Planning & Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

or I call to order the April 29th, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Mr. Davo, would you call the role, please? Uh, yes. Chair Aken, here. Vice Chair Chang, here. Commissioner Hecman, here. Commissioner James, here. Commissioner G here. Commissioner Peterson here. Commissioner Templeton here. For the record, we have quorum. All are present. Thank you. Assistant Director Armor, are there any changes to the agenda tonight?

There is one minor change in response to direction from city council. The public comment on items that are not on the agenda will be split. For those who are here in person, that will be held at the normal time as listed on the agenda. for um anyone who is joining us via Zoom to comment on items that are not on the agenda. That will be at the end of our agenda following approval of minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Armor. So, Mr. Teta, are there any in-person uh public comment requests for items not on the agenda? Uh through the chair, at this moment, I have not received any public comment cards for general public comment.

Thank you. Item one tonight is the city official reports. As assistant director Armor,

thank you. We will share the PowerPoint briefly and then um tell you jump to the second slide once we've got it up and tell you about your upcoming meetings. At this time, the plan for your May 13th meeting is going to be review of the stream protection ordinance and uh an additional revision to the ADU accessory dwelling unit ordinance. And on May 27th, at this time, we've got uh scheduled consideration of the CIP annual report and uh the parking programs update that was previously scheduled for this evening. Was delay On the next slide, we have some updates from recent and upcoming council meetings. On April 13th, the city council did approve the project at 36066 El Camino Rial and congratulations to Vice Chair Chang and Commissioner Peterson on their reappoint. Very glad to have you continuing to work with us. So then uh next week is May, starting with May 4th, there will be a discussion of Senate Bill SB79 and the downtown housing plan looking for direction from council on how to move forward on those two topics as well as on the May 11th consideration of another builder's remedy project 3781 El Camino Rial. That concludes my presentation. We do have transportation staff um Aussie Orsce to present updates from transportation.

Thank you uh senior transportation planner or

thank you cherry again members of PTC. My name is Azie Arce senior transportation planner with the office of transportation with the updates for April 29th 2026. I'm joined by director Ria Lo from the office of transportation as well. Uh next slide please. As many of you remember, the severe storms in 2023 caused uh significant erosion near our rail corridor and the El Palo Alto tree. While Cal Train put temporary measures in place, this project represents the permanent long-term solution to ensure both heavy rail bridge and our local adjacent Alma Street bike ped remain structurally sound against future winter seasons. Uh so for the public and interested neighbors, there is a virtual community meeting on May 7th at 5:30 p.m. This is the best opportunity for residents to see the staging plans before any boots hit the ground. I just wanted to note that we expect mobilization in May with active construction starting in June. Uh because this is a key art artery for our cycling community. I want to highlight that the traffic control plan prioritizes prioritizes keeping the path open whenever possible. However, there may be windows where full closures are necessary for safety and we will put put those notices out through city social media and city channels as well as CalR's weekly construction emails. Currently, Cal Train is finalizing the contract award and we will have more details once those specific dates are uh finalized. And again, we'll share that with the public. Next slide, please. Uh locally here, a quick update on the Corey Road Transit Connection. As a reminder, uh, in November 2024, 74% of Palo Alto voters approved ballot measure D to undedicate a portion of El Palo Alto Arc Park for Corey Road Transit Connection proposal. This is a joint effort between the city and Stanford

University. Um, and they're looking at uh not only making transit uh access improvements, but also bicycle and pedestrian circulation improvements to the area. And the city invites community community members to attend an upcoming public meeting to share opportunities and challenges related to getting through and to the area. Uh this is an in-person only meeting and will be held at the community meeting room here at the Palo Alto City Hall on Thursday, May 7th, uh 2026 at 700 p.m. following the pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee meeting. Visit the project web page on the screen to learn more about the event. Next slide, please. On the Churchill Avenue temporary closure analysis, uh on Wednesday, April 15th, the city council considered the potential temporary closure of Churchill Avenue at Great Crossing at a special council meeting. The city received over 200 comments before the meeting and nearly 50 people made comments at the meeting. The conversation will the conversation was respectful, thoughtful, and nuanced, and council asked lots of questions and explored the various options with deliberations continuing at council's Monday, May 11th meeting. And just on a quick related note, um uh on Monday, April 20th, the council approved of phase 1 in Barker Road improvements construction contract. This is for the stretch between Alma Street and Emerson Street. And this was advanced as uh related to to this conversation and uh action items. Next slide, please. Um a quick update on something that was discussed previously at PTC. I have a positive update. Uh OOT traffic engineering team worked with the city utilities in midappril to get under the hood of this area. uh they found some loose wiring in the ground that was

causing those intermittent skips and they fixed it on the spot. So, thank you for bringing that to our attention and so just wanted to update the the group on that. Um so, thank you again for bringing that to our attention. Next slide, please. Uh lastly here on the community engagement side, looking ahead to May, we're gearing up for National Bike Month. And our primary focus, as many of you know, is bike to wherever days uh organized in partnership with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. So we invite residents for this month-long um uh bike month. Uh and the peak of the local celebration falls locally on Thursday, May 14th, where we will have three Energizer stations set up throughout Palo Alto to support cyclists with treats and commemor commemorative bags. So, please join us for the festivities. And that concludes my updates for the Office of Transportation for April 29th, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Arce. Commissioners, we have questions starting with Commissioner Templeton. Thank you so much for hearing us and and for the update. I went over that intersection just yesterday and I noticed I was like, "Oh, it's actually going to trigger. Someone went around me to go in front because they were worried it wasn't going to trigger and but it did." And so I just wanted to say acknowledge that I've seen it in action. Thank you for fixing it. Thank you, Vice Chair Chang. Then Commissioner G.

Uh yeah, so I've got a question for Mr. RC. Um, so for the Thank you so much for sending us the collision and accident reports from Payback. Um, I had a question. I was just looking at these numbers last night and I had a question because the February report had a level of injury column that I hadn't seen before and I wondered if that was a new field because I don't think I've seen it before. um and if we're going to get to see that ongoing because I think um we'd also asked for something like that in the past and it's really great that it was there.

I am not as familiar as those reports uh as maybe other folks on the team are, but we can definitely get an answer to you. Um uh yeah, so we can definitely circle back and my vote at least would be that we keep that column. I like that column a lot.

Okay. Um, a second question regarding those reports. So, I noticed that nove so we got the the kind of the bulk download of the reports this time for November through February. And I noticed that um the November um collisions like the bike and ped collisions cuz those are the ones that I'm particularly interested in were dramatically more than the other three months. And I didn't I wanted to ask you guys if you know anything if there's like a cyclicality to this. Is that expected? So for example, November had 12 bike ped collisions and usually the other months I've never seen that many in one month but I might have skipped a prior November. Um and the other months were 3 to six and so I didn't know if it was because of maybe daylight savings time or something like that.

So typically um the week after daylight saving is the most dangerous week of the year. And so, um, that could account for part of it, I guess. But that's that does seem like a big bump. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, uh, chief transportation official, though. Commissioner G.,

thank you, Chair. And I also want to echo my praise for the transportation department for looking into the crossing at Meadow. Very excited. As I mentioned pre prior to the meeting to senior transportation uh office uh member Asha Arce um that uh I've personally have seen the changes between when it was triggering and when it wasn't. I actually had a follow-up question here which is that at the intersections at Churchill and Charleston there's like a big X that's on the other side of the crossing and at Meadow there isn't. So like on this I don't know how to describe it. It's like right now you're if you're on the El Camino side you wait on the line and you don't cross like that's where you're supposed to wait on red I believe. But on the other intersections it's really explicit like do not wait on the other side and wait on the El Camino side. Is this the expected behavior at the meadow crossing too? Um just want to clarify that.

Yes it is. Um, so anyway, not necessarily work here, but I think it could be interesting to potentially add like a big X or some other warning sign to make it consistent across the three crossings. Well, I think that there's no traffic light at the fourth crossing at Paulo Alto/ Elma. But the other three crossings, I think it would be nice to just have a uniform way to signal what drivers should be doing. And then, uh, I also just want to echo what vice chair said about the injury status. I think you saw some nods across the commission. Um, thank you for the great work. And then I had a question for Miss Armor about the parking program update. Uh, do you know why it was pushed out?

We're just working on making sure that you've got a complete report. Um, and it needed a bit more time. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner G. And yes, I've noticed the same confusion at Meadow and Charleston. So, uh, if the signage is made consistent across, uh, those intersections, it would certainly, uh, resolve questions for me and probably for other people, too. Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Templeton.

Um, I would say that originally, um, Meadow behaved differently and so the trigger was on the other side. So if if you have indeed moved the trigger to the El Camino side um of the tracks, then then I think it's understandable that we would suggest updating the um the roadway painting as well cuz you have the sign and the trigger and that that's working. And I recognize that it used to be different, but that that's why they're painted differently for historical reasons for anybody watching. But it would be good to update that if that's possible or to get Cal Train to update it, whoever's business it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any further questions? Very good. Item two tonight is a quasi judicial hearing request for approval of a tenative map for a subdivision at 4103 Old Trace Road. This begins on packet page 8. Uh because this is quasi judicial commissioners if you have any information that is not already in the public record uh may we have a disclosure

vice chair ch I'm not sure that this is exactly a disclosure but it is information that I have that the press commission doesn't have. So I grew up using that as my commute route to gun and um therefore I'm pretty familiar with like the the traffic patterns that are there. Thanks. Thank you. No other disclosures. Uh may we have the staff presentation? Good evening. I'm going to introduce to you associate planner Nishita Kandakupa and I believe this is the second time she has presented to planning and transportation commission. But in introducing her, take it away.

Thank you. Um good evening commissioners. My name is Nishadak Kandupa. I'm the project planner um for the proposed tentative map application at 4103 Old Trace Road. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the Esther Clark Park neighborhood of Paul Waldo um to the west of Foothill Expressway at the intersection of Old Trace Road and Arashadero Road. The site is zoned for a residential estate uh which is RE um and is currently vacant. The adjacent land uses to the south, east, and west are lowdensity residential with a mix of single and two-story homes. Um, and to the north is the VMware office, uh, which is within the research park district. Um, there are also two schools located within a half mile distance to the east of the Foothill Expressway. Next slide, please. The project proposes to subdivide um the vacant 1.02 02 acre lot into nine residential lots connected by a private street um that on the tentative map has been designated as a street parcel or lot number 10. There is a separate planning application under review um for the proposed housing development um that is being reviewed currently by staff um as a part of which the applicant is proposing a total of 16 units uh nine of which are single family residences and uh seven of those units will have attached junior accessory dwelling units. Um, one of the lots on lot nine is an attached single family residence which will be um a below market rate unit at moderate income households making up to 100% of the AMI or area median income. Next slide, please. This slide summarizes the lot areas proposed under the subdivision application. Um note that the lot areas

for lots six and 9 are bolded in red um to include to exclude the drainage easements that are proposed along Arashadder Road. Um additionally lot three excludes about 150 square foot of a public access easement um as shown in the plan sets. I've also highlighted the BMR lot which is um in the dashed green line at lot nine. Next slide please. I also included the proposed tentative map here for reference. Um, but this can also be viewed on sheet C1.1. Next slide. Over the next few slides, um, I'll be going over the multimodal access of the site. Uh, the project is proposing a through street with new curb cuts to provide access to the nine residential lots um, through a private street. The veular right ofway will be 20 foot wide. Um while the overall width including the sidewalks and landscape median um will be 30 uh 30 ft 6 in the curbs along um the private street will be painted red to restrict parking um and provide fire emergency and trash vehicle access. Keeping in mind um the safety concerns that were raised during the ARB study sessions two months ago. Um the applicant is also proposing to restrict right turn movement into the private street uh for vehicles heading east on Arasadero. This will also be made possible um with a reduced curb radius design um on the west side of the Arasto entrance accompanied by appropriate signage. Next slide. I've also included a turning radius diagram um and emergency vehicle access diagram provided as a part of attachment E in the staff report the applicants uh traffic study. The dashed circle on the top right shows the curb radius design

um and the diagram shows the path of travel for emergency vehicles and fire trucks. Next slide. The applicant is also proposing uh several bike and pedestrian improvements at this location um including new 4-foot sidewalks that will loop around lots uh 6 7 8 and 9, a new rectangular rapid flashing beacon or RRFB at the south side of the existing crosswalk along Astadero and adding green bike lane markings at the arrest entrance to the private street. Next slide. Each proposed lot will either be accessed by an individual driveway or u proposed um as proposed on lots 1, four, and five or by a shared driveway for the rest of the lots. On-site parking will be proposed under the streamlined housing application, but at this time, no guest parking is required or proposed on site. Off-site parking is not currently permitted on Arasadero, and that will continue to be that way. The application is evaluating um parking restrictions along the old trace road frontage to prevent parked cars from impeding on vehicular access uh to the existing residences and into the proposed site for emergency vehicle access. This application is being reviewed in accordance with the state density bonus law which allows the applicant to request waiverss and concessions. The applicant is requesting waiverss from the minimum lot area, minimum site depth, private street width, and special setback restrictions along Arashadero Road. Additional waiverss and one concession will be requested for the proposed housing development. Next slide. Some important considerations for this

project include um its strict review and approval timelines under assembly bill or AB130, state density bonus and housing accountability act. The project also cannot be denied based on inconsistency with code regulations or the comprehensive plan land use designation. Next slide. Based on the information provided, staff recommends the PTC to recommend approval of the purple tentative map to city council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval listed in the draft record of land use action. Next slide. This concludes the staff presentation. Um the applicant has also prepared a presentation and will be presenting next. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Uh, commissioners, do we have clarifying questions of staff before the applicant's presentation? Oh,

still not seeing your light, Commissioner James, but please go ahead. Um, hope this is the appropriate time to to um clarify this, but um I wanted to just for my own sake, but also for the sake of residents who may not have been following Cal Housing Law or read the entire packet, um I just want to clarify my understanding and have you tell me if it's it's right or not. But basically in this situation um because all these state laws come into play and the um the applicant is able to kind of stack those so that each sort of conveys a different um sort of benefit to them. My takeaway is that we can really only uh concern ourselves with health and safety regulations and that pretty much everything else or maybe everything else is um is governed by state law in this case. And I just kind of, you know, I think that's kind of hard to understand like for for everyone, but certainly I think for residents um to understand that much of this is not within our ability to reject it.

I'm actually going to allow our city attorney to respond. Um but in general, I I think yes, you're going in the right direction. Yeah. Uh so I would say that that summary is um generally correct and uh perhaps the one place that I would clarify is that um even our regulation with respect to health and safety concerns um is is pretty narrowly constrained. Um can you elaborate on that a little bit? I mean, if I'm if that's that's if that's my only sort of

um sort of point of of effect here, I'd kind of like to know how narrowly it's constrained or or how it's constrained, please. Uh so the city is able to regulate on the basis of uh specific adverse impact on public health and safety and and that means an impact that is based on a written objective public health or safety standard um that existed on the time that the uh application came in. Um, an example of that kind of written objective public health and safety standard would be uh the fire code for example. Um, you know, that's it's very clear. Anyone reading it doesn't need to apply their discretion and in whether it's um, you know, if the a project complies or not, it's objective and it's written.

Thank you. Commissioner G,

I have a follow-up question for Mr. Yang on this. Notice that I feel like a lot of the staff presentation has talked about potential transportation impacts and given that for 366 El Camino, we also talked about transportation impacts. Are there any specific written objective standards around potential transportation issues that might occur here? Uh so I will um leave it to transportation staff to elaborate on this if if necessary but my understanding is that there are not um any such standards that we've identified.

Uh that's correct. We did a um a warrant analysis for the crossing. Um the the applicant has offered to provide a a rectangular rapid flashing beacon which we support um but we don't see it warranting anything more than that. And then follow-up question for Mr. Yang. I was just curious if in other jurisdictions are there examples of these kinds of standards for transportation related um health issues?

I'm not aware of any such standards. Um my understanding is that the transportation standards that exist have been developed over the years largely for um concerns about like throughput and and um you know traffic uh level of service sort of issues. I was just wondering if maybe chief transportation official low had any other comment from any of the other jurisdictions you've worked in if there's anything that's exists in this realm from your experience. Uh

so I think um the uh what the attorney said was is correct. Um, that being said, I think that there there are cities that have additional considerations that are based on safety related research and so they add that as part of the engineering judgment portion of using the California MUTCD. Sorry, what is what is this the last that

the California manual for uniform traffic control devices. So that's that's the standard that we're required to follow. and other and but it but but it includes language about engineering judgment and so sometimes cities will pass um local policies and sometimes those local policies are based on safety related research. So that that's one way of kind of incorporating that. Okay. Um for clarifying questions that's it. Thank you. Commissioner Templeton.

Thank you. Um, this one's really specific and it's I I just simply don't know the answer to this. Do we have any kind of regulations involving when it's acceptable to put a new curb cut in on a major road? Um we do have so for example on El Camino because that's a major road um I'm looking to the planning staff to see if they have the reference on their fingertips but we do have a standard a recommendation regarding that from I think it's from the comprehensive plan. Um and is a rastero considered a major road? My understanding it is, but I just want to confirm with you.

It's It's not a highway. So, it's Oh, I didn't ask if it was a highway. I'm sorry. I was just trying to talk about if it was in any way. Do we have any regulations about when you can put new curb cuts in on major roads? I'm thinking like, you know, El Camino is a highway. It's a stateowned, so it's really not um up for comparison to this road, but I'm thinking like Middlefield um Alma, Astradero, Embaradero, things like that. When do we do we have any discretion about that at all? Um, I'll need to check in on that.

It would be great and it's okay to come back to us later. Um, but I think that will be uh I would anticipate that being part of our discussion. It would be great to know if if we're working within a framework for that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm also interested in the uh outcome of that research. Any other clarifying questions, commissioners? Seeing none, I believe we'd like to hear from the applicant.

Good evening, uh, commissioners. Thank you for being here tonight. Uh my name is Melanie Griswald and I'm the developer behind the oaks. Uh next slide please. I just want to start with a little bit of uh personal context. Um so I work primarily as a land use consultant uh primarily on larger projects and occasionally on some smaller subdivisions like this one here. Part of my work is to bring housing to the Bay Area, but an equally important part of my work is to bring things that I think are I can be proud of. And this subdivision is is one while it is um more dense than um I think that the neighbors are expecting in this particular area, it's one that we have tried to make unique and that it's not something that's cookie cutter and that we've also tried to listen to the concerns that were raised by the neighbors and by the architectural review board when we came before them a couple of months ago. Uh my goal with this subdivision is to leave a long-term legacy, something that we can be proud of and something that is going to enhance the streetscape of Arstrada when we go past there. Um we are in including the public art um not just paying a fee but going to commission an artist to bring something that will actually um that you can look at and that will enhance at least the streetscape on arrestero. Can you have the next slide please? So turning to the project itself it itself uh the streamlined housing permit is not before you uh tonight but we have the tenative map but as mentioned what is planned is nine lots and 16 units in total. Um that would include seven junior ADUs and nine single family residences. Two of them will be attached single families. So actually four in total, two attached and five detached

single families. and it's on a one point uh one just over one acre lot. Next slide, please. So, as mentioned, uh it's been it was really important to us to have individual character with each of the homes that are designed so that it's something as we walk as I walk around PaloAlto, I see all of these homes, many of which are very close to the street. um they're next to sometimes big buildings, small homes, but there's a lot of individual character and that individual character is something that brings a lot to the city. And so that's something that was important to me. Um having as much uh landscape as we can. Um that's part of the reason that we narrowed the road from the 30 ft to the 20 ft is because it provides for more area to actually have landscape. Um, in response to the comments that we received from the architectural review board, we did a significant redesign from what's shown on the slide here. And part of that was to be able to provide more driveway parking uh, spaces so that we didn't have that overflow traffic from guests that would be potentially going into the Old Trace Road um, neighborhood. If I could have the next slide, please. Uh our architect is um Taylor Carpenter of Ponderosa Architecture. Um I think she shares a lot of what um my philosophy is, which is that you pay attention to the details of design and that when you have something that is welld designed, it is something that will um enhance the beauty of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. um these the proposed subdivision is something that is for the missing middle um housing in PaloAlto. So we have um as you know it is very well located close

to grade schools and we expect that this is a subdivision that will be able to accommodate families with the junior ADUs. We it can accommodate that multigenerational living as well. Uh we've got first floor on suite and there is an on-site BMR unit as well. Next slide, please. Um I I think that you know you'll get a lot of comments tonight about um safety considerations and in designing the subdivision. One of the first things that we did was we went to Hexagon Transportation Consultants and we asked them about the distance of the driveway uh exit. So the private road from the Rastradero and Old Trace Road intersection because there are guidelines for how far you want to be able to put a exit. Um these the entrance onto the subdivision and the exit are both within acceptable um distances from that intersection. We have had discussions with the city about red striping the area of the subdivision that would be between the private drive entrance and rastero. I think that would be helpful because uh we want to make sure that there's a open vision triangle. So as you're exiting that there's no cars that are blocking that area. On the other side of the subdivision, as we've noticed from the firet truck turnaround, it would also be important to red stripe the other side. Um, and I think that red striping also just makes it so that this subdivision is not having that overflow traffic. And so when we are looking at the driveways, we want to make sure that there's adequate uh place on the driveways that people can park not only their own cars, but that guests can also park there, too. So each of the units proposed has a two-car garage as well. Although I think that um the science shows that if you actually

provide more parking, you produce more traffic. So it is a little bit of balance here, but we are trying to make sure that we don't have that impact onto the neighbors. Um this particular subdivision though is very well located in that there's really no reason for anybody who lives in the subdivision, who is visiting the subdivision to go into the old Trace Road um neighborhood. Everything is contained within the Arashrao corridor. And as mentioned, um we did uh eliminate the um potential of a right turn into uh the subdivision from a rastero just because a rastero is going to have that um higher speed of traffic. And so I think having a a right turn, there is a meridian across on the other side anyways. But um but that just makes it so that you don't have people um turning left into the subdivision. The traffic study which is included in your packet um I think it really illustrates the traffic impact from the subdivision which ultimately is very low. In the peak hour timeline we have six trips per hour that are going to be produced. That's roughly one car every 10 minutes. And then in the PM it's seven trips per hour. So that's you know just under one car every 10 minutes. Um we have incorporated sidewalk. So in the old trace existing conditions there is no sidewalk. Um at the ARB meeting there was a number of complaints about the safety of pedestrians walking along Old Trace Road. We are incorporating a sidewalk into this subdivision. Ultimately, um, if there is no sidewalk that's higher up in the neighborhood, we can't do anything about that. That's not our frontage, but we can incorporate sidewalk in our own subdivision. And so, we're proposing that along with upgraded ADA ramp at the old trace road

intersection, which would connect over to a uh new ramp on the other side, which is already at grade. And um and we are incorporating the rapid um flashing beacons as a voluntary measure. And with that um I thank you for your time. If you have any questions, happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Grizzold. Um shall we uh check for public comment and then perhaps we can uh after you've had a chance to respond, we may have questions for you. Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Diver, do we have any request comment from the public on this item?

We do and we're collecting them and we'll let you know in a moment how many we've got. Pardon me, I I didn't hear you. So, as you can see, we do have a number of requests to speak. Uh, we will collect those and let you know how many.

Thank you. So through the chair, uh I do have a request for a group of um one one spokesman representing a group of five and then I have um five individual speakers and then two requests to speak on Zoom. at the moment.

Thank you. I think with that many, we'll stick to the usual time limits. We won't shorten. Okay. And if if you just give me one moment to uh add everyone into the queue. I have no nose people are all speaking. There are five others who aren't speaking.

Okay. So, So for clarification uh chair um I have one group of f uh one one spokesman representing five. Um, and then I have nine individual speakers including two on Zoom. And yes, I'll add those to the queue.

Great. I think that still falls within the the tolerable limits. So, let's stick with the regular time limits and then did we want to start with the with the group speaker? I would prefer that.

Okay. No, I mean I'm So, Um, pardon me just a second. The group time limit is longer than 3 minutes. Correct. There we go. Okay. So, Shaolin, um, you may now speak on representing a group of five. Um, um, and I will start your time now.

All right. Well, uh, thank you for the opportunity, uh, to, uh, voice our concerns. Uh, my name is Sha Lumera. I live on, uh, 875 Mockingbird. These are all my neighbors. Uh, so we are in the Esther Clark Park community. Uh, it's on the property originally, uh, owned by Wan Brias. Um, many of us, you know, I've been there about, how long have we been there? We've been there 13 years. Many of our neighbors have been there, our original owners who've been there 50, 60 years. uh many of whom could not make it tonight. Our neighbors uh skew elderly because they are uh they are original owners. Um so just to recap some basic facts. So our our neighborhood was designated residential estates originally, right? We have one ingress egress to the neighborhood right there at the intersection of Arashra and Old Trace. There are 29 residences, three culde-sacs currently. Um so the you know the proposed uh this proposed development the oaks uh that's going to have 16 residences which are all concentrated at the soul ingress egress that we uh that we have. Um, Commissioner James had mentioned that, you know, there the state laws, right? The density bonus laws and whatnot, the SQA statutes that are being relied on for the SQUA exemptions. But, um, as has been noted, uh, there is still a duty uh, to even arguendo, if we're to assume that AB130 was properly applied here, which I would challenge actually, there's still a duty to take into account our safety. And the fact is there is no way that this development uh can be mitigated uh in a way that reduces the risk to our safety, the immediate risk to our safety here. And and it's in a couple points, a couple uh

obvious points. We have this sole ingress egress which is going to increase the number of residences by over 50%. uh you know we the roster or sorry the old trace is only 30 feet across. Okay, there's a misleading statement. There's a misleading uh representation in the cycle 3 plans. It continues in that showing 40 ft there. It's really 30 feet curb to curb. There's no way for safety vehicles to safely get across there. You know that you've heard that parking is not going to be allowed. The fact is the parking will inevitably spill over. There are 16 residences here, right? Let's nowadays everybody has what? Two cars there. Those there is no accommodation for those cars in you know in these plans. You know AB130 which is a statute that's being relied on for the SQA exemption that was intended for properties that are within a half mile of a transit hub. We're nowhere near transit hub. The purpose of that was not was you know to counter car dependence. We are an entirely car dependent neighborhood there. This is only going to enhance the the car dependence of the neighborhood. Uh and you know the it was then characterized because we're nowhere near a transit hub. You know this is called infill development. The fact is we're not in an urban area. R E1 was is a semi-ural area. We're in horse country. this neighborhood was not designed for this number of residents and that's leaving aside the effect of other statutes. So if we're going to discuss statutes consider you know cons was it SB9 the number of current residences can be multiplied by four with only ministerial review by the city. So our existing parcels the 21 29 that we have can be

multiplied by four and the city will have no say in that. And frankly, we're all getting up there in years. That's going to happen, right? I this the traffic study that's referred to this hexagon traffic study that's commissioned by the developer. It's clear to me they haven't taken into account the growth that's going to happen in their neighborhood. The traffic that's going to come from the organic growth irrespective of this development. Uh and it's it's you know, I question whether that can be relied on as far as you know, safety. You know, we've already had situations, multiple situations where safety vehicles, emergency vehicles could not get through in our neighborhood. Uh we've had situations where because of construction, there's been parking along both sides of Old Trace going up quite a ways and safety vehicles literally could not get through in time. You emergency vehicles could not get through in time. And this will not be a one-off occurrence. Now, this will be constant because there is simply no way that there's not going to be overflow parking along Old Trace. There will inevitably be old uh overflow parking on old trace. Um moreover, you know, egress is not going to be possible when there is a fire. When we when we have a fire, you know, was it four or five years ago, we were in the fire zone. Our neighbors, we were all on text alert. we're under warning that we may have to evacuate in an hour. You know, in our case, we were getting my father who had dementia ready and our pet ready and our daughter and whatnot. If we had 16 residences, right, the only egress to our neighborhood, there's no way we could have made it out if the fire had spread. And that's that that's not accounting for what's going to happen in the future. I also strongly suspect that this, you know, this traffic study that was commissioned has taken no account for service vehicles. This is an issue that we encounter all the time when there, you know, when service vehicles come in, they block

traffic in our neighborhood. They don't have room to turn around. Imagine the, you know, the impact of that, I'm sure, is not being taken and took out. So, I would argue that far from having your hands tied, we've heard a lot about that. you know, we've actually poured over the documents that uh you know, the the planning documents and time after time, we see from city and yeah, from the staff and you hear from the attorneys that city's uh the city's hands are tied. There's no choice but to let these uh exemptions go through. The fact is you have a moral obligation and an obligation under statute to take our safety into account. And this plan simply puts our safety at risk in a way that is not mitigable. The other thing I would just point out is I hope the city's not being selective here about the application of the sequence exemptions, right? And when the hands are tied and when they aren't, right? You know, recently the news has come out that, you know, there are there's a the city is pushing for exemptions to the requirements under SB79, right? which you know for neighborhoods that are actually within a half mile of transit hubs which are far more appropriate for this type of highdensity development. Now you know we don't begrudge our friends who are in those neighborhoods but we do wonder why the city is willing to push that but the same city staff who are pushing for that say that they have no they can't even take our safety into account. why our it's not clear to me why our safety should be disregarded you know when clearly the staff is willing to push for you know push back applications for SQA exemptions where there is not a comparable safety risk and where the development would actually have a much higher impact on housing growth in this community than what's being proposed here

uh you know regarding the flashing light that does absolutely absolutely nothing to address ingress egress of emergency vehicles. Uh it does nothing to address evacuation. The flashing light is something that my neighbors and I have been asking for for years and that have fallen on deaf ears with the city. But you know if that's a dayto-day issue that has nothing to do with the safety the safety risks that I'm pointing out which are you know which are jeopardizing our safety. Um, so with that, you know, I'll uh you'll hear from our other neighbors, but uh I would ask that, you know, whatever the traffic study is that you're relying on that you take a second look at that to see whether you've actually done your duty to to make sure that our safety is not being put at risk because I will submit that this plan is not at all compliant with the requirements of uh you know of the statute that's relying under even under the most mod bon modus density act. Um so with that I'll uh I'll give it to yield the balance of my time to one of my neighbors. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Po. Our next speaker is Marilyn S. Hello, I'm Marilyn Stalker. I live on Mockingbird Lane. I've lived there for 52 years. I'd like to just mention a few things that the intersection at Old Trace Road and Arresto is very dangerous. It's a 35

mph straight, two-lane with a cutout for left turning onto Old Trace Road, but the visibility is very poor. As we're leaving there, looking to the left, it's um there are a lot of shadows and it's very difficult to see cars and especially ebikes that are going very quickly past our street. Uh we have no sidewalks and yet we like to walk. We walk for our health. We walk our dogs. We walk to see our neighbors. A few years ago, we had construction going on in the neighborhood and we had as many as 52 cars lining both sides of Old Trace Road and Mockingbird Lane. During that time too, one of the neighbors had to require um 911 to come and they had a very difficult time. In fact, they had to go to the construction people and ask them to please move their cars because they could not get the emergency vehicle up Mockingbird Lane. We're not on a bus route. Uh the closest bus route, the closest bus is in the Stanford Industrial Park, which is on Hillview. Takes me 11 minutes to walk there. And that bus goes over Denarton Bridge. Doesn't go to downtown PaloAlto. It take it would I don't know how long it would take to walk to El Camino. It's about a mile. That's where I could get a bus 22 to go to San Jose or to go north. There is a bus stop across from Gun High School, but it doesn't go every day. I mean, it goes every day during the school day, but it doesn't go all hours. So, it's not a viable bus route for us. Um, just tonight getting here, uh, it took us 4 minutes to go through the intersection at Foothill Expressway.

Sometimes it's more than, sometimes it's double that. And so you have cars that are backed up beyond Old Trace Road. Um, I would just like to mention we do not have an elementary school near us. Uh, as was just mentioned, our closest our elementary school that's assigned to us is on Stanford Avenue. Nixon school on Stanford Avenue. However, there are other the high school and the middle school are both on Astrado. Private school Bowman is on Astrado. Two synagogues and two churches. And so during the week there is a lot of traffic going at school time and at church time. Um, also this particular property is across directly across the road from the VM what used to be the VM campus. Now

this concludes your time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stalker. Our next speaker is Canoir D followed by GEC Canoir.

Thank you for your time uh this evening. My name is Kanar Deepep. I am uh a resident of the neighborhood on Old Trace Road, 4110. I'd like to reiterate a few points and and make a couple of new ones. Um so, first and foremost, I wanted to point out in the documents that were shared, they said there were two schools east of Foothill. There's actually five schools east of Foothill. So, just wanted to correct that. Um there's Bowman, there's two Bowman schools. There's Ellen Fletcher, Wana Bion's, and Henry Gun. So, just wanted to put that out there. Um, just adding to the safety points that were raised, people use old trace to make a lot of U-turns. Uh, Commissioner Chang mentioned she's fairly familiar with that. People go west past Foothill often if they made a wrong turn or forgotten to make a turn. That's the favorite, frankly, the only or the first option for people to make a U-turn. And that's pretty awful when it's rush hour, which is 3 hours in the morning, 3 hours in the evening. So this uh particular development will make that situation far far worse. Um the traffic study, which Shalloo already pointed out, we believe it's fairly outdated. That was well before return to office. Since we're in the neighborhood, we know the former VMware campus which is now fully I don't know fully occupied but heck of a lot more occupied as people all over and that is totally commensurate with the increase in traffic that other uh neighbors of mine have pointed out. Um, we also given the misrepresentations of, you know, that we've heard and and the obvious defects, we're not clear if the plans meet the requirements of the subdivision map act. Um, that's something I wanted to put out

there. Um, or the fire and safety regulation. So, that's something to consider here. That has not been addressed at all. And lastly, I'd just like to reiterate uh the question Jallu had raised regarding the push back on SQA exemption for the development on California Street, but not here. That neighborhood, you know, across the street from Cal Train, next to Al Camino, next to a major exit road that goes to 101 is far better suited for what that development is. So, just wanted to, you know, put that out there. So, that's all I had for tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeannie C followed by Jeff W.

Hello, my name is Jeannie Clancy and I live at 4146 Old Trace Road and I've got to say I've lived there for a very long time and a public art piece right in front of our neighborhood. I'm not sure is wanted. We live in a beautiful area and I think it's we appreciate trees and nature instead of a public art piece. That's just my opinion. But thank you all for listening to us tonight. Uh we raised the following objections to the waiverss and concessions requested in the resubmission letter. Waiver number one, a 1900 square foot lot size violates the subdivision map act because it is not consistent with the general plan of the area which is to retain land west of Foothill as open space allowing for a very low density open and rural development. Waiver number five, density bonus law does not override special setback requirements under section 20.08.02. O2 a rasder road west of Foothhill Expressway is identified as one of PaloAlto's scenic roadways and is subject to a 53- ft special setback intended to preserve its visual and environmental integrity of the corridor. This setback applies to approximately 200 ft of the project frontage and prohibits permanent structures within the area. Sorry. The applicant the applicant has placed three of the structures inside this setback area. The 53 foot setback has been consistently applied with all of the neighboring properties. Every every property is is back 53 ft including the statemandated uh lot split on old adobe that was just approved this year. So even state required laws are are recognizing the 53

ft setback. Arasa road also has a 90 foot road right away along the proposed development property line that appears to be misrepresented. The city's road centerline data map establishes the median center as the true center line of Araso. When the required 45- ft measurement is correctly applied, the right of way encroaches approximately 23 feet, not the 13 ft identified on the plans. This discrepancy undermines the feasibility and legality of the design. Why is this important? Raster Darrow is a crucial west emergency evacuation route for those in the wildfire urban interface area west of Foothill Expressway. Safe evacuation depends on the continued viability of a raster road as a functional egress corridor and anything that reduces the road rightway, adds traffic or impedes emergency response poses a significant public safety hazard. Waiver number six, reduction of a private road width. The applicant seeks seeks to reduce the required private road width from 32 to 20 ft.

This concludes your time. Can I speak on behalf of my my sister is Heather C. Can I use the remainder of her time? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, that's not part of our policy. Okay. Thank you. Nevertheless, thank you for your comments. Uh our next speaker is Jeff W.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeff Watt. I live several hundred feet away from the project site in the Esther Clark Park neighborhood. I'd like to start by thanking staff for including condition six of approval. This acknowledges that it's city policy for council to approve new public and private street names with recommendations from the PaloAlto Historical Association. There's a street name shown for the private lane on some of the tentative maps submitted by the applicant. That name has no significance to the neighborhood, the city, or the region. So, I urge staff to enforce condition six so that the neighborhood has a street name with some significance if we're forced to accept this subdivision map. This parcel and the surrounding land have an extraordinary history that can be traced back through Wannabion, her daughter, all the way back to a Native American who was emancipated from the Santa Clara mission and became the first private owner of this land in 1840. There is no shortage of historic figures and events to draw from in naming that street. Next, I'd like to point out that the streets in the neighborhood are below PaloAlto standards for width. Many are even narrower than Old Trace. This was an intentional choice made in the 1960s after the area was annexed by PaloAlto and the city initiated an improvement project in 1964. The neighborhood pushed for reduced widths and this very commission agreed because it was deemed safe and appropriate given the area was zoned for one unit per acre and the general plan at the time called for a maximum of three units per acre. So the decision was made for Old Trace to be a 30-foot curb to curb street in a 40ft rightway with no sidewalks instead of the PaloAlto standard that was suggested which was and still is 40 ft curb to curb in a 60 ft rightway with sidewalks.

So here we are today with a project at five times the maximum density envisioned back in the 60s with very wellfounded safety concerns based on streets that were not designed for this density. The project is undoubtedly going to lead to spillover parking on Old Trace despite what the applicant has said for residents, guests, service workers, house cleaners, nannies, delivery drivers. I think as many of you know, the um utilization of garages is not very high in this city and in California. Plus, there's shared driveways that aren't useful. So, the road isn't wide enough to safely allow parking on both sides, especially without sidewalks. And what's missing here is a realistic analysis of this issue and the mitigation. This project is writing the playbook for developers to come into the neighborhood with similar projects or even higher density projects. And the question is how is the city going to ensure the safety of the residents and the visitors to our neighborhood? These types of projects cannot move forward with safety issues that cannot be mitigated. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Watt.

Our next speaker is Heather C. um waiver. I'm going to continue. Waiver request number six is the reduction of private road width. The applicant seeks to reduce the required private road width from 32 feet to 20 ft. PaloAlto requires a minimum of width of 32 feet for roads serving five or more lots unless specific conditions are met. These conditions this project does not satisfy an there's a narrow 20ft road lacks the adequate turnaround space. Vehicles heading westbound on Arstradero from the development will be forced to exit eastbound and make a dangerous illegal Uturn in front of Manuela, just feet from the Arashero Foothill Expressway intersection. The Astrada Foothill Expressway intersection is considered one of the top 20 most dangerous intersections for cyclists in Santa Clara County. Adding a new intersection from the private road in such close proximity will introduce more turning more turning movements for kids to negotiate when riding their bikes to school. Um the applicant also proposes uh let's see the concession request for reduction in affordable housing unit standards. They proposes only a 12.5% on-site affordability. Um, the applicant proposes only 12.5% on-site affordability and is considering a concession for reduced size. This request attempts to wave the very requirement that qualifies the project for density bonus incentives and unlimited waiverss under California law. Such a circular request creates an improper proper loophole and should

render the project ineligible. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment. Our next speaker is Ellen S. LNS, you may now speak. Hello. Hi, my name is Ellen Chay. I live at 910 Mockingbird Lane. Um, people have covered things pretty well, but I do want to emphasize by my estimate there'll be probably more like 30 cars in this parking this development based on, you know, three bedrooms per for each one of the five places. Know that three to four cars I would say with the JDU and um same with the other ones. I mean, so they've I think they they're going to be supplying 21 spots including the garages, and I don't think that'll be enough. Also, um, Rasadero, uh, people do not drive 35 there. That's the speed limit, but they're speeding from either end going both ways. In fact, um, I would say they they are often going 45 or 50 miles per hour. And there's racing out on the road. I hear cars opening up and racing all the time. And um I've called the police, but they have to be caught in the act. So I don't know if anyone ever gets caught. Um and like Marilyn said, the closest mass transit that's not going over the D bridge is at El Camino in Charleston. And I know very few people that walk that distance to go take the bus. So you know, if you can afford Uber and Lift, that's your other option, I guess. But anyway, then anyway, we'll stop there because people have covered things

pretty well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, M. Our next speaker is Shosana L on Zoom. Shosana, you may now speak.

Hi. Okay, thank you. Um, my name is Shashana. I have lived at 940 Old Trace which is on Old Trace Court on the third culdesac. Um I also speak my sister who's in a wheelchair. She has emphasized some concerns of hers about with this extra in and out of ETA and other wheelchair services that will be able to come in. But there's quite a few extra points I want to um point out. You know, the I recall when the traffic assess assessment cameras were up and many of my neighbors commented that we believe that the assessment was happening when schools were on break. I can't remember which break it was, but I remember us saying this isn't the week that they should be evaluating it and it didn't. It felt like a misrepresentation. The impact to the traffic related to the road barriers that were put up right before Foothill Expressway a couple years back have um caused a quite a big backup. And as one of my neighbors said, it takes quite a few light cycles to get through because people can no longer be making um easy access to the railway turn on Foothill Expressway. This is a detrimental fundamental change to the area that it's just not equipped for. As you cross Foothhill Expressway, it becomes a completely different neighborhood. Um and there's lots of concerns that we have about this high density and fire areas. Um not only for traffic, but for our homeowners insurance. We have been almost cancelled several times and a friend of mine was recently canceled due to high density and we believe that this is putting us in jeopardy for the future. Not only for what's happening now, but what will happen in the future when we can no longer get homeowners insurance. We are going to have fires in the future and we're putting ourselves in grave danger. Now, another thing about visibility, we've talked about the pedestrians, but for cars, you know, as it is right now on the lot, if you drive by, the grass is very, very tall and we can hardly see

anything. I was trying to make a a left-hand turn, and I had to pull very far into the road of a Rostrado to even see my right and left to even see. So, I'm concerned once these houses are up and once there's artwork, how will we be able to see if there's not a light that's being put up? the pedestrians can walk, but I don't know how drivers will be able to go with an extra 10 cars coming in and out per hour. Not only that, but this hasn't taken into account the growth, as one of my my neighbors said that not only are there going to be people driving in and out, but there's going to be delivery cars, Amazon, Door Dash, the amount of delivery that comes in now, if we're adding an extra 16 houses. The other thing is I can't imagine that our guests that are going to be there aren't going to have parties, that there's not going to need to be, you know, dinner parties, birthday parties. There won't be extra need for parking. The last thing is I agree. If we're going to have a name, we were told that we were going to have an impact on the name and that's been another misrepresentation that we don't have control over. So, yet another thing and the commitment to us and what it's going to be like for the future of the residents that currently live here for a very long time. Thank you. Thank you, M. Leader.

Our next speaker is John C. John C, you may now speak.

Hi, thank you very much for for the time. I was born and raised in Palo Alto. I went to Baron Park Elementary School to Turman, which is now Fletcher and um Gun High School. And a lot of my friends were in Los Altos Hills. I went up and down Arasadoro many many times uh in my life and I really understand the neighbors perspective having had so many friends in that area and unfortunately their perspective is more of a Los Altos Hills perspective in my opinion having an acre of land per house and just having so much freedom where I grew up in Baron Park and I would really recommend the neighbors to drive through my neighborhood and go down Baron Avenue close to El Camino or Paul Avenue or just off El Centro or even Lasselba Drive and understand how tight certain areas are and we've never felt unsafe with emergency vehicles or anything of that nature. Um, so I think perspective is a big deal and I think if they drove around Baron Park and some of the tighter streets and understand how safe we feel, I think that would give them uh some more confidence. And at the end of the day, we need more housing. There's no question about it. And any project that has affordable housing um is awesome and I think we need more of it. and I support this and plus any future um projects out there that give more affordable housing and then some more dense housing because we really need it in PaloAlto for our schools, for our teachers and again I I just feel that Baron Park is incredibly safe and I just think perspective is the biggest issue here and I think those neighbors need to get out of that area and go into more dense areas and understand how safe they are um and how proud of a community like Baron is and uh thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for those comments to the chair. This concludes public comment. Thank you, Mr. Teta. Miss Griswald, um you have an opportunity to respond to the comments you've heard and we may have questions for you as well.

Thank you, Chair. Um I think it's important to um appreciate the perspective as mentioned by the last caller, but it's also important to correct misconceptions and particularly around traffic and safety concerns. Ultimately, this is not a high density residential de development. It's a low density residential development and that's why it's consistent with the general plan. This is a gentle increase in the number of units and it is not a highdensity development that's going to produce hundreds of tra trips every day. It's going to produce one car every 10 minutes during peak hours. And that's based on the trip generation manual of 2025. These are objective standards. These are not fear-based standards. These are not conjecture. These are the standards that a traffic consultant looked at and that the city reviewed. In terms of the egress from the community, ultimately this actually improves the egress from Old Trace Road. This adds a second egress onto a rastero where there's only one. So if there is a ever a blockage at old trace and a rastero now you have a second exit onto a rastero a 20ft road while it may not be paloalto standards that's the fire code and in most communities 20 ft is the minimum because that's the fire code and it's the California fire code and this is consistent with the fire code and the reality is that this subdivision actually has much larger larger width of access on two sides. So when you look at fire code access, we've got old trace road which is over and above what is needed for fire code and you have a

raster which is over and above what's needed for fire code. The private drive is needed to provide fire code access to the very very corner of the subdivision. And ultimately, I think that much of this comes down to fear. Additional residents do not create safety risks. Vehicles don't necessarily create safety risks. If the subdivision is designed properly and in conformance with safety standards, which it is, there will not be increased safety risks as a result of the subdivision. And ultimately the general plan conformance that's measured after the application of state density bonus law. Those need to be based on objective standards. And this subdivision has been designed to be compliant with all objective standards so that it can and should be approved. And with that, I would I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Uh, commissioners, do we have any questions for Miss Griswald and um presumably staff as well. Vice Chair Chang, um, you mentioned the public art as a benefit um, and as well as the development enhancing the appearance of Arista there. Um I wanted to understand uh whether you took into account the scenic corridor component of this as well as the re zone which is specifically uh in PaloAlto meant to kind of um emphasize the environment.

Yes. With the artist the artist that we've selected is one that's um that has already been commissioned by PaloAlto. His art is very nature-based. It is um it largely uses images of trees and oaks. And what we are hoping to incorporate is something that will bring in that nature, whether it is some mosaic tile on some fence, something that uh that is not going to be obtrusive because we want to provide as much space between the subdivision and the road, but something that is going to enhance that feel of nature, whether it's some additional lighting um or mural. And um and then in terms of the actual material choice um we have chosen a a color palette that is more naturalbased um trying to incorporate wood other things to really soften the look of the development so that we don't just have um you know some faux Spanish style homes that are all stacked up that look exactly the same. So just trying to make it with the um landscape and the color choice something that's going to actually be beautiful and while it is um it is not a residential estate 1acre property it still I think can be something that's attractive along the rest.

Thank you. I have Commissioner James then Templeton then G.

Excuse me. So there's a lot of constrnation about this 20 foot road and also about the parking um with people imagining that in in real life that there's going to be people parking along that road and parking outside on old trace road. Um, and I just wondered from your perspective also I'd like for you to touch on seems like there was a modification on visitor parking perhaps from what I saw. Um, you alluded to that and I guess I'd like for you to touch on those things. Maybe first like what is the um the modification from the ARB comments and how you see that kind of a affecting this these concerns? Um, I just would like to give you the opportunity to address all of those things from your perspective.

Yeah. Um, so as much as possible, we've tried to make it so that each uh each unit has a driveway um and a driveway that would be sufficient to be able to park cars, thinking that when guests come, then the driveway becomes an area that people can actually park on. because with there's really no ability to make that private road wider without completely losing the units on we would drop I think it's four units. So that was something that we've struggled with. I wanted to put in more visitor parking. Ultimately we balanced it by adding more units that have full length driveway so that there is that parking available. Um one of the balances is the more you park it the more people will have cars. The more you look at some a city like San Francisco, a lot of people walk, a lot of people have bikes. I mean, the sub subdivision is located next to a great bike lane on the other side of Araso. Palo Alto is a wonderful biking community. And so this is doesn't have guest parking. It doesn't it's I would not say it's overparked, but we do have um twocar garages for each of the residents. And um and we're hoping that this is something where people will get out of their vehicles and they will use their bikes because um we have those facilities here.

Thank you. Commissioners Templeton, then G, then Hecman. Thank you. Um did you want to speak at all about the uh naming questions or that were concerns that were brought up? Um I think we will we will take direction from um the city on the naming. So um we had a placeholder name of for the street, but my understanding is typically as we move through the street would be something that we would work with the city on in terms of naming the street. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner G. Then Commissioner Heckler.

Thank you. Um, I had a question for you about your working relationship with the neighbors. So, is this do you are you guys in consistent dialogue? What is that like? Cuz it sounds like they've been saying things that seems like they were promised or um that haven't really been resolved. So, can you talk a little bit about that?

Yeah. Um, so at the very u beginning of when the property was purchased um one of my partners had several meetings with the neighbors went into their home. There was a meeting with I think 50 to 60 neighbors. Went and met with them, presented sort of our general plan and um had a second follow-up meeting with these neighbors. This is prior to any sort of required public meeting. Um and then we made our plans available for review by the neighbors. Um, after the last ARB meeting when there was issues raised as to the safety, I attempted to talk to the neighbors and they flat out refused to speak to me, which seemed to be a little bit ironic because um, in terms of being able to provide a sidewalk along Old Trace Road, we're willing to provide one on our frontage, but if there is truly a safety consideration that you need and want to have a sidewalk along that road, it seems like we should actually be able to talk and that we could um have that conversation as to whether that sidewalk that we're proposing would actually connect to anything. Right now, we're not really connecting it to anything. We're connecting it to a rastero, but as mentioned, there was flatout refusal to speak to me, which I've never experienced from any neighbor. Um, and then in terms of improving the intersection, that's something that we're open to and I would be open to having that conversation with the neighbors and the city as to whether that intersection can be improved because we want it to be safe for the residents of our subdivision as well as the neighbors. But, um, I'm having that conversation with the city, but I'm not sure, you know, what the neighbors perspective is on that.

Yeah. Just follow up. Maybe this is either for you or chief chief transportation official low for these transportation projects. Is this something that the developer will be paying for or how does this work for some of the project improvements that we have here? Uh can you clarify what you mean by the project? So in the staff presentation they listed a series of different transportation improvements. Some are on-site and some are offsite. Are these generally handled by the developer or does the city pay for them? Can you just elaborate a little bit more on that? No, they would be part of the development. Okay. Um, and just as a clarification, is this something that you're willing to support for the the pro the transportation improvements listed so far?

Yes, we've we've voluntarily um been willing to do all of the proposed safety um ones, even ones that I think are not actually required. Thank you. And then I had one other question, which is that you described this project as low density and yet you're using density bonus. So help me understand the difference here, right? Because you're saying it's a low density project, but you're applying a state density bonus law to increase the density. So just help me understand that a little bit more.

Correct. But it's still within a low density residential designation. So within the low low density residential, the general plan actually provides for seven dwelling units per acre up to 14 including uh junior ADUs. So that's within your general plan already. that's considered low density residential. This one um proposes 16 which is including the um the junior ADU. So we have seven junior ADUs. We're on just over one acre. So you when you c use those calculations you round up. So our base density is eight dwelling units per acre. So our we are exactly within the low density residential even without density bonus. Okay. So, you're saying that you didn't need to use state density bonus law in this case. Is that kind of what you're implying?

Correct. We're using state density bonus uh law for different waiverss. So, we are within the general plan uh low density residential, but we're above the residential estate zoning. So, we're not proposing a obviously a development at one dwelling unit in it per acre. We're proposing one that's consistent with the general plan. And when you have state density bonus law, you are able to use the general plan designation. And then if the zoning is a mismatch, then we're still within the low density residential, but it is low density.

Okay. Thank you. And so you're not because you're using the state density bonus, you're not, for example, even though you're within the designation, you would still like to continue moving forward with the state density bonus because of the waiverss and concessions that you've listed. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Thank you. And then I had one last question and this is a little bit more of a technical question which is that on the hexagon consultation report on packet page 44 I see that you've listed the the nine dwelling units but as the residents have mentioned you it's pretty clear that the Jedus will also probably be generating traffic. So I'm just helping me help me understand a little bit of this because it's listed here that the Jedus are not expected to generate any trips on their own. But I think that's a little bit unreasonable just kind of from a practical matter of it being considered a dwelling unit.

Yeah. I um you know I'm not a traffic consultant um and so this was something that I asked about but I think because junior junior ADUs are within the home they're sort of considered as part of the same amount of traffic. I mean within a um like for example some of the homes on the street are like 8,000 square ft. those generate a lot more traffic than a smaller single family home. So the these things are averages. Um this s single family detached is expected to uh generate five um I believe it's a total of nine daily trips whereas the sorry the um yeah the single family detached um would generate nine daily trips. attached is expected to generate just under um seven daily trips. So they do take into account sort of the size or type of the house but um yeah.

So do you believe that all seven of the Jedus will generate zero trips across on average across all seven of them? I think that they are um actually I really can't speak to that because I I'm going to defer to the um traffic consultant on that. But even if it were to generate, let's say to double the amount of trips, this is still generating a very small amount of trips. It would be one car trip every 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes. So um

and then I had one question, another question for you on packet page 33. It says that the storm drain connections a direct connection to the storm drain is not permitted and the plans shall be revised in according to plans. Is that something that you plan on fixing? Yes, the storm drain is something that we are working um through with the city. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner G. Commissioner Hecman.

Uh thank you. Just uh one question for the applicant and then a few for staff. Um so in the um um letter submitted by uh your council um on March 30th um under a heading regarding your BMR um asurances for the affordability of units upon request the applicant will record a deed restrictive covenant. Um I I thought that wording was just a little odd that we have to I mean many times in this letter and through your proposal you are affirmatively saying we'll do this, we'll do that. But here they chose to say upon request. So I just want to uh clarify that you're agreeable, the applicant's agreeable to record this deed restriction um and we can fold it into a condition of approval.

Yes. Yes. I mean it it is a part of the legal basis for the subdivision is the affordable unit. And so um typically we would have an affordable housing compliance plan that would be a condition of approval for the building permit and that you would have to have the deed restricted covenant recorded along with typically that affordable housing compliance plan as well.

Okay. All right. Um that's my only question for you. Uh question for staff. Um Old Trace is a is it a dead end road? It appears to me to be a um I see the three culdeacs spinning off it, but does all the traffic that goes in come out that same way? Yes, that's correct.

Okay. All right. And then um and I suspect this is going to be a question for Mr. Yang. Um, and I'm looking at um, so part of what we're dealing with here is the Housing Accountability Act and this um, limited purview that the city has um, um, to deny or reduce density uh, only if certain uh, fairly rigid standards are made. And so, um, I notice in the applicant's council's letter at page, um, 52, um, are, uh, um, and I, incidentally, thought that, uh, whatever I think about the content of the letter, I thought that their mapping with examples I thought was very useful to illustrate the points. Um, but for items three and four, which appear on page 52, we're talking about uh interior side setbacks and rear setbacks. And for each of those, um, the statement is made that this would reduce the buildable area of on on proposed lots. And in the first one, it says um, it reduces the buildable area on each lot, thereby reducing the buildable area on all of the lots. That's number three. Number four, uh substantially reduce the buildable area of all lots thereby reducing density. And so really I um I I first want to drill down on this um issue that that my belief is that reducing buildable area, you might still have a house on the lot, it just might not be able to be

as big. And and I'm not reading the state law as saying if you reduce the buildable area but maintain the density um you can only do that if these findings are made. And so I wanted to find out from um our city attorney whether I'm reading too much or too little into this issue of the relationship between setbacks and reduction of density.

Right. Um, so I think the more relevant statute here than the HAA is state density bonus law. And um, so under state density bonus law, the city is required to grant a waiver when it's requested uh, if that waiver would physically preclude the development. Um and the uh there are narrow conditions uh in which the city can refuse a waiver um that relate to again specific adverse impacts on health and safety. Um the uh so the question that arises is what does it mean to physically preclude uh a housing development? Uh and the courts have said that um a an applicant is not required to uh eliminate or reduce amenities in their project even if it's theoretically possible for the project to be built at the same density um without those amenities. So in this case the size of the unit would be um one of those amenities that the developer is not required to reduce. Okay, that's that's helpful. Um, so it seems like there's not a lot of flexibility on the setback issue, but even if there was, we the scope of what we have before us tonight is the tenative map. So as if I'm understanding it correctly, we're being asked uh to make a set of findings about whether taking one square and carving it into 10 pieces of particular size and shape has any of these impacts that would prohibit it. And so when I think about setbacks and things like that that

I'm wondering if that is actually in our purview, although the staff report doesn't make that distinction because the it seems like a setback is something while it comes with whatever shapes are on the map, it's really part of the housing application that's not before us that's going to city council. And so I'm wondering if uh we could have some guidance on that uh to understand the proper scope uh for us and the public to understand really the scope of this tenative map recommendation that we're being asked to make.

Um yes. So I think you've um I think you've you know asked the the right question. Not all of these waiverss are relevant to the the tenative map that's before you. Um they're all listed in the applicant's letter um because the the letter covers both the map and the housing uh proposal. Um but only some of them are relevant for the map and those are lot size uh special setback on Arasa road street width and sight depth. site depth.

Yes. Okay. And those are uh listed out in the staff report uh pages six and seven of the staff report. Great. Those are my questions. Chair, thank you.

Thank you. I have a question then I'll turn it over to Vice Chair Chang for some follow-ups. Um so one of the consequences of the uh street design is that we're creating a new conflict zone at U Rosen Astrader uh that didn't exist previously and I'm a little confused about the mitigation that's proposed there. uh the uh restricted right turn uh with the the curb uh radius because it appears that some of the reasoning behind the design of um the subdivision is that cyclists will move over to the other side of U Art and use the bike path. So, I'm curious as to why uh Miss Griswald, you were um interested in supporting the uh right turn restrictions at Rose and whether there were any other mitigations that you considered and ruled out.

So, again, I'm not a traffic um safety consultant, but my understanding is one of the more dangerous things that a car does is turn right when there's a bike lane. And so, um, limiting that right turn at a non-intersection where there's a bike lane, it was something that, um, the city discussed and that it seemed to me made sense from what I know of cars and and bikes. Um, whereas and, uh, when you're turning right, um, you don't have that same conflict because you're actually looking and your, you know, attention is more on the cyclist. So, um that was something that we they suggested and um and made a lot of sense.

Yeah. Just to make it clear, I'm not um objecting to that mitigation. Just curious about why it's there and what other things might have been considered. So, I'm I gather that you considered what was proposed by staff, but that was the only mitigation

in terms of that intersection. I think together I mean we don't want to um have anything that's going to block the sight lines of people turning either. So um I mean we considered I think some ballards as well and um but I think the recommendation was to have more of the curb design as being the cleanest sort of most visible means of mitigating um any left turn into or sorry I'd say right turn into Rose Drive. or what will likely be renamed and not be row stripe. Yes.

Thank you. That's all all the clarification I need for the moment. Vice Chair Chang, then Commissioner Templeton. Thank you. Um so could you respond um to one one of the comments made by one of the public commenters about when the traffic study was conducted? It was um it was refreshed on April 20th. So like eight days ago or nine days ago I should say and the conclusions were the same. Correct. And April 20th was what day of the week? That's when it was published. Maybe you can add that the um the counts were taken on the 26th of August. So and school went back on the 14th.

Okay. Thank you. That clarification is helpful. Thank you very much. Um okay. And then I think the concern that I'm hearing from the um from the public is less actually about the traffic counts per se and safety as it relates to overflow parking. And I think you're saying that there just kind of won't be overflow parking. But if there were to be overflow parking, where how is the development planning to handle that? Have you I mean the architects must have thought about that.

We are handling it by having uh twocar uh driveways for those units. I mean that is the planned overflow. I mean you can have there's you know typically gas parking ratios. If we didn't have the driveways I mean that would be also something that you could request as a waiver. Um it would not be grounds for denial um having no guest parking, but um we have redesigned it voluntarily to have those driveways so that it can accommodate the guest parking. Okay. Thank you. I'm glad that you've at least have those driveways. Um for staff, I have a question about the base density calculation and um what our comprehensive plan says. Uh so this might be a question for Mr. Yang. Um, if our comp plan had had a separate land use designation that wasn't just what is it single family residential but another category um that was specific to the re zone would then the same base density have been like is that is there a way to change for for the future? Um or hypothetically, if our comprehensive plan were written differently, um would the base density still be what it is at the seven was this unit? So um it is theoretically possible uh it's possible for the future to change our comprehensive plan to um have a a new and different land use designation uh that is lower in density for these sites. Um the uh issue is that that would be a

reduction in the density that we allow in our comprehensive plan for these sites. And if we're going to do that, it just it needs to be paired with a concurrent increase elsewhere. Uh we need to have a net even uh impact when we're making that. Sure, I understand. Okay. Thank you for that. I know that's not we can't do that tonight. I understand that. But I wanted to understand kind of um the law behind this. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Tippleton and Commissioner G.

Thank you. Um, I sort of split my applicant questions and my staff questions. So, um, these are mostly the staff side since I already had my applicant questions. Um, did our housing plan uh include a certain number of uh units to be built on this lot? This is not a housing element site. Thank you for clarifying that. That's very interesting. Um do we know why not? I mean it was a vacant lot.

There was there are number of components for justifying potential lots um developer interest and similar types of things in terms of the likelihood that something would redevelop within the next 8 years. And at that point we didn't have any indication of that for this lot. Um okay. Is there anything else to add or I'm I'm what I'm trying to get at is it seems like this is coming as a surprise to some of the neighbors and I'm I since we were looking everywhere and you know scrging for units to commit um it surprises me that this vacant lot that is being proposed for many units um was not considered and I I wonder if there was a reason why um a legal reason why and you're saying just people just didn't want to do it.

I I don't believe that there was a legal reason for not including it. Um there are a number of parcels that are currently coming through for redevelopment um that weren't housing element sites and those sites and those units do still count towards our housing element obligations. Um, and so yeah, sometimes there are parcels like this that weren't anticipated to be redeveloped. Um, but then somebody comes through based on a new understanding of state laws or or other opportunities. When was this property purchased by the current owner?

I don't have that date, but I believe it was probably about a year ago. Uh, I I think was when we started hearing um interest in redeveloping it. I remember watching it closely. I drive past past this lot often. Uh Mr. Yang, you you looked like you wanted to chime in. Did you have anything to add? Uh no, I was just going to confirm there's there's no legal reason that it was not on the housing inventory.

Okay. Um, Seph, uh, what what is what is your response to the, uh, claim by the public speaker that this project doesn't qualify for the bonuses it's seeking? That's not our understanding. So, I'm sure it's not. I just thought we could um all be on the same basis if you would take care to explain it. Thank you.

Um so I guess I'm curious what what in particular you're asking about uh in terms of not qualifying.

There was a public comment where they said that the number of units didn't um qualify for the bonuses that they're seeking. And um I want to understand that claim better. I was a public commenter. So it's not I don't have any more to say than that comment was made. But I think it had something to do with the eight versus the nine or something like that. Eight could be built, but nine is an exception that's being sought perhaps because of the um low um income unit. I'm not exactly sure. I thought I was hoping you would have followed that and be able to help clarify it.

Um I I recall the comment but I I don't really I can't say that I understand that we're not prepared to respond to it. Okay. Uh thank you for taking the time. Um you said earlier that um you were clarifying that um there were limitations on whether the city can approve or not approve a project and I wanted to um be more specific about that. Are the limitations on um the planning commission or the city council? I mean the planning commission does not approve or disapprove.

Exactly. Right. Thank you for clarifying that and agreeing. Um, okay. So, that's what we decide to do tonight will not affect whether the council I I I hate to go there, but again, like we keep being brought stuff that we're told we have to approve and we can't examine, and it's very frustrating, but I understand that is the limitations that the council has based on state law. Um, and I was wondering about the um re um designation um the zoning designation. You said that it has limitations for things that don't qualify for these kinds of state level overrides. Um if if there weren't state level overrides, how many units would be built on this lot? I can speak to that. Um, thank you. If the

if the applicant was not requesting density bonus um and being redeveloped at this density, then at most uh two units with um excluding accessory units, so accessory dwelling units. So at most or two family use.

Thank you. Um, what is the city's position on the fire hazards that were brought up by the neighbors? Um, I don't know if which if anybody here has been up and down those roads, but like the vice chair, I have been up there many times and it is terrifying in a car because there's a lot of um vehicles and it's very narrow, especially if there's oncoming traffic and I can only imagine what it's like for emergency vehicles. So, I would love to know the city's official position as a part of the review. Um, the fire department did review the project. Um, and did it review the whole neighborhood or only the part that belongs to the applicant?

Only the part that belongs to the applicant and streets. I definitely want to know if the neighborhood is safe um by the virtue of this development being done. if if it's a distinction and I I I just want to make sure we're speaking clearly to the concerns brought up by the public. So, the concerns are not the evaluation of this project. The concerns are, are these people going to die or lose their properties if a fire comes and nobody can get in? Was that evaluated?

Are is your concern that this project would be blocking access to the rest of the neighborhood? I am I am what I I know we can't respond directly to the public and that was a concern brought up. I don't have more details. Right. You heard what I heard. So um in response to that level of concern because this project doesn't propose any changes to the rest of the neighborhood. It really is um the changes are focused on that existing intersection at Old Trace Road. And

hold on. Is that is that accurate? Because I see here there's an an entrance onto Old Trace Road. So, it will be absolutely affecting the neighborhood. And that's that's exactly the area that I was just referencing. Um the the intersection where Old Trace Road uh meets up with Arrestero and this new road will be right there as well um in that area. So,

but it can't not affect Old Trace Road by its very nature of existing. So, I mean, that claim is just not true. And I don't think that's what you meant. So, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just want to clarify because I you're not seeing it. I'm seeing the reaction behind you. Um, so the the the question and and I apologize. I'm I'm trying to be expedient because I don't want to be here all night and I apologize. I'm jumping in on both of you guys. What I'm what I'm trying to say is there is a concern that was expressed tonight that our good intentions are not the same thing as implementation. There's there's a concern that people are going to get in the way of emergency vehicles and that could be threatening to life and property. And so how I want to understand what was the scope of what was evaluated by the fire department and if it was not extensive enough or is there an opportunity for us to evaluate that further to reassure our neighbors? Understood. And so what I'm hearing from that is that the concern is that vehicles from these new homes, proposed new homes, could try to exit out through Old Trace Road, and that that would clog and block potential emergency access or others trying to um evacuate. or grandma from out of town doesn't know the rules and parks in a way that somehow

right I mean interferes and so um I think maybe Nishita if you could clarify the right of way space and what changes are proposed there thank you appreciate it you had asked about the um scope that was evaluated by the fire department um as I mentioned before we uh the fire department evaluated the private street specifically that was proposed as a part of this application um as well as the adjacent um streets. So, Arashadero for the segment or the frontage of the property um and Old Trace Road again along the frontage of the subject property. So, not the whole road, just the part. Okay, that is my understanding. Um but I'm happy to go back and clarify.

No, that's okay. I'm following. Yeah, the uh in regards to the fire access um one of the reasons the red striping um was considered along um the old trace segment um and also along the private street was to designate that so there's no parking allowed um and I believe the ride ofway the width of the vehicular rideway is 30 ft um and the 40 ft is the um is inclusive of pedestrian right of way that will be um is a part of the um improvements that will be that are proposed as a part of the applicant's um proposal.

And do we anticipate insurance companies disagreeing with you?

I would not have much background on that um but happy to look into it further. Well, I I would suggest that we need to understand that definitively before proceeding with this project because if we are able to build um what is proposed and it deprivives several dozen other homeowners of security and insurance over their property. We need to understand that and we need to understand why would an insurance company make those denials and would it be about safety and if we don't have the answer to that as a city we need to understand like the dynamics here because it is a a good project but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's it's part of this community that already exists and that has already been threatened by fire and insurance companies already. Um okay. So then um the last question I have is um just to to get a little bit more detail. I apologize. I know you've answered this several different ways, but can you describe this eight or nine situation? There's eight homes can be built on this lot, but we're seeing nine that are proposed. What's that about?

Absolutely. I can clarify. Thank you. Um the base density, as the applicant mentioned, um is seven dwelling units per acre. Okay. Um and that when this this is like just over an acre, so 1.02 um that's, you know, multiplied by seven um brings us to um eight, it's like 7.16. So I think the way the density was calculated um based on uh the code is 7.16 is rounded up to eight. So we would set that base density at 8. And then as a part of their application they're proposing one density bonus unit. Um and that would be bring it up to nine single family residences. Um

and then we're adding a bunch of Jedus correct as well. That's correct. Yeah. and state density bonus states that the Jedus do not count towards the base density even though they count towards the overall count of units on site. Do we as a city um have any position on this? Is this something that we are talking about with the state legislature at all? It's okay if we're not. I'm just asking question. Is there any in terms of the ADUs in terms of any of this? Like we're talking about a one we have a seven units per acre and we're about to put 16 on this one acre.

Uh not on this specifically. Okay. So, um just to clarify uh my question for anybody who may be watching, I'm trying to understand there's certain things the city works with the state legislature and or lobbies for and it was a question about whether any of that is ongoing. Um, okay. Thank you for answering. Those are my questions for now. I appreciate everybody's patience. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner G.

Thank you. Uh, I also split my questions for the applicant and staff. So, now I'm going to have some questions for staff. This might be a Mr. Yang question. Um, most of the maps that we see are vesting tentive maps. Can you tell me the difference between a vesting tentive map and just a tentive map?

Sure. uh a vesting tenative map um freezes a number of things on the date that that application was complete and so uh it freezes the the city's policies and standards so that if we adopt something new after that date it can't be applied to the vesting tenative map. Um these days with SB 330 um there's not really much need for the vesting part of vesting tenant maps. Many applicants still use that format. Uh I think probably mostly out of habit.

Okay. Thank you. And then I was wondering if staff could comment on packet page 22 uh on finding or section five. There's a reference to the fact that Baron Creek is approximately 230 ft northwest, but a public commenter had said that that's incorrect. So I was wondering if we don't have to find the answer right now, but I was just wondering if maybe in in the future revision staff could double check if that's the correct number. Um yeah, the um this number I pulled from the GIS records, but if it is incorrect, I can go back and take a look at it.

Okay, thank you. I just want to make sure that we're responsive to the public comment on this. And then I had another question uh which is for as Mr. Yang had mentioned at the beginning that we need to have specific written objective health standards. Do we know what those are for fire safety since that seems to be something that's brought up a lot? I don't have them at the moment. Um but something to go back and discuss with fire

and since the fire department did review the project for the applicable standards um staff feels that has found that it is consistent with those that there if there were um some of their written standards that it was inconsistent with we would have included that as a specific concern for discussion.

Thank you. I think that there's a lot of concern about fire safety amongst those on the commission as well as those in the public. So, I think it could be interesting in the future to potentially include that information in the packet. Um, or if for for example, we need new fire standards because, for example, this area wasn't as dense before, now has more density, maybe we need to look into making some changes to the objective health standard. So, that's just kind of speculation, but I I was just curious about that. Um, and then I had a question. I guess this is a little bit either for the the applicant or for transportation staff. So I'm looking at C1.2 and the applicant. You've mentioned that people can park on the driveway, right? So I'm looking at lots 8, 9, 6, and 7 that share that shared driveway in the middle, right? So, if let's say like is is it my understanding that this shared utility easement is where the driveway is or am I just reading this incorrectly?

Yeah, lots um lots six through nine um have the shared driveway. Uh we are exploring potentially putting some parking at the end of that um area, but these particular units do not have driveway parking. It's the other um the other five. Okay. Yeah. So, just to clarify here, right? So, person living in lot seven and eight can't really park their car there because if they did park it there, you could not physically access lots six and nine. Is that correct?

Correct. Yes. Um, and then one other thing that I was curious about and I'm I'm wondering if transportation staff has looked into this potentially, which is we're talking a lot about traffic congestion at Old Trace Road and one of the mitigation measures that we've seen is to prevent right turns into whatever we'll call the inside development U-shape. Have we thought about just making that a oneway like say hey uh for example the direction of traffic to reduce uh backup on old trace road is to funnel all of the people out through the development and I don't know if I'm describing this in in an understandable way. Sorry. One way in which

Oh, wait. Is there a way we could pull this diagram up so I could reference it? Sam, uh, C 1. Sure, we can use C1.2. It's the third sheet of the plan set.

I just worry if people would be able to get to 280. It only goes towards town. So,

um, yeah, this this is good enough. Uh, I will draw what I'm thinking about, but I think Commissioner Templeton has mentioned an interesting point, but I will draw what I'm thinking about here and then curious if transportation staff has additional things uh to comment on. Um, okay. So, okay. So, what I'm imagining, right, is that people who live here on Old Trace Road are worried about something like this, like the backup that will occur onto Old Trace Road. And one thing that we've done is we've said okay actually no you cannot do this like this is banned right you cannot right turn onto this road right and so one way to fix this potentially is to say hey like why don't we just make this whole road here just one way that way and so then you would not get the what is I think what the neighbors have described as a 50% increase in the neighborhood going through old trace road right you would have everyone funnel through this output And also the there is an ask for the road to be narrower for the lanes. And well, if you only make it one lane road, you no longer need to ask for an exemption because the the I'm assuming the road is already whatever width that satisfies one lane.

Um, I may need to ask one of my colleagues who was more in the details when uh of all the different options that were considered. Um, I can also speak to this um because it was definitely considered if you'd like.

So, the issue with the one way is that there's a the median and so you can't turn left and then turning. So, you'd have to turn right, which then everybody that needs to go the opposite direction is going to be either you turning or doing something unsafe. So the thought being that you have two um two exits which is going to split the traffic. So everybody who is going towards Foothill Expressway will likely use the um the that egress. If you're going left you'd go the opposite direction. So, I mean that should split the amount of cars that are um that are egressing during peak hours, but we didn't want to I mean it it just wasn't practical given the median that's there, but it's also wouldn't be as safe having a um unprotected I mean it's not a totally protected intersection, but at least you have it actually sort of where designated intersection at Old Trace Road. And one more um thing to consider is that the 20 ft is required according to fire code. So it's not actually a transportation.

So which which 20 ft are you? The 20 ft of the street if you are thinking of dropping the size of that. We can't drop it any further because of the fire code and that is an example of a health and safety code that you were looking for earlier. Thank you. Um those are my questions for now chair. Um, and I'll just note that some of the discussion about uh making the uh private street one way uh occurred at the ARB meeting. So I presume there has been followup to respond to those comments. Commissioner James.

Um um okay. So lots of questions about that about that road. I think I think they've mostly been answered. You you just said I'm sorry Miss Armor. You just said that that was an the 20 uh minimum is an example of objective written health and safety code. Correct. Because that's in the fire code.

And I believe I just want to make sure my understanding is correct that the fire department did an on-site look at this. We seem to be talking about two things here sometimes like the fire access to the interior road and then the fire ingress eress or egress um from the neighborhood. And I just want to make sure I understand that the fire department um concluded and to our satisfaction to the staff satisfaction that the 20 foot uh interior driveway was um adequate for their fire trucks. Yes, that's correct.

So, they they said it's fine. It doesn't uh exceed or violate the objective uh design standard for health and safety. Okay, that's correct.

Okay. Um can I move on please to a question about the density bonus? um uh you know it's it's being used the the um uh the the deed restricted sale of a 100% AMI unit as I understand it um allows for nine housing units uh or the bonus of one over the the maximum zoning of family units. Um, and on page, but I was a little confused about on page 55 under incentives and concessions, um, the the the language here, I just wasn't sure I completely understood. The applicant anticipates requesting incentive, uh, related to the size of the affordable housing unit planned on lot 9. That's pretty straightforward. Um, this will be requested and developed during the streamlined housing permit process and is reserved at this time. And what I'm trying to understand is is it seems like there's is the the size of that ninth unit is it pinned down at any point? In other words, like if if it's if it's the basis of of the whole density bonus, should it be finite how big that unit is or is that sort of to be determined later? Is my question clear? Um

yeah. Yeah.

So um it will be determined later. Um the the density bonus law requires a certain percentage of the units to be provided at an affordable rate. Uh and the amount of bonus density that you get depends on how many units you're providing and and how deep the affordability is. Uh the density bonus law doesn't speak to what what form those affordable units need to take. Um and we uh there's guidance from HCD that a developer can request uh we do as a city have a local standard that says your your affordable units need to be comparable to your market rate units. Um but HDD has app that a developer can request a concession uh to modify that requirement so that uh the affordable unit can be be different from the market units.

So it counts as one and there's no consideration for the square footage. There's not.

And is there a legal way to to compel that? I mean, I what I'm what I'm saying is you get there's a there's a lot of advantages that comes with the um the density bonus. All of these um revisions and concessions and and things come from that. And is there any protection against I'm not suggesting the applicant would do this but it's a hypothetical from that unit becoming the size of an ADU and all of the density bonuses still convey but there's a very uh not not comparable uh uh adjusted income unit.

I'm sorry I said that haltingly. Did you did you follow my question? I I understand. Uh so um there really aren't those sorts of standards in the state law. Uh particularly for ownership units. Um there are some more limitations uh when you have a rental project.

Um but not for ownership. Um, I don't know that I can do this, but would the applic can we ask the applicant if they would be willing to agree that to our city standard that it would be comparable to the other uh for sale units? I mean comparable is a you know a big broad general word but

um we would not be willing to commit to that. That's why we've asked for an incentive and concession for that standard. Um can we ask the applicant if they have an idea what the size would be? No, I'm asking Mr. Yang basically is like you sort of like just kind of or procedural Miss Armor like what is the um do they have in mind? Uh how how so through the chair you may allow additional questions of the applicant if you'd like.

As yes as far as I'm concerned um Miss Griswald is still standing here ready to answer our questions. So, uh, if you would like to ask, uh, what she's interested and willing to do, seems appropriate. Yep. I am. Consider that the question.

You know, I do not have the exact um square footages of what lot 9 is proposed at. I believe that and I'm just going off of memory that um six and seven were approximately 2600 square ft each and uh sorry uh yeah 6 and 7 20 uh 620 and lot uh 9 was in the realm of 1,800 and lot 9 was approximately 1,500 ft. So, it was smaller, but it was a um still I think a three-bedroom approximately unit.

Yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you. Don't we have a Don't we have a slide? It has the green dashes on it. I think maybe Mr. Tar is pulling that up. No, I I think that staff actually has a slide with the numbers, right? with the actual it was a chart and it had square footages for everything and it had a green dash line around lot nine or whatever in dish's presentation it's on slide four thank you thanks Mr. I think that's the net lot area though. That's not the actual square footage of the homes and because the square footage of the homes is still actually under development right now. So,

and not in front of us. Correct. Sorry, that that that's all for now. All right, we've had a quite an extensive round of clarifying questions, but we can uh Miss Grisol, thank you. You may return to your seat if you like. And thank you for your time. Commissioners, uh general discussion. Commissioner Templeton,

thank you. Um, generally I'm I'm interested in this project. I've been watching this lot for many years while it sat uh and and it was pricey and I always wondered what was going to be built on it. So, I'm I'm excited to see that things are um underway. Um I'm I'm frustrated that um It's not more in line with the neighboring properties, but it's not my property. So, uh, the the my takeaway from this whole thing is if there's a giant empty lot in your neighborhood, snap it up because this is right now what the state law allows. And it's very frustrating, I can imagine, for those who live nearby. Um the the way that our um understanding of safety is concerned only with the lot itself and not with how it integrates uh and affects the neighbors is something I hope that the city will think about in the future because um in my mind the analogy that's that's coming forth is uh the smoking section in a restaurant. I don't know if any of you guys are old enough to remember. Uh but you know, it oozes out into the non-smoking section. And that's kind of what I hear the neighbors complaining about here is that there are going to be um repercussions that exceed the lot boundaries, right, that go beyond and affect them. So, it's up to us to figure out why we don't have laws on the books that protect them. Um, I also am extremely concerned about the threat of

um, losing their homeowners insurance because of this development. And I don't think any of our laws have considered that, but that's um, feels like a big liability for the city. So, we have to think about how um we can demonstrate that we're protecting their safety to the satisfaction of the insurance companies which are all beyond the neighbors control, beyond our control, beyond the applicant's control. Um and yet are doing millions of dollars of business in in our city. And we have to understand what that means. Um in terms of the tenative map um you know I my understanding from staff and I'll reiterate the question is we have limited options. Is that correct? Or do we are we able to go in and say no you should probably only have two lots two houses on this lot. I assume that's not

correct. We have limited options. Okay. Well, um I'm very concerned with how this will affect the safety of the Araser road. I understand you guys are working on that. Um, I drive that road on a regular basis about twice a day um to get my kids to school and I regularly encounter students that are um biking and walking home from Fletcher and Gun across uh Foothill and down this road. And I think about um we're adding some complications. I appreciate that you're working with the applicant to minimize the distractions and the confusion, but this is already a really weird area. Right. The next one down there is Miranda, I think. And it's um is that the right do I have the right name? An M road that's right off of Foothill. And people are always stopping short so they can turn left and get in there. It's just it's a terrifying space. um and to be adding in 16 more uh dwelling units um is something that gives me pause. So, uh that's kind of where I'm at right now and I appreciate the neighbors coming out and speaking about their concerns and helping us really amplify uh the um your voices in this discussion. I hope that the city is talking with them. I hope also the neighbors will open up a line of communication to the developer if that's if that's something that u that might benefit you. So that's my comments at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner G.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I think that it's pretty clear from the cl the questions round how many of the commissioners feel. I really want to applaud the neighbors for coming out tonight. It's a it's a pretty impactful project to your daily livelihood, to the fire safety, to just your neighborhood. And I think it's really important to come out for this. And I personally know the direct impacts of parking overflow as many of the commissioners know. Um that's something that impacts my thinking quite a bit. And as staff has previously stated, the PTC's role here is pretty limited in what we can do. But I think that there are very many troubling components of the current project. I think it's a bit of a fallacy to assume that people just won't have cars in this area. While certain areas of Paul Alto have a significant portion of people who bike to work, I believe that Chair Akin has previously referred to the fact that most tech workers live maybe like 8 to 10 miles away from where they work and they often switch jobs every two years. I myself wouldn't be included in that. And I just think it's pretty unrealistic to assume that you could live in this neighborhood without a vehicle, especially with the limited amount of parking provided, for example, lots 6 through 9 with the driveway and also guest parking. Right. In addition, I do want to talk about the

the analysis for the Jedus. I think it's pretty silly to say that Jedus on average will cause zero drips. It's pretty similar to how Pam the spray says it has zero calories, right? Pam has zero calories because the serving size is one quarter of a second of spray. Anyone who uses Pam knows that you are probably not using one quarter of a second of spray of Pam, right? And to round all of the traffic generated by the Jedus to zero and then saying that seven Jedu units will still continue to generate zero trips, I think is is a bit of a pipe dream in terms of transportation. And my neighborhood has a lot of ADUs in the back. Those were mostly grandfathered in when the project was first built. And each of those tenants has a vehicle, right? And I don't live a mile and a half from a bus station, right? I live much closer to town compared to this neighborhood. And so I'm pretty concerned about that. I will applaud the transportation department for looking into the various mechanisms here. I think that as a consolation for this project, we can try to impose as many of the transportation improvements that we'd like to see for this area. Um, but with that, uh, I don't have any additional comments except for that our hands are pretty pretty much tied here in terms of what the PTC can do.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Vice Chair Chang. Uh, so I just want to thank the neighbors also for coming out. Appreciate hearing your public comments. They were very valuable. Um, I'm going to start by saying what I'm glad to see in this project because it's, you know, if the project were somewhere else, it could be a great project, but um, where it is, it's, you know, truly looking for a silver lining. So, I'm glad to see that there's going to be some bike ped improvements like the sidewalk and the rapid flashing beacon. Um, glad that there's some multigener multigenerational units. Glad that there's some affordability there for one unit. Um, glad that the developer is amendable to naming the new streets uh in a way that is contextually valuable. And we should add that as an explicit condition of approval. Um my overriding concern on this, sure there are concerns regarding um you know ingress and ingress onto air with 16 more units, but you know I I think I do sort of buy that the amount of traffic caused by that is not necessarily overwhelming. There's much much much more traffic. um just caused by some of the office right across the street. You know, if they if they change their work from home policies, that will drive that will drive a much larger change. That said, I think the overriding concern for me for this development is building homes in the wildlife urban interface. We know that this is a problem. Um, I also I grew up in Los Altos Hills, so I

I also remember multiple um, you know, like fire where you're on call for potential evacuation. And as the neighbor said, it happened in recent memory. And so it happened uh what, 40 years ago when climate change was not nearly as severe as it is now. So, it's only going to increase and all Californians, I think everybody in this room who has a homeowners insurance policy has felt the impact of what's going on. Um, I believe I I haven't looked at the map, but I believe that this neighborhood is in sort of a higher risk zone that affects their ability to get insurance. And I'm very concerned about both their ability to get insurance, but more importantly whether they're insured or not, their ability to get out if there's a fire. And so, um, this is ongoing, you know, once the development is built, but we also know that with construction of just one unit on any street, there's a tremendous impact in terms of number of vehicles. as the um public commenters mentioned and you cannot park on Aristadero. It is way too narrow. It is only two lanes. It is scary to drive on, but it it would you you literally cannot park. You would impede traffic. So, I don't know where those cars are going to go for construction. Uh and if it's we've got red curbs right along the frontage of the property on Old Trace Road, well, people are still going to have to park somewhere. the only other places further up Old Trace Road or maybe on a different street and then thereby like causing the ingress egress evacuation problem for the other street. So on a short-term basis, the construction I I I don't know what

they're going to do regarding the vehicles. Like you can certainly have mitigation measures where you're going to have construction workers travel in from somewhere else, but dump trucks and all those trucks, you can't park them somewhere else and move the materials in. There's literally nothing else that can be done. And so I think that's something that we're going to have to look at. And usually that would be in the conditions of approval. Is that correct, Steph? Okay. So let's make sure that that gets addressed. And I understand that there's timing of this um this process where we have to vote when there the conditions of approval we know are not finalized. Um but so in terms of safety for this project, my hangup is not on um the traffic generated, it's the parking generated. And I know that our state allows us to use certain assumptions and traffic consultants use certain assumptions, but again, it's a pipe dream. As one of my fellow commissioners just said, this area has no public transit as or very limited public transit as our public commenters mentioned. I mean, we the gun high school students struggle to get to school. Um but saying that there's you know this wonderful bike path across the street is that works if you're traveling towards the flats like if you're traveling towards El Camino. It does not work so well if you're traveling towards uh 280 because there's a giant hill there. There's also so you'd have to be really fit in order to go up that way. And the only people who I ever see go up that path are people who are recreationally biking. um you know they'll go up a little bit but then for transportation like gun high school students but the only other people I see are in spandex and mountain bikes or road that's that's what that path is

used for it's not really used for transportation to get things um and similarly along one side of road that goes straight up a hill so this is not a bike friendly neighborhood the way the rest of Palo Alto is. And so I find that some of the things that the applicant said were a bit tonedeaf in terms of understanding what we're really talking about in this neighborhood. Like the public art uh public art doesn't enhance a corridor where we're trying to enhance nature. Extra lighting doesn't enhance the corridor either because we've all talked about how in the areas um past Foothill we want to minimize lighting. And so I encourage the developer to understand that this part there's a dramatic character change uh in Palo Alto as you cross federal expressway and that really the reason why this property was zoned re is to make it more like Los Altos Hills zoning. This is the edge of Powalto and really is much more like Los Altos Hills than the rest of Palo Alto. And so I think in communic you know a lot of the uh density bonus and state laws I'm I'm really disappointed in how they're affecting uh areas like this because this is not it doesn't serve our state to put extra housing in these areas. It increases congestion, increases wildfire risk. Um and it it's not affordable either, right? because of the the nature of the housing, there's no transportation. So, um I'm not I'm not thrilled about

this project at all, and I'm just going to leave my comments there. Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh Commissioner G, you have a followup. Go ahead. I'll go after you. I want you to make sure you get chance to go in this round. Uh actually very few of us have gone this round. Um but I can make a few comments. Um how many of my fellow commissioners are old enough to know the word? What's the word?

Bivet. So um Bivet's World War II slang means 10 pounds of stuff in a fiveb bag. Uh, for me, this project is definitely oblivid. Um, but that's not what we're called upon to pass judgment on tonight. So, uh, I trust that most of the issues have already been brought up by the ARB and are being addressed to the extent that they can be addressed. Um the general comment I would make though is that this is the sort of project that exposes really fundamental limitations of our laws. Um if I had to generalize it as much as I could, I'd say it it's anything that deals with cumulative impacts beyond the scope of an individual project. And we've spent a lot of time talking about safety uh both transportation and fire safety in this particular context. Um but it happens in other cases as well. Um unfortunately we don't have the tools to deal with those impacts and so we are forced to make a decision tonight in that absence. Um, I could talk about other specifics, but I don't think there's um much to add uh to what my fellow commissioners have already said. So, I will yield the floor to whoever would like to speak next.

Uh, I'm not sure about the order. Commissioner Hecman, James, and then G. Uh, I was ready to make a motion, but I want to let everyone else if there's more discussion to be had. Yeah, I haven't made any comments yet. I've only asked questions. Sorry, that's my bad.

Y um and a couple of the other commissioners don't know if they have any comments to make or not. Um, so but I would like to weigh in a little bit, but I appreciate that when it's time to go, uh, you're on it. Um so uh uh first of all I I also um as many of my fellow commissioners did I want to to thank the neighbors for coming out um for u taking the time to um illuminate us on on your concerns and I will say that that I would hope and expect that um you'll take that same energy uh to our city council. Um uh everything I'm about I don't want it anything I'm about to say to be misinterpreted as uh an indication that I think this project is uh a good fit in this location. Um, I don't um I do think it's compatible because it's a residential use and so it's not like putting a machine shop next to your area, but the the dens the density even though um it's technically low density. It's quite a bit different from the very low density 1acre houses uh that you all enjoy. And so I I appreciate the the uh impact that that has particularly because this location is is really it's the gateway to your neighborhood. Um um many of the commissioners and I have you know referenced are really limited scale tonight uh because we're just looking at cutting up a square into pieces and so many of the things that we have discussed and

wanted to discuss tonight really aren't directly um related to that issue. And so I'm going to um hope that that we're going to take perhaps a slightly different approach tonight than we did the last time we had uh a tenative map under similar circumstances. I'm hoping what we will do here is because I believe we are legally constrained to recommend approval of this and that should be our recommendation to council but council is getting more than the map they're ging they're getting the housing application and so the concerns we have that almost everyone has expressed I'm hoping that the form of our motion is recommend approval of the map but these are our concerns to make sure the council is aware of them as for example they look at the absence of guest parking right which really doesn't have to do with the tenative map but it has something to do with the um the housing uh approval that the council will be facing and whether or not the council can do something about it that's up to them but I want to give them a recommendation they can follow rather than one we know they can't um I do want to uh express uh appreciation of the applicant Um, you know, the stop at the ARB is um it can be a formality where where thank you for your input, we're going to ignore all of it and and they have the right to do that here. I don't know if they had a little concern about some of the safety findings, but even if they did, I think I was impressed by their responsiveness and and the various ways that they have really uh looked at um

making uh addressing the safety concerns uh both for their new residents and for the existing residents not only up trace but you know uh people traveling up and down rastero. So, so I I want to acknowledge that is that wasn't required. That was, you know, people really trying to make it work. Um um I um I understand why this needs to be a two-way road and I agree with that. U uh that makes a lot of sense. But I think that I had a a little question about this no right turn from Arstrader into the subdivision. Um, and and because if that's true, then really at that end past the last driveway, it's a one-way street. And so the first question I had is is if that curb, if that corner is not designed right, and I I I think you're still wrestling with this. Perhaps people will still try to make that right turn, but because it's weird and they'll they're turning like, you know, 270 or whatever that is, 135°, they'll actually slow more and and that'll actually be worse. And so I'm hoping that again, this is not really in the map because this is all part of I think it's called lot 10. What whatever bulb out is there is lot 10. But I hope you really think about that. You know, if it is one way, do not enter sign, right? something uh could be done. But I also was wondering if that curb, even though people aren't supposed to enter there, is it going to be a rollover curb so a firetruck can? Cuz that could be another consideration. And and again, usually when I bring things up, staff has already had a halfhour conversation about it and I know that. And so, uh I just um mentioning it on the off chance that you haven't. Um I am concerned

about the the guest parking. Um I just the reality is um that you know somebody's going to have a party and what's going to happen but that's not on our plate because that's not really part of cutting up this square into 10 pieces. I'm also not thrilled that um Hexagon, which is generally a um excellent, highly respected traffic consultant, um would state that that no traffic is anticipated from the Jedus. Um I think they could have more accurately said it will be negligible because I think that would be accurate particularly in the scope of this which is again with the the main houses nine of them are only generating seven peak trips in I can't remember AM or PM and six in the other way and so you know whatever the J8US prepare uh provide it will be you know even less than that it won't be even though there are seven of them. It will not be the same as, you know, nine houses. Um um I just want to respond a little bit to what the the neighbors had to say. You know, the the impression I got um from, you know, the the traffic concerns expressed is you're already traces a road that doesn't seem to satisfy you. Now, it's like you've already got problems with it, but my impression is those are your problems and you're okay with that, but what is scaring you is now this thing that you don't control is going to potentially exacerbate that. And and I, you know, I I don't disagree that that's a legitimate concern to have. I would point out I think that the group speaker

pointed out said perhaps facitiously we got 29 lots up there and the you know as time passes you get four houses per lot with you know the various state laws and so you know if actually you do the math on that I I I thought you were being facitious but it's so but that would be you know 116 lots I don't expect that'll ever happen but I think what you can reasonably expect in the fullness of time is is every one of those homes or the an average of every one of those homes is going to add an ADU or JDU, right? And so,

okay, uh this is this is a time to for me to speak and the the audience needs to listen. Um so, so um um I I think this is u something that is worth the city looking into more long term. Um because as this continues to happen, there's, you know, more units down those deadend streets. Um um does there need to be uh and this would be very challenging, some kind of back connecting street. Um the fire, you know, fire department, county fire department under state law in the state fire areas requires when you're out a certain distance, depending on the lot sizes, that you actually need a new secondary access to loop around. Um and so, you know, maybe um this is something we need to look at trace as it becomes more dense over time. Um, so I think that those are um my my comments. I I do think that our um our fire department uh did their duty of studying this to make sure the objective standards u um were met and that this would be safe. And I do think that our staff did their duty of um reviewing the the traffic report uh to make sure our transportation department uh found it at you know adequate and comprehensive. And so I am uh notwithstanding the concerns that this is not ideal and the worried that this could be a template for something that could happen on another 1.2 acre lot farther down old trace. Um um I'm supportive of the staff recommendation

um without really any comments on the record of land use uh approval. I thought that that was uh well written except um now that I remember it the um uh uh perhaps adding into condition of approval number four the deed restriction which I think is where it would most appropriately go because uh condition number four is below market rate BMR housing. So, since the applicant has indicated they're agreeable to it, um that's where I think um it would go and that is um again I'm not clear whether that is um part of the tenative map or really just something for the council to be aware of in their view of that housing um aspect. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner James. Well, I'm going to be brief. Um my um because I'm pretty sure nobody wants to hear much more about how constrained we are legally um to only um find that this shouldn't be approved. Tenative map shouldn't be approved if it if there are objective written um health and safety standards. that's the the state has taken everything else. Um, and we don't always like that because, you know, we're we're interested in the qualitative nature of our community, not just the quantitative u numbers of housing, even though I think we all we all want, you know, thoughtful, you know, growth. I think, you know, I think we all acknowledge um and this is, you know, this is really sort of these these two interests are rubbing up against each other. It's it's not lost on me that all of the residents or I assume of that neighborhood uh are self- selected, you know, and and want to live in a certain way um with a certain uh amount of space and privacy and um they've either chosen to buy or build there um for those for those reasons. And this is something very different and I my heart goes out to you. Um I think we we are terribly constrained here by a series of uh state laws. Uh someone um suggested that it could become a template. I assure you from a conference that commissioner G and I attended in Los Los Angeles, it has been a template. It is a template. This is well known and uh um

developers are being encouraged by the state to do this. This is what all the laws uh make um desirable and um um and it's legal and it's encouraged and um I'm sorry that it is um an affront to you uh personally um um but I really see very little room for us to to navigate here um unless we could find an objective written standard um that is a health safety violation. So that's that's what I have to say. Thank you, Commissioner James. Any final comments before we go to motion making?

Vice Chair Ch.

So, um maybe I should wait. I'll just I'll say what I hoping that we can do. Um and then we'll see if it works on the motion. Um but I had mentioned at the very beginning when I was asking um councelor Yang about if there were certain changes to our comp plan, could we avoid things like this in the future where there may not be an easy way to have a written standard about fire safety, for example. But if we had in our comp plan uh called out rather than just saying single family residential with density ranging from 1 to 7. I mean I think when this comp plan was written we weren't anticipating the um like torrent of state new state laws that would be coming towards us. And so I think it's something that should be considered because in our city's great wisdom when we initially created the re zones I think it was kind of looking at these areas as a transition but also because of fire risk. So, I really wonder if perhaps we need to create some sort of fire risk zone. Um, and then that way it might avoid this problem that is really causing some financial distress for our state. And I think that maybe we could include a recommendation that council eventually looks at this because this project is uh is highlighting the issue for us. Thanks. Last call for comments before a motion.

Commissioner G, would you like to give it a shot?

Sure. We'll we'll see how this motion goes. It's un based on our our history with the last one. It's we'll we'll see how this goes. So, I would like to move the staff recommendation with the following amendments. I would like to include on condition of approval number four, the deed restriction that Commissioner Hecman had mentioned that under condition number six, the street naming that we work with the Palto Historical Association and potentially the neighbors. I don't know how much discussion we have over that about the naming. um that for items 8 and 41 through 48 41 through 48 that the developer work with the office of transportation to include all of the transportation improvements that we also work in items 50 and 51 that the plan be revised in accordance with the public works engineering standards that we have a construction management plan I believe that in 36 606. We did have one, but um want to make sure that's included. that uh we also want the council to look into our objective fire safety standards, fire insurance andor fire risk zone that we may want the council to look into uh impacts of guest parking and JADU parking for this project and potentially density our density numbers for our comp plan. Um, so that was a mouthful. Um, I hope I captured most of what everyone said and I'm happy to take amendments, but this is what I heard from the discussion. And then I had one question for staff, which is this is in the area east of Foothill. So do we know if for example other nature-based mitigation measures to the dark skies

would apply to a project like this or are they waving that? So the the dark sky regulations would apply. Uh, sorry. I just want to jump in to say we would need to take a look at the date on which their SB330 preliminary application came in and the effective dates of those ordinances. Thank you. Good point.

Yeah, that's not part of the motion anyway, but I just wanted to ask that since um Yeah. Okay. So, does does anyone have anything you want to add or does staff feel like I need to repeat myself? Yeah. Can we have a version written somewhere so that or or does staff want to read it back so that everyone knows what they're seconding to and or voting for because it was a long list of things and that it'll get to council in that form. Um I Nishita I don't know if you've got it written out and want to give it a try. I could No. Okay. Let me I caught the second half but the first half is a little jumbled.

Well so um so then I'll start with the the first part. Um there was the addition to the condition of approval number four uh to specify deed restriction for the BMR unit. Uh condition number six clarifying the street naming um that they need to work with PaloAlto Historical Association and potentially neighbors if that is feasible. Then you started, I believe you were talking about conditions of approval 8 and 41 through 48, uh, making sure that all of the transportation improvements are included. Condition of approvals 50 and 51, um, that it be revised to be consistent with the public works requirements. that uh the project should have a construction management plan. I will note that that would be part of the conditions of approval for the housing itself rather than the map, but we can include that in this list of your recommendations here. And then there were a number of things that you listed um which my understanding are items that the PTC would be recommending council consider in the future. Um things uh I will start but you might have a more complete list. Um looking at fire safety standards, fire risk and insurance. Uh looking at parking requirements for ADUs, which state law may actually override that.

Uh and guest parking. I think that was another one that was inclusive of that. Um, I was actually wondering if maybe there's a different way to frame this because I feel like for the things that we want to look into the future, for example, the absence of guest parking isn't something that council can really do anything about, but is something that was mentioned quite a bit amongst the commissioners as part of the discussion. Like, is there a way that we could fold that in as something that is just concerning to like that the PTC discussed, but I just want to include in the motion, but isn't something for council to look into in the future?

Okay. Yes, that we could. So, a modification would be the looking into guest parking. Um, instead of that as a future action item, it's just uh the PTC expressed concern about um sufficiency of ga guest parking.

Guest than yeah, guest and Jedu parking. And then also one thing that's not listed here is uh like I don't know really know how to describe it, but it's like compounding neighborhood impacts. That was something that both the chair and a couple other commissioners mentioned. I don't know if anyone wanted to modify the language on that. I think the chair had a good wording usage there. Yeah, that's rough. That's a a long-term code update project, but um the uh concern I had there was cumulative impacts outside the scope of individual projects.

So that would be included in the things for council to take a look at in the future. And then also the the density item that vice chair Chen had mentioned. I don't know if that was captured as well. Do you mean by that the potential changes to the comprehensive plan because this is a playbook? Yeah. Yeah. All right. Shall we start from the top again to list everything or is this do people feel comfortable or is there an understanding discussion? The only the only thing that I noted that I wanted to make sure um we captured was with regard to fire safety standards. I think I heard the word objective. Let's include that.

If that's not included, it probably should be. Do you have a second? Uh we I think we have more comments here. Just Yeah, before the second so that it's easier to change it. Um u in the in the motion uh commissioner it looked like 6 8 41 to 48 and 50 51 you're just wanting those things to happen. Yes. So I'm just expressing that those were things that were brought up in either public comment just to emphasize that those occur.

Okay. All right. So just just so staff has that and I think that the only change we're suggesting to the conditions of approval is the number four. That's where where some additional language would go to require the the deed restriction. Yeah. And potentially at the pleasure of the commission for item six, like if if possible to work with the neighbors on the naming of the street. Otherwise, like I'm I'm happy to throw that out too for for that. And for the other ones, I think what we could list is just that there was uh interest or concern, the appropriate word, uh expressed by the PTC on those topics to make sure that they were I'm happy with that.

Yeah. Uh if you're you probably should use the mic just so we get it on the record. And the HRB can be the people responsible for working with the public about naming, right? Yeah. if they're going to be part of it. Great. Thank you. I'm happy with that unless anyone else wants to add anything. Uh, Vice Chair Ch.

Um, so regarding the fire objective standards, again, I don't know how it was phrased, but I think it's pretty important that we're talking about cumulative or impacts out beyond this property, right? because we are we we looked at the project or the fire department reviewed the project but not necessarily everything. I almost want to say just thinking about previous projects in this one that we're talking about area plans for parts of the city that don't have a specific area plan like why are we not thinking about neighborhoods and things like that as an area plan uh because the whole city's not covered with them. But area plans are great for parts that are in it or

or right because they're part of the comp plan. And I think that's the thing is that we need that in the comp plan or as an objective standard. Um I did have some pretty specific edits to the findings because I think that the findings are overly optimistic and favorable given how we are all feeling about this. So you look at packet page 21 um for finding number two. I would want to edit that a little bit so that the last sentence just says the project contributes to the housing inventory rather than the project proposes infill development zoned at an appropriate density. I would just say the project contributes to the housing inventory. Um so I would add that as an amend amendment if the maker is I

I accept that. Okay. And then uh I think that I think that was the biggest one. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Are we ready for a second? It appears that we are. Um seeing no other no one else jumping to it, I will second. All right. Uh, Commissioner Hecman, yes. Uh, Commissioner Templeton, yes. Commissioner James, yes.

Commissioner Peterson, yes. Uh, Commissioner G, yes. Vice Chair Chang, yes. Chair Aken, yes. Motion carry 70. Thank you all for a challenging but um worthwhile discussion and I think it will um improve uh the project and the city as a whole going forward. Um we don't have much more to do tonight but I think after that we should take a break. So uh let us return at She doesn't want to take a break. Oh uh can we get by without a break? Yes.

All right. We don't have too much left to do. So, uh, hope not a problem. Um, so item three tonight is the election of the next chair and vice chair. Uh, do we need a staff presentation for this or shall we just proceed with the process as documented? No staff presentation but available to answer questions. Thank you. Then the next step is nominations for chair. Commissioner James and Commissioner Hecman. Um, yes. I would like to nominate Commissioner Chang for chair.

Um, a second is required for uh for each nomination. Yes. Sure, I'll second. Uh, according to the processes documented, nominations for chair, a second is required. Then we go on to additional and um whether the nominees uh indicate whatever they will accept. So, um, let's uh collect nominations. Uh, and I believe Commissioner Hecman, you were next. I'd like to nominate myself. I'll second it. Why not?

Do we have any other nominations? All right. through the chair. Before we proceed, I believe we need to check for public comment. Uh, that's interesting. Oh, yes, I did have that I did have that down, but uh I skipped it. Mr. Divera, do we have any requests for public comment? Um, at the moment, uh, I have not received any public comment card for this item and I see no raise hands on Zoom. If there's any members of the public that wish to speak to this item, they can raise their hands. Um, I see none.

Oh, I maintain my record for election process glitches then. All right. So, the uh nominees uh should indicate whether they will accept the nomination. Begin with Vice Chair Chang and then follow with Commissioner Hegman. Uh, sure. I I accept the nomination. And do you want us to speak to our nominations at all or No, at this point it's just whether you accept or not. And Commissioner Heckman, I assume this is an autotology. Seems like a formality. I do accept my nomination.

Movers and seconders um may make statements explaining their support if they so choose. Um, I would like that. Yes. Like to have that opportunity. Commissioner James.

Um, we're all more than the sum of our experiences, but I think experience matters. Uh, and Commissioner Chang's life and accomplishments align nicely both with PTC and in my view the role as chair. Um, she is a lifelong resident of PaloAlto, attended and later lectured at Stanford's Graduate School of Business before working in the private sector. and her current role as vice chair has prepared her for PTC chair. Commissioner Chen is a quick study, an analytical thinker, and shows up to every PTC meeting well prepared with thoughtful probing questions to help us understand what the benefits and costs we are being asked to consider. She does this with consistency and grace that I both admire and aspire to. What I see in Commissioner Chang is a concerned neighbor who is determined to help improve the community we all share. She clearly values good communication and has developed trusted relationships with both the community where she grew up and the city council we serve. Her even-handed approach and her analytical data-driven approach has earned her broad-based support from the city council. She recently received votes from all seven members to serve another term on PTC. I believe she deserves our votes of support for PTC chair. Thank you, Commissioner James. Any comments from the second?

I'll keep it brief. Uh I think that vice chair Chang has done an excellent job in being extremely prepared and being very uh detail oriented when it comes to the packet and also I think it is a bit of a tradition to move the vice chair to the chair the following year. Thank you. Commissioner Hecman nominee statement.

Sure. So I've I've um nominated well we have some traditions um one of which uh Commissioner G just mentioned um we don't have actually many rules requirements um in this process uh we do have this uh tradition that um you go from vice chair to chair although interestingly There have been many departures from that trai tradition. I I'm an example of that. In my second year, having not been the vice chair, I became the chair. I think we have more of a tradition after you've been a chair of not having to be vice chair again before uh being chair again. And I think that um Council Member Lowing uh may have been an example of that because I think he was a chair twice during his time on the uh PTC. Um, another kind of tradition we have, and this one I think comes from, um, you know, uh, everything I needed to know I learned in kindergarten, is we take turns and there's a seniority aspect to this. And, and, uh, Vice Chair Chang is eminently qualified to be the chair. She was a terrific chair a year ago. Um, I was a chair six years ago. And so um you know our tradition I think would be um because it's been longer since I did it since we were both interested in doing it that the person who has been u longer away um have that opportunity. The other reason that I would um like to be the chair in this coming year is that um I think that uh uh Commissioner G is a rising star on

this commission and it's my intention um regardless of this vote um to nominate him uh to be the vice chair. Um and I am fully expecting that he will um take that position and and what that means for me is um this is really my last opportunity to be a chair of this board again. uh because next year um it'll be com uh then I think vice chair G's turn to be the chair and I'm certainly not going to nominate myself or accept a nomination to compete with him. So I was looking at this as as a really an opportunity um uh to be able to work closely for the next year with somebody I have come to really admire um over the last year. Um, and I think that uh uh Vice Chair Chang may equally covet that opportunity, but she'll have more opportunity to do that because um I have two years and then I term out. And so for me, this is really, like I said, my last chance to to be the chair. And so I hope that um you will honor me with the privilege to do that. I also appreciate and respect and have enjoyed working with Vice Chair Chang and when she was a new commissioner who I supported early in getting into a leadership position. Um I am frustrated that you new folk are not going for it. This is very very frustrating that year after year you're just uh recycling the the same people because they it's a lot of work and you need to stop forcing it off on other people and start stepping

up. Um I say it a little bit tongue and cheek but the chair is laughing because he knows it is. Um so I was chair in my second year. Um I don't know why you guys are not going for it. Um, and I also, you know, appreciate that that it is um in our nature to defer to people that we respect and admire, but it's also important for you to learn. You need to learn from people who uh have done this before. And you've had an ample opportunity to observe and work with uh Vice Chair Chang and Chair Chang. You have not had a chance to work with land use expert Commissioner Hecman and former Chair Hecman. So every choice is your choice and it's no disrespect because I have known this woman for many many years and I have no doubt that she will continue to lead even if she's not in that seat because she does a great job and she teaches all of us different ways to look at things and listens to us. But I hope that you respect yourselves enough to think about getting a a second perspective. Just like you wouldn't only study with one professor, you might give yourself an opportunity to take more than one class. So, I encourage you to to think about it and um I hope that we will hear uh similar sentiments um from anyone up here that uh votes will not be held against people. So, I think everybody here um is doing a generous service by availing themselves to lead and um I think you should think about what you can learn if you learn from other people. We're all pretty good up here. So, congratulations, by the way, on being reappointed, you guys. So, thank you. Normally, uh, the nominees would make statements at this point, but since

Commissioner Hecman is, I think, yeah, yours is complete. Uh, so we'll move to Vice Chair Chang.

Um, I'm really honored and flattered by the nomination, Commissioner James. Um, so it's been such a pleasure to volunteer on the PTC with all of you for the last 5 years. Um, I've thoroughly enjoyed working with everybody here, uh, making things better, uh, and trying to help our neighbors. As I've said many times before, I'm really grateful for every member of this commission and the wisdom that you all share. Tonight was another a great example of that. also um you know everybody asks such good questions, thinks about things in such a different way and I I really value that diversity of perspective that we have. Um, I'm really grateful for the professionalism and dedication of our staff. And if you select me, I'd really be honored to work with all of you and to continue working with our staff to try and make things uh like make the process better for our commission um and to make sure our decisions are transparent and inclusive. So, yeah. I thank you, Commissioner James. All right, commissioners, if you uh have comments or care to ask questions of the nominees, now's the time.

I'm assuming you're still accepting the nomination. And you also aren't going to hold it against people if they vote differently. Like, sorry, I couldn't hear you. I'm going to hold it against You're not going to hold it against people, right? like the thing I I I assume I just wanted you to say it cuz he said it. Oh, I would never I hope I hope that that's been very clear that I want whatever motions that we make on this commission to be the best that they can be even if I disagree with them. And I really value that Commissioner Hecman does the same. And so we may disagree, but I think we have a lot of respect for each other. So I would never hold it against anybody. So thank you.

I am glad you said it explicitly. I didn't want anyone to have doubts. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Um, we will not go wrong with either choice and uh I will no matter who takes the chair, I will regret that the other was not in that position too. Um any other comments before we take a vote? Right. How does the vote proceed in this case?

So as with the procedure, we actually had two um candidates last year as well. We will do a private vote. Uh we'll provide you each with a piece of paper so that you can write um the name of the person that you are voting for. Fold it over and then write your name on the outside so that we know whose vote it is because we will then report out who voted for which allows everybody to make their choice and not no influence. I think the procedure last year was for me to delay this by about 10 minutes due to my technical incompetence. Yeah.

Trying to get an email or a text message through.

Yes. Put put your vote on the inside so that it is not visible to anybody. But please put your name on the outside so that we can correctly tally the votes. since we're waiting. Does anyone know who like sits up in that window? I've always been curious. Oh,

I think it's time to know. All right. I wanted to uh read off the votes. Um, Commissioner G voted for Vice Chair Chang. Commissioner James voted for uh Vice Chair Chang. Um Commissioner Hegman voted for Commissioner Hecman. Commissioner Peterson voted for Commissioner Hecman. Um uh uh Vice Chair Chang voted for Vice Chair Chang. Um Carrie Commissioner Templeton voted for Commissioner Hecman. Um and Chair Aken voted for Vice Chair Chang. Uh congratulations, Chair, uh Vice Chair Chang. Yeah.

Uh as chair.

All right. Congratulations.

So, all right. Um I will uh presumably unlike last year I will presumably uh continue this time and we will um do the uh the remainder of the agenda and then we'll hand over uh everything to you for the next meeting. All right. So uh the election for vice chair. Um Mr. Dvet, do you have any public comments? Um through the chair, I've not received any public comment cards and I have no raise hands on Zoom. If there's any members of the public that would like to speak to this item, you may raise your hands now.

Seeing none, thank you. Uh do we have a nomination for vice chair? Commissioner Hecman. I nominate Commissioner Chi. I'll second the nomination. I'll accept the nomination.

Do we have any additional nominations? I see none. Uh mover and seconder may make statements if they wish. So just very briefly because this is uncontested um and I said it before I think Commissioner G is a rising star. I think the energy he he brings um is phenomenal. I think the the the perspective he came here with um is really useful. you know, we are the sum of our parts and and sort of the the fire you were born into um to get here. Um really informs your perspective and and also just a lot of the ways that you go about preparing for these meetings. kind of reflects your youth youthful use of technology that that um is just really imp impressive. Um and so I'm looking forward to um to watching you as the vice chair and um as I said before a year from now um becoming the chair. pleasure.

Um, so I just wanted to say that I've been so so incredibly impressed with the energy that Commissioner Hi has brought to the commission um with the diligence with which he prepares for every single meeting um with his really valuable transportation perspective and change and uh training. And so I'm really excited for you to be chair eventually. It would have been good this year, too.

Any further comments, Commissioner Templeton?

I think all of our commissioners are stars and I don't think that it's fair that we keep like focusing on one or two people. this commission when I joined rotated and treated everybody as equals and I think you guys need to start seeing yourselves that way. Just because some people here have been here longer doesn't mean that you're not adding a valuable uh conversation. So just start seeing yourselves as here fully present and ready to take part like so take grab your own ownership however you wish to see it and um I think it's great that Commissioner G is willing to step up for this. It is a shame you didn't want to go for chair but I understand that you know um maybe you don't have the time right now. I don't know but I I hope that you'll find your way by next year. Thank you.

There's very little I can add. Uh we are tremendously lucky to have you on the commission and uh moving you up to vice chair uh will be for the benefit of the city as well as for all of us. So looking forward to working with you in that new role. Any other comments or questions from commissioners? Can I say thanks? Like sure. Um, yes. Vote, but um,

I actually want to echo what Commissioner Templeton had said in that I think everyone up here is amazing at what they do. One of the reasons why I decided to apply for the PTC is to see the greatness that all of you exemplified when I sat in the audience. the dedication, the different perspectives. I thought, "Oh, there's no way that I could live up to the expectations that you guys are providing." And I'm very lucky to have a lot of folks to learn from. And I'm hoping to share some more technology updates for folks. Um, so stay tuned for that. So, do we need to do the secret ballot routine again?

No, it can be a voice ballot. Yep. Um, Commissioner Hecman, yes. Commissioner Templeton, yes. Commissioner James, yes. Commissioner Peterson, yes. Commissioner G, yes. Vice Chair Chang, yes. Commission uh Chair Aken, enthusiastically, yes.

Motion carry 70. I'll let the record show that Commissioner Templeton had to leave. Uh, fortunately, we have only two more easy items left. Uh, item four tonight is the approval of minutes for March 11th, 2026. And I believe Commissioners James and G were absent for that meeting. Um, Mr. Dvetto, do we have any request comment? Um to the chair, I have no public comment cards uh requested and uh no one's raised their hands on Zoom. All right. So uh I move approval of the minutes as revised. Second.

All right. Um yeah. So um once again, just reiterating, yeah, if Commissioner James and G could just abstain. Thank you. Um Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Commissioner Hecman. Yes. Um, Commissioner uh James abstain. Um, Commissioner G abstain. Uh, Vice Chair Chang. Yes. Um, Chair Aken. Yes. Motion carries 402. Thank you. On to item five, the approval of minutes for March 25th, 2026. Second. Oh, wait a second. We have to go through the ritual. Too excited.

Mr. All right. Do we have any public comment? Uh I have no request to speak uh to the chair. Thank you. Uh move approval is revised. Second. Right. Um Commissioner Peterson, yes. Uh Commissioner G. Yes. Commissioner James, yes. Commissioner Hecman, yes. Uh Vice Chair Chang, yes. Um Chair Aken, yes. Motion carry 6. It's time for commissioner questions, comments, and announcements. Anyone have anything

through the chair? A reminder that we do need to invite public comment on items not on the agenda for anyone joining us via Zoom. Uh oh. Yes, I do have that order incorrect. Apologies, that was my fault, not yours, Mr. Diver. and through the chair. Um, I see no raise hands on Zoom. Thank you. Now it's time for Commissioner questions, comments, and announcements. Uh, Commissioner, Dr. Peterson, then Vice Chair Chang.

Thank you. So, I'd just like to report back that uh I made a kind of a commissioner walk through California Avenue and talked with a lot of the small businesses there. mostly all restaurants. Uh talking with them about the the new um ordinance that's coming up where we're opening up the restaurants to be uh bars and uh there wasn't much uh comment on that. People were kind of surprised that that's happening, but I didn't get much of a response from that. But what I did get was of course every restaurant owner walked me out in front of their restaurant and pointed out what they wanted fixed. Uh, so I have a short list of of items that if possible they'd like fixed. So out in front of the um it's uh protege. They have lights on their trees, the little twinkling lights. They don't work. And I think we talked 15 minutes about the lights. And I don't know why. You know, they say it's the smallest gifts that mean the most to people. Well, the smallest things not working in front of the restaurant apparently are important as well. So, if it's possible to fix the lights out there. And then the other one is I um I think the rest of the restaurants all fit within that, but nothing as specific as that one. But the other one is all the restaurants said that if you walk down California Avenue and you get to the Cal Train station, it's almost like the Calr station was forgotten. you know, the there's a turnaround where the buses turn around. There's a there's a white painted K rail barrier that's basically falling apart with a chain link fence and it's just not really inviting. So that's what that is the gateway to California Avenue if you're on the cow train cuz that's all you see when you look down Cal Cal a you don't when you're once you turn to the station you just see the apartments. So, a lot of the restaurants, especially the ones

that are past where we close the street, they want something that draws the community to walk all the way down to like the call train, like a prominade, and then to come back around so people are drawn down to those restaurants. So, that's what I have to report back. Thank you.

Thank you. I have uh Fer Chang and then Commissioner G. So I just wanted to remind everybody that it's Mayfet parade this Saturday and usually we get like a invitation to commissioners or to the BCC's from city staff but I don't think we got one this year. So that's why I wanted to remind us all. It may just be that that person doesn't exist as a staff member anymore. So I wanted to make sure that we all know it's super fun to go. We get our own little section and I think it's good for us to show that we are involved in the city. Uh so it's this Saturday morning. Thank I I don't know what time we need to be there for the staging but it is in the morning, right? So they probably want us there a tiny bit beforehand.

Yeah. So I I would like to hear from staff on that. Um because I don't think I've gotten that invitation in three years. Yeah. And maybe it's a personal thing. Uh maybe it was, you know, the outlandish costume I wore the one year that I did go. Um but maybe not. Um and I was actually last couple years I've like found out after that it happened and I was like, "Oh, I I mean it's it's not it shouldn't be hard to remember that it's like first Saturday in May." But I never do. But I don't know where to go. I don't know where to meet people. I think there is a staging area. And so maybe if staff could just send the PTC an email telling us where and when.

I'll I'll see if I can find some details tomorrow morning and pass it on to you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, my recollection is that the uh I don't recall whether I got the invitation either last year, but there was a check-in area um that was reasonably well defined. Um yeah, I'm almost positive I got the invitation last year, but I couldn't make it. and I just assume that everybody did. So, I wonder if maybe um staff could in the process of checking on the check-in also check on the process for how we generate the list because I think it's just good for all I I always meet people there too from the other BCC's and it's really fun and nice to meet people.

Commissioner G, I want to formally congratulate our two commissioners. I guess now Chair Chang and Commissioner Peterson for being reappointed. Um, congratulations. And um, I also want to mention that uh, Commissioner Peterson that I think the city does have like a Calav plan. There's a designated person who's in charge of revitalization for Calav that I think that might be a good person to connect with as you continue to to work over there. And then finally, I want to give big thanks to the transportation staff again for fixing the meadow crossing. I think there are you've probably saved like hours of my life already so far. So big kudos there. Thank you.

Any other comments? If so, uh if not, I'll wrap. Um it has been an honor to serve as your chair for the last year. Um the strength of this commission is uh breathtaking. it as I look back on commissions of the past. Um I'm very glad to have been a part of this one and thank you to staff Mr. Dveta and Miss Armor for all the support you've given me over the past year um sometimes when it was even deserved. And uh thanks to the rest of staff um that is not here um who have helped make the last year possible. And with that we are adjourned. Thank you for doing it.