 Commissioner Akin suggested removing a specific timeframe from the motion and instead 40 recommending that separate sale of ADUs be reconsidered in the future when additional 41 information becomes available. Commissioner James accepted the amendment to the motion 42 and Vice Chair Ji concurred. 43 44 MOTION: Commissioner James moved, seconded by Vice Chair Ji, to recommend separate sale 1 of ADUs be reconsidered by the PTC in the future when additional information becomes 2 available. 3 4 VOTE: 5-1, Commissioner Templeton no, Commissioner Hechtman absent. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton explained that her dissenting vote reflected a preference for 7 revisiting the topic on a more defined timeline. Commissioner Templeton supported obtaining 8 additional information but expressed concern that, without a specific commitment to return 9 the item, further discussion might be indefinitely delayed. 10 11 3. Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 12 Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to 13 CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). 14 15 Chair Chang encouraged members of the public wishing to comment on the item to submit 16 comment cards or indicate their desire to speak virtually. 17 18 Senior Planner Kelly Cha presented the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance update, 19 noting that the effort has been underway since 2024, is identified as a City Council priority, and 20 has previously been reviewed by the PTC through a recommendation hearing and study 21 session. Kelly Cha summarized community outreach conducted throughout the process and 22 reviewed revisions made in response to Commission and public feedback. Key changes included 23 reducing the streamside setback in urbanized areas from 30 feet to 25 feet and allowing the 25-24 foot setback to apply in certain open space and rural areas where properties contain or are 25 near ephemeral streams. It was noted that the presence of ephemeral streams was selected as 26 the applicable threshold in lieu of lot size because it more directly relates to the ordinance's 27 stream protection objectives. A City Council hearing was anticipated in Q3 2026 if a 28 recommendation is received. 29 30 Kelly Cha reviewed additional ordinance provisions and alternatives, including exception 31 processes, exemptions, fence regulations, and standards governing nonconforming structures. 32 Staff retained the proposed slope stability protection requirements despite prior Commission 33 direction to exempt a specific neighborhood, citing stream bank protection, maintenance 34 access, consistency with regional guidance, and interagency coordination. It was noted that the 35 draft ordinance includes environmental review requirements and findings for projects seeking 36 exceptions within streamside setback areas. New exemptions include Valley Water floodwalls 37 and service roads. Staff clarified that fences are generally permitted within streamside setback 38 areas subject to applicable standards and that routine maintenance of noncomplying structures 39 remains allowed under existing code provisions. Staff requested a recommendation on the 40 draft ordinance, with options to approve, modify, or retain the existing regulations. 41 42 Chair Chang thanked Kelly Cha for her hard work on this draft ordinance and asked which of the 43 proposed alternatives would best address concerns raised by residents of the Esther Clark Park 44 neighborhood. Kelly Cha indicated that staff's preferred approach uses the presence of 1 ephemeral streams as the threshold for applying reduced setbacks, noting that the approach 2 could benefit Esther Clark Park and Palo Alto Hills properties with smaller lots. Kelly Cha 3 cautioned that the approach could have broader applicability in other hillside areas containing 4 ephemeral streams. Jennifer Armer added that the Commission could instead recommend a 5 neighborhood-specific exception allowing use of the urbanized-area setback without requiring a 6 biological report. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton inquired whether an alternative definition of urbanized areas could 9 be used in place of geographic boundaries when applying the ordinance. Jennifer Armer stated 10 that the current approach relies on roadway-based geographic boundaries. Discussion followed 11 regarding whether land use designations or development patterns could provide an alternative 12 framework. Jennifer Armer noted that previous discussions concerning Esther Clark Park were 13 tied to Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the residential density ranges permitted 14 within those designations. 15 16 Commissioner Akin questioned whether properties along San Francisquito Creek between 17 Marlowe and Southwood may warrant a neighborhood-specific exception due to the presence 18 of existing structures within the slope stability protection area. Kelly Cha indicated that existing 19 noncomplying facilities would generally be addressed through applicable code provisions and 20 noted that staff typically becomes aware of such conditions through permit applications or 21 complaints. Commissioner Akin suggested that the area may merit additional review given the 22 number of existing structures within the protection area. Kelly Cha observed that some 23 properties along creek corridors may be subject to easements from agencies such as Valley 24 Water. 25 26 Commissioner Peterson asked how a wildlife-friendly fence is defined. Jennifer Armer described 27 a wildlife-friendly fence as one designed to allow wildlife movement beneath, through, or over 28 the fence while still delineating property boundaries. Kelly Cha added that such fences must 29 maintain a minimum 18-inch clearance above the ground. 30 31 Commissioner Peterson asked how streamside setbacks would be measured in areas where a 32 defined top of bank does not exist. Kelly Cha explained that applicants are generally responsible 33 for identifying the applicable measurement point. For streams without defined banks, the draft 34 ordinance would use the 100-year water surface elevation as the basis for measurement. 35 Discussion followed regarding the availability of floodplain mapping data, with Jennifer Armer 36 noting that existing flood zone maps may not provide the level of detail being referenced. It 37 was conveyed that Public Works staff was pulling up a map to assist with discussion of flood 38 zones. 39 40 Commissioner Peterson asked whether the parcel near the Baylands previously discussed by 41 the Commission would remain subject to the 150-foot setback. Kelly Cha confirmed that the 42 parcel would be excluded from that requirement under the proposed ordinance. 43 44 Commissioner Peterson asked whether the primary purpose of the setback requirements is 1 flood protection or wildlife movement. Jennifer Armer explained that the ordinance is intended 2 to address multiple objectives, including wildlife movement, riparian habitat protection, slope 3 stability, flood capacity, and balancing environmental protections with reasonable use of 4 private property. 5 6 Albert Yang clarified that State definitions of urbanized areas used for housing and CEQA 7 purposes are based on U.S. Census Bureau classifications, under which most of Palo Alto is 8 considered urbanized. In response to questions regarding terminology, Albert Yang agreed that 9 the ordinance's use of "urbanized" and "rural" could create confusion and suggested that 10 alternative language may be appropriate. Commissioner Templeton questioned whether the 11 term "urbanized area" should be defined more clearly in the ordinance. 12 13 Chair Chang asked staff to elaborate on the rationale for continuing to require an exception 14 process for fences within slope stability protection areas despite prior Commission support for 15 accommodating existing fences in the Edgewood neighborhood. Kelly Cha explained that the 16 requirement is intended to protect stream bank integrity, reduce erosion and flood risks, 17 maintain access for future maintenance activities, and remain consistent with regional agency 18 guidance. It was emphasized that fencing is not prohibited but remains subject to review 19 through an exception process. Chair Chang inquired about the burden associated with 20 obtaining an exception, such as cost and time. 21 22 Public Works Senior Engineer Michel Jeremias described the slope stability protection area as a 23 safeguard against long-term creek migration and erosion. Maintaining these areas provides 24 flexibility for future flood control and bank stabilization projects and helps protect life and 25 property as creek conditions change over time. 26 27 PUBLIC COMMENT: 28 1. Daniel H., speaking on behalf of Cindy W., Mohit T., Pooja K., Cynthia S., Adam S., 29 Michael M., Keiko M., Lisa H., Nancy Y., Frada S., and the Edgewood Neighborhood 30 Alliance, expressed support for the ordinance overall but requested modifications 31 for the Edgewood neighborhood. Concerns were raised regarding security, 32 trespassing, encampments, crime, and fire risk associated with creek access. 33 Support was voiced for allowing fencing without requiring a slope stability review 34 or Public Works approval, eliminating the 5-foot fence setback, and permitting 35 ornamental plantings within private backyards. It was highlighted that prior PTC 36 direction regarding neighborhood-specific accommodations was not reflected in 37 the draft ordinance. Reference was made to the neighborhood's unique 38 conditions, including private ownership extending into the creek corridor, and to a 39 recent City Council exemption related to lighting regulations. Photographs and 40 maps were shown depicting creek access points from East Palo Alto, trespassers, 41 encampments, accumulated debris, and a crime heat map to illustrate public 42 safety concerns in the area. Concerns were expressed regarding property rights, 43 liability, and the impacts of existing slope stability requirements on property use 1 and value. 2 2. Jeff W., a resident of Esther Clark Park and speaking on behalf of Swali K., Khosrow 3 P., William S., Marilyn S., and Andy S., thanked staff for its outreach efforts and 4 advocated for objective criteria that would guarantee application of the 25-foot 5 urbanized area setback within the neighborhood. It was asserted that the 6 neighborhood's creek is an ephemeral stream that differs substantially from larger 7 South Palo Alto creeks and therefore warrants a smaller setback. Photographs 8 were shown comparing water levels and conditions in the neighborhood creek, 9 Matadero Creek, and Adobe Creek following a major rain event to illustrate 10 differences in stream characteristics. Reference was made to the Santa Clara 11 County Collaborative Guidelines recommending smaller setback areas for 12 ephemeral streams and to alternative approaches identified in the staff report. 13 Support was expressed for alternatives that would clearly establish eligibility for 14 the 25-foot setback, including designation of the neighborhood as part of the 15 urbanized area. Concerns were raised that overly restrictive setbacks could create 16 unintended development incentives under State housing laws. 17 3. Jeff S., a longtime resident of Old Adobe Road, opposed expanding the creek 18 setback from 30 feet to 150 feet. Drawing on personal observations of the 19 neighborhood's development since the 1950s, Jeff S. argued that the creek has 20 been substantially modified by urban development and infrastructure 21 improvements and does not warrant the proposed level of restriction. Concerns 22 were expressed that a 150-foot setback would reduce property rights, diminish 23 property values, and limit homeowners' ability to make reasonable improvements. 24 Retention of the existing 30-foot setback was urged. 25 4. Robert C., speaking on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance, 26 recommended replacing the proposed "no feasible alternative" finding for 27 streamside setback exceptions with a standard focused on whether a project 28 would unreasonably impair the streamside environment. It was argued that the 29 proposed finding emphasizes project design alternatives rather than 30 environmental outcomes. Questions were raised regarding the origin and purpose 31 of the existing 5-foot fence setback requirement. 32 5. Ellen S., speaking on behalf of residents of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, 33 expressed concern that expanded setback requirements could significantly affect 34 property values and development potential within the neighborhood. It was 35 asserted that some properties would be substantially impacted by the proposed 36 regulations, potentially limiting future subdivision or sale opportunities. Concerns 37 were raised regarding potential legal challenges and the possibility that restrictive 38 regulations could encourage property sales to developers. 39 6. Mark Nadeem, a resident of Palo Alto Hills, expressed concern that the proposed 1 150-foot setback could significantly constrain development and redevelopment 2 opportunities on residential properties in the neighborhood, many of which 3 contain older homes and limited buildable area. It was argued that the 4 neighborhood functions similarly to other urban residential areas, with City sewer, 5 storm drain, and streetlight infrastructure, despite its classification within the 6 ordinance. Concerns were raised regarding potential impacts on property values 7 and home sales. Alternative 4 was identified as the most reasonable option in the 8 staff report. 9 7. Cindy O., a local real estate agent, opposed the proposed 150-foot setback and 10 stated that a 25-foot setback would better balance property use and ordinance 11 objectives. Concerns were raised regarding potential impacts on property values, 12 redevelopment opportunities, and construction of ADUs. Reference was made to a 13 recent appraisal of a property that could be substantially affected by the proposed 14 setback. It was asserted that the proposal could affect long-term financial planning 15 for homeowners and limit opportunities for future home improvements or 16 redevelopment. 17 8. Shani K., a resident and environmental advocate with the Santa Clara Valley Bird 18 Alliance, discussed the environmental impacts of development near stream 19 corridors and evaluated several alternatives identified in the staff report. Concerns 20 were expressed that Alternative 1 could adversely affect open space areas 21 intended for protection, while Alternative 3 could reduce protections for portions 22 of Matadero Creek. Alternative 4 was identified as the most reasonable 23 compromise, provided it is implemented carefully and with clear criteria for 24 applying reduced setbacks in neighborhoods such as Esther Clark Park and Palo 25 Alto Hills. 26 9. Raymond G., a Palo Alto resident, urged the PTC to prioritize protection of natural 27 resources and waterways when considering the ordinance. The commenter 28 encouraged collaboration among neighboring communities and stated that 29 environmental preservation should take precedence over private property 30 interests. 31 10. Lawrence F. (Zoom), a resident of Esther Clark Park, stated that his home is located 32 within the proposed 150-foot setback area and expressed concern that the 33 regulation could prevent future reconstruction of the property. Concerns were 34 raised regarding the complexity and cost of the exception process, including 35 requirements for biological review. It was argued that the ordinance should not 36 impose burdens that significantly limit reasonable use of residential properties. 37 11. Viral M. (Zoom), an attorney representing homeowners in the Crescent Park 38 neighborhood along Edgewood Drive, supported retention of the proposed 39 exemption for single-family residences in the area but objected to continued 40 application of slope stability protection area requirements to new fencing. It was 1 asserted that the draft ordinance does not reflect prior PTC support for broader 2 exemptions and that the fencing approval process would create unnecessary 3 burdens and raise safety and security concerns for residents. Reference was made 4 to letters submitted on behalf of affected homeowners. Support was expressed for 5 allowing ornamental plantings and concerns were raised that the proposed 6 restrictions could adversely affect property rights. 7 12. Janet L. (Zoom), a resident of Edgewood Drive, supported comments made by 8 prior speakers regarding fencing exemptions for properties adjacent to the creek. 9 Concerns were raised that the draft ordinance does not reflect prior PTC support 10 for those exemptions. The commenter described ongoing security concerns 11 associated with activity in the creek corridor and stated that fencing is important 12 for protecting adjacent residential properties. A desire was expressed to resolve 13 the issue through the current ordinance update rather than revisit it in future 14 proceedings. 15 13. Dash L. (Zoom), Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, 16 stated that the proposed ordinance has been revised over time to reduce stream 17 corridor protections and argued that the proposed 25-foot setback represents a 18 minimum level of protection for urban stream corridors. Reference was made to 19 setback requirements in San Jose for comparison. Support was expressed for 20 maintaining stronger protections in hillside and Baylands areas and for forwarding 21 the ordinance to the City Council for adoption. If modifications are made, support 22 was expressed for Alternative 4. 23 14. Lewis W., a resident of Manuela Court and owner of multiple parcels in the Esther 24 Clark Park area, expressed concern that the proposed 150-foot setback would 25 substantially reduce the developable area of affected properties. Reference was 26 made to an undeveloped parcel that, according to the speaker, would become 27 largely unbuildable under the proposal. Concerns were echoed regarding potential 28 impacts on property value. The commenter stated that the adjacent watercourse 29 is an ephemeral stream and noted the presence of existing development and 30 landscaping between the parcel and the stream corridor. 31 Chair Chang thanked members of the public for their comments and announced a brief recess. 32 33 [The PTC took an 11-minute break] 34 35 Commissioner Templeton thanked members of the public for their comments and noted that 36 several issues had been discussed during a prior PTC hearing. Commissioner Templeton 37 emphasized balancing environmental protection with property owners' ability to safely use and 38 enjoy their properties and asked whether staff had identified a consistent approach for 39 addressing developed areas. Kelly Cha stated that Alternative 4 may provide the most inclusive 40 option while minimizing impacts on developed neighborhoods. Jennifer Armer explained that 1 the item had been continued due to the PTC's unresolved concerns regarding urban and hillside 2 areas and that staff had returned with revised recommendations and additional analysis. It was 3 noted that the slope stability provisions largely reflect existing regulations. Commissioner 4 Templeton suggested focusing discussion on unresolved issues. 5 6 Chair Chang encouraged Commissioners to identify areas of agreement from prior straw polls in 7 order to focus discussion on unresolved issues. 8 9 Commissioner Peterson indicated support for prior straw poll direction but stated that 10 comments regarding ephemeral streams had changed his view of applying a 150-foot setback 11 to those waterways. Questions were raised regarding whether the proposed setback would 12 apply equally to all stream types. Kelly Cha confirmed that the draft ordinance does not 13 currently differentiate between stream types. Commissioner Peterson suggested that 14 ephemeral streams may warrant a different approach than other stream classifications and 15 expressed concern about potential unintended development outcomes. Jennifer Armer 16 emphasized that ephemeral streams continue to serve an important flood control function. 17 18 Commissioner Akin raised questions regarding the definition of a floodwall and whether the 19 proposed exemption could apply more broadly than intended. Kelly Cha indicated that staff 20 could clarify the ordinance to apply to properties directly abutting a floodwall. Discussion 21 followed regarding distinctions between floodwalls and channelized waterways. Michel 22 Jeremias explained that floodwalls are structures designed to contain creek flows and extend 23 above the top of bank. Chair Chang suggested incorporating that clarification into the 24 definition. Commissioner Akin emphasized the importance of ensuring that the exemption area 25 is clearly defined. 26 27 Commissioner Akin supported the results of the prior straw polls, including allowing fencing 28 within the slope stability protection area in the Edgewood neighborhood. It was suggested that 29 separate fence design guidelines for these properties could be considered in the future. 30 Support was expressed for reducing setbacks near ephemeral streams and for using objective 31 standards in hillside neighborhoods. Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred approach, 32 with Commissioner Akin noting that relatively few properties in open space zones appear likely 33 to be affected by the 150-foot setback. 34 35 Commissioner James approved of prior straw poll direction, including allowing fencing and 36 ornamental plantings within the Edgewood neighborhood, and expressed concern regarding 37 the 5-foot fence setback and associated security issues with the gap it causes. Questions were 38 raised regarding whether fences could abut the floodwalls. Michel Jeremias noted that 39 floodwalls require ongoing maintenance and that easements and permitting requirements from 40 other agencies may affect improvements near creek corridors. Commissioner James supported 41 a 25-foot setback in neighborhoods such as Esther Clark Park and believed that a 150-foot 42 setback remains appropriate in open space areas. 43 44 Chair Chang reiterated concerns regarding security issues raised by Edgewood residents and 1 favored eliminating the 5-foot fence setback. Regarding the alternatives presented by staff, 2 Chair Chang identified Alternative 4 as the preferred approach for Esther Clark Park and Palo 3 Alto Hills, noting that it provides a clearer and more objective framework than relying on 4 determinations regarding ephemeral streams. Chair Chang stated a preference for forwarding 5 the ordinance with Alternative 4 and the previously discussed Edgewood modifications. 6 7 Vice Chair Ji concurred with the prior straw poll direction and asked whether ADUs would be 8 affected by the proposed ordinance. Kelly Cha confirmed that ADUs are exempt. 9 10 Vice Chair Ji asked about the distinction between ornamental landscaping and non-native 11 invasive species. Kelly Cha indicated that the PTC could choose to allow ornamental landscaping 12 behind fences. Jennifer Armer clarified that non-riparian and non-native vegetation is 13 permitted within streamside setback areas provided the species are non-invasive and located 14 on the structure side of an existing or future fence away from the stream. 15 16 Vice Chair Ji thanked staff for conducting additional outreach, including courtesy mail notices 17 and neighborhood meetings, and noted appreciation for staff responsiveness to concerns 18 raised by Edgewood and Esther Clark Park residents. Appreciation was expressed for the 19 inclusion of prior PTC comments in Attachment B. 20 21 Vice Chair Ji indicated a preference for Alternative 4 and asked about the proposed exemption 22 for projects separated from streams by public streets, trails, or service roads on Packet Page 67. 23 Kelly Cha explained that the provision originated from comments regarding Baylands and 24 urban-area properties and could apply in multiple locations, including along Matadero, Adobe, 25 and Barron Creeks. Jennifer Armer added that the language was intended to reflect prior PTC 26 feedback. Vice Chair Ji suggested limiting the exemption to urban areas so that properties in 27 the Baylands separated from streams by public trails would remain subject to the 150-foot 28 setback. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton encouraged use of revised terminology for open space areas and 31 sought direction on how to implement the previously discussed elimination of the 5-foot fence 32 setback in the Edgewood neighborhood. Kelly Cha explained that the PTC could exempt fences 33 from slope stability requirements, which would additionally remove the 5-foot setback 34 requirement. Jennifer Armer noted that staff continued to have concerns regarding that 35 approach. Discussion followed regarding easements and access needs along creek corridors. 36 Michel Jeremias explained that easements in the area are generally held by outside agencies 37 and may require access for maintenance and flood response. Albert Yang clarified that 38 eliminating the City's 5-foot setback requirement would not affect the rights of agencies 39 holding those easements. 40 41 Commissioner Peterson indicated an interest in Alternative 2, stating that site-specific review 42 by geotechnical and hydrological engineers could provide greater flexibility than a blanket 43 zoning-based approach. Kelly Cha confirmed that geotechnical and hydrological engineers 44 would be required to evaluate affected properties and provide mitigation recommendations. At 1 Commissioner Peterson's request, Michel Jeremias displayed FEMA flood maps for San 2 Francisquito Creek and the Esther Clark Park area and explained that the maps depict areas 3 potentially subject to flooding during a 100-year storm event. Commissioner Akin noted that 4 portions of the Esther Clark Park map appeared to be outside the study area. Commissioner 5 Peterson reiterated a preference for Alternative 2, citing the ability to evaluate properties on a 6 case-by-case basis. 7 8 Vice Chair Ji made a motion. Chair Chang seconded the motion. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton sought clarification regarding whether exempting Edgewood fences 11 from slope stability requirements would eliminate the 5-foot setback concern. Jennifer Armer 12 confirmed that exempting fences from the slope stability requirements would remove the 5-13 foot setback requirement and stated that staff would continue coordinating with other 14 agencies. 15 16 Jennifer Armer noted that Commissioner Akin's proposed modification would apply to the 17 floodwall definition and to the associated exception language by specifying that properties 18 must directly abut a floodwall. Vice Chair Ji accepted the modification to the motion and Chair 19 Chang, as seconder, concurred. 20 21 MOTION: Vice Chair Ji moved, seconded by Chair Chang, the staff recommendation with the 22 following amendments: 23 1. To find a new name for the urban and rural areas. 24 2. To change the definition of floodwall on Packet Page 63 under (b) Definitions, (5), to 25 potentially use the verbiage "extend to or extend above the top of" as discussed with 26 Public Works and to the associated exception language by specifying that properties 27 must directly abut a floodwall. 28 3. To use Alternative 4 instead of the ephemeral definitions and, as needed, clean up the 29 definition of ephemeral that is now in the Definitions section on item (14) on Packet 30 Page 65 and/or clean up other definitions that may or may not be used. 31 4. On Packet Page 67 under (d) Exemptions, (6), to make the intention that the 150-foot 32 setback is to apply to the Baylands as well and/or other areas that are in the rural area. 33 That exemption would only apply to the urbanized area. 34 5. As necessary, get rid of additional references to ephemeral stream on Packet Page 68, 35 etc. 36 6. For items discussed in the straw poll: 37 a. In Section (g) (2) on Packet Page 70, for the ornamental landscaping to be permitted 1 for Edgewood. 2 b. To have an exemption for fences in the slope stability protection area only for 3 Egdewood. 4 VOTE: 6-0, Commissioner Hechtman absent. 5 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7 8 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 9 Minutes of April 8, 2026 10 11 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 12 13 Samuel Tavera noted that Commissioners James and Templeton were absent from the meeting 14 on April 8, 2026, and therefore would need to abstain from voting on the item. 15 16 MOTION: Vice Chair Ji moved, seconded by Commissioner Akin, to approve the minutes of April 17 8, 2026, as revised. 18 19 VOTE: 4-0-2, Commissioners James and Templeton abstained, Commissioner Hechtman absent. 20 21 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 22 MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 23 24 Commissioner Peterson revisited a prior discussion regarding signage directing visitors from El 25 Camino Real to parking for California Avenue businesses. After reviewing the installed signage 26 and discussing it with local business owners, Commissioner Peterson stated that the signage fell 27 short of expectations and suggested that additional promotional signage could help attract 28 visitors and support businesses along the corridor. Chair Chang suggested forwarding the 29 comments to the City Council's Economic Development Committee. Jennifer Armer added that 30 Commissioner Peterson's previous comments regarding California Avenue had been forwarded 31 to Public Works for follow-up. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton noted a potential scheduling conflict with the August 26 meeting and 34 raised the possibility of adjusting the Commission's August meeting schedule. Jennifer Armer 35 reported that no items were currently scheduled for the second meeting in June and indicated 36 that the June 24 meeting could potentially be canceled. Chair Chang suggested revisiting 37 possible August meeting dates, including August 12 and August 26, at a future meeting. Vice 38 Chair Ji noted a potential absence from the July 8 meeting. 39 40 Vice Chair Ji announced that Bike to Wherever Day would take place the following morning and 1 noted that activities would be available at locations throughout the City. Vice Chair Ji reported 2 that a summary of the recent Cal Cities Conference, prepared with Commissioner James, would 3 be distributed to the Commission through staff. 4 5 VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT 6 7 There were no virtual public comments for non-agendized items. 8 9 ADJOURNMENT 10 11 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. 12