Planning & Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Everyone, I call to order the April 8th, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Mr. Detto, would you call the role, please? Uh, yes. Uh, Chair Aiken, here. Um, Commissioner Hecman, here. Uh, Commissioner G here. Vice Chair Chang, Commissioner James, Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Peterson here.

And Commissioner Peterson, now is the time to share the information about your location, the reason you're joining us remotely. Just give me one minute here. Trying to understand. You'd think after five years of Zoom I would be more competent in this. Let's see. Uh give me one second here. Here we go. Okay. So, I've uh just caused to attend this meeting remotely under the Brown Act. I've uh attended every meeting. I'm not sure how many meetings we've had, but I've attended every one of them remotely or meetings. I have not attended a single meeting remotely this year. And uh I must attend this meeting remotely uh because I have a contagious illness that prevents me from attending in purp and in this room I am accompanied by no one over the age of 18. Uh and so with that, thank you.

Yeah. And uh for the record, we have quorum uh noting that Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner James are absent. Thank you, Mr. Tueter. A and Vice Chair Chang at the moment. Sorry about that. All right. Although we do expect her to join us later. Um, Assistant Director Armor, are there any agenda changes tonight? No changes. Thank you. Mr. Tveta, do we have public comment for items that are not on the agenda?

Um, to the chair. At the moment, I have two requests to speak for general public comment. Um, and so actually we have and if there's any members on Zoom that would like to speak to general public comment for items not on the agenda, I would like to ask you to raise your hand so I can add you to the queue. Um, to the chair um, we have three speakers. Thank you. Let's begin. Yep. Give me one second to clarify. Um, how much time would you like to provide for each speaker on items not on the agenda?

We are um setting one minute as the time limit for uh items not on the agenda tonight.

Thank you. Give me one second. Our first speaker is Connor W. Connor, you may now speak. Hi, this is Pastor SA. I want to talk about should Africans be blamed when homosexuals kill each other. Should we pretend that gay on gay violence doesn't exist? I want to talk about the case of what happened to Kinoa who was killed by his boyfriend in Kenya yesterday. Well, a story broke yesterday evening that a prominent LGBT activist in Kenya had been killed. The internet became ablaze. Western media from Draella, France, BBC, Canadian newspapers, American, they were running with the story blaming Africans, East Africa saying that this is the cause of the young man. a story in crew in in I mean a few hours later it it was learned that Chiloba was killed by his boyfriend Odibo and when this happened they they tried to continue blaming us and I I I decided to look it up I decided I wasn't going to take this you know our next speaker is Dyl um Dylam you may now speak. [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ]

[ __ ] black [ __ ] big black [ __ ] big black [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] Our next speaker is Chris S. Chris S. You may now speak. [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] SUCK. [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] SUCK [ __ ] LEGOS. to the chair. That concludes public

comment.

Thank you, Mr. Teta. Um, it's unfortunate that this uh process is affecting us tonight. Um, the city of PaloAlto is committed to a culture of belonging where all members of our diverse community feel included, safe, and respected. Uh, we strongly denounce messages of discrimination and hate. We have allowed this speech uh only because the first amendment of the constitution requires us to give everyone an equal chance to express their views. Is that it for public comment for items not on the agenda?

Um, yeah, that that is. Yep. And I see Vice Chair Chang has joined us for the record. It is time for city official reports. Miss Armor.

Good evening and thank you all. Um, Jennifer Armor, assistant director for planning and development services and I will give you a quick quick update on upcoming meetings and uh recent activity relevant to the planning commission. Next slide. So for your next agenda, we have two items plus the uh elections of chair and vice chair for the following year. We have an update on parking programs and downtown parking modernization initiatives. And we have consideration of a tenative map at the property at 4103 Old Trace Road. Uh please note that because there are five Wednesdays in the month of April, this is the last Wednesday of the month, not the fourth Wednesday of the month. Um and then your next meeting is scheduled for May 13th. And we do at this time expect to have the stream protection ordinance returned to you for consideration and an updated ADU ordinance to bring us into compliance with state law for consideration at that time. at the follow or the following slide, we will move on to updates about uh city council. So on Monday this week, we had a great conversation with the city council about the San Antonio Road area plan that is expected to return to them um for some direction in June. Uh and next week, April 13th, city council is set to consider the project at 3606 El Camino Rial, both the map that was considered by planning commission as well as the development project. We also do expect at that time they will take up the appointment of planning and transportation commissioners. There are

two slots as you know um that are under consideration. And then on April 20th, there is a pre-screening for a proposed PHZ at the pro on the property at 910 Webster Street. And that is the update today. We do not have an update for transportation. Uh but we do expect they will join us at your next meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Armor. Commissioners, do we have any uh questions for Miss Armor? Commissioner G.

Thank you, Chair. I had a question for Miss Armor about the city council meeting scheduled for April 20th. Is there any PTC items that need the attendance of the less on that day? There is not. Thank you. Not at this time. I will update you if that changes. Okay. Of course. Thank you.

Any further questions, commissioners? Seeing none, agenda item number two is a study session on housing element program 6.5, the alternative housing program. This begins on packet page 8. May we have the staff presentation, Mr. Krishna? Um, thank you, Sam. Good evening, commissioners, um, staff, and members of the public. Today, I will be presenting the overview of the city's alternative housing program initiative, part of the housing element program 6.5. So this study session is intended uh to introduce key concepts, share preliminary analysis and get your feedback as we move forward uh with developing zoning approaches. Next slide please. I'll start uh with a brief overview. So this is the study session agenda. I'll start with a brief overview of uh program 6.5's objectives and the types of housing we are studying. Then I'll walk you through uh examples, existing policies and potential approaches. We'll conclude with next steps and open it for the commission's discussion. Next slide, please. Program 6.5 focuses on enabling more innovative housing types, particularly microunits, shared housing, and intergenerational models. A key objective is to remove regulatory constraints, especially density limits where appropriate while engaging stakeholders in updating zoning regulations. Since alternative housing includes a wide range of formats such as multif family micro units, urban co-l livingiving spaces, co-living condominiums, market trade suburban

style co-ousing communities, and program facilities with eligibility requirements that serve uh different populations and market segments. the project team feels that a one-sizefits-all approach is not something that's going to work when implementing the program. Next slide, please. So, we looked at different typologies here and in urban context, micro units are smaller private units with shared amenities. The examples rice and studio 2000 that is uh under micro units on your slide are located in Berkeley. They demonstrate how projects can deliver highdensity housing with little to no parking, often including below market rate units. In most suburban settings, shared housing often takes the form of co-housing communities. These typically include private homes alongside shared facilities, fostering community interaction while maintaining some level of independence. We have examples from Mountain View and Pleasant Hill to illustrate how these function within a condominium framework. Next slide, please. Some alternative housing models are more programmatic such as the intergenerational housing. We've got two examples. Again, the Emoryville example shows a development design specifically for seniors and transition age youth with no density or parking constraints. These models are often paired with supportive services. Similarly, the example that we chose from San Jose highlights supportive intergenerational housing with a mix of unit types. These developments are designed to meet specific community needs and often include affordability components and service integration. Next slide, please.

Although not a part of the housing types required for the program to consider, the project team felt it was necessary to include considerations to senior housing as a part of tonight's discussion. Staff feels that locally there is a clear and growing need for senior housing. Data shows an increasing senior population and rising cost burdens. Community input through uh the housing element and the downtown housing plan has consistently emphasized the importance of housing near transit and services for seniors. Next slide, please. As a part of the research, uh the project team also assessed how alternative housing constituted uh to the regional housing needs allocation numbers and determined that the state provided definitions of housing types impact how units count towards Reena. Currently, some shared housing configurations may not be counted, although the state is exploring changes to better recognize these housing forms. This creates both opportunities and challenges to the local policy. Next slide, please. For senior housing specifically, state law provides definitions and incentives. Independent senior units count towards Reena while assisted living components typically do not. There are also uh density bonus provisions that can support the these developments particularly when affordability is included. Next slide, please. At a local level, existing policies already support housing diversity, walkability, and increased density near transit. However, current zoning definitions and standards as those for micro housing and shared housing are somewhat limited and may need refinement to fully enable these housing types. Next slide, please. State and regional transit oriented development policies are also key considerations here. With the Senate Bill 79 going into effect on the 1st of July 2026, the scope for increased density around transit centers increases dramatically. We are working with the

council ad hoc committee to determine the right approach towards the implementation of the state law. That said, recent legislation changes including AB2097 has reduced parking requirements near transit. This includes areas around PaloAlto University Avenue, California Avenue and San Antonio Road calrain stations. While the state legislation strongly aligns with requirements of accommodating alternative housing in specific geographic locations that are highly resourced and adjacent to transit, staff is seeking direction from the commission on the appropriate zoning districts and geographic areas in the city where the preferred alternative housing types may be accommodated. Next slide, please. So as for the next steps based on the feedback we received from the commission tonight we will start working on the potential approaches that will focus on shared characteristics. A broader approach would involve defining new housing types and updating zoning uh regulations accordingly. This could include allowing the uses in appropriate districts adjusting standards like density f parking and open space. Design criteria can also be tailored to better fit these housing types. Next slide please. So we have identified zoning districts that are already well aligned with housing uh alternative housing objectives. These include highdensity transit oriented areas such as RM40 commercial districts around downtown and the north venture coordinated area plan areas. Focusing on these areas can help ensure compatibility with existing land use patterns and available public infrastructure. Next slide please. Looking ahead, uh staff will develop potential approaches and propose zoning changes for architectural review board's consideration and present the changes to the planning commission for recommendation in fall 2026. Next slide, please. So at this point, we welcome your questions and feedback particularly on

the housing types and appropriate locations to exit staff with developing the regulatory approaches. That brings me to the end of my presentation. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Krishnan. Commissioners, do we have any clarifying questions before we move to public comment? Vice Chair Chang.

Hi. Yes. Thank you so much for your presentation. Apologies, but I would be arriving. Um I do have a question um that was in the packet where um there was an area on package page 15, the fourth bullet down where it says that the housing element identifies the area of Embarader Road northeast of Highway 101 and south of Elma Street as overcrowding hotspots. So I'm wondering what we're referring to there.

Um thank you for the question. Um so this is something that we looked up. So based on the 2023 31 housing element, this is in appendix C page C 104. So the area that we are referring to are properties between 101 and the city of East Palo Alto. So it's a very small piece of land. This area is composed of census tract with rates of overcrowding between 8.3 and 12% as we studied it. So it is true there are very few housing in the census track that we are looking at or at least the housing uh element is looking at. However, there is a primary uh it is primarily composed of single apartment complexes that includes Stanford graduate students and hospital staff and students.

Okay, thank you. That's actually really helpful. Now I know what you're what area we're of the city we're talking about. Um for the bullet point before that on the same page I had a quick question about the inaccessible housing data that you have where you said there's 17% of all households were costbururdened and spent more than 30% of monthly income on housing and then 14% spent more than 50%. So is that cumulative? Meaning does this 30% sorry does the 17% include the 14% or not? I believe it is cumulative. I mean this is information from uh the census tract and we also have yeah it is from ACS. So I believe it is cumulative. So basically we have 31% of Palton's spending more than 30% of their monthly income on housing. Okay. Thank you. All right. I think that's it for right now.

Thank you, Vice Chair Commissioner. Dr. Peterson.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question on the um home care facilities. Uh some of these are live-in type facilities where uh I think sometimes these get uh categorized as cottage uh industry where somebody's going to work out of their home whether that's uh uh home care, child care, some kind of a other you know um small business. So can you elaborate on the the home care facilities? I think these are often called eight bed facilities. And you're saying that counts towards Reena or it did not count for re to Reena and give me the definitions of of where that split was.

So um we looked at how alternative housing and reena works. So HCD basically uses this definition. It says anything that is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms or a single room occupied as separate living quarters is what counts towards a unit towards Reena. So by definition, it's only the micro unit or a condo in a shared development that would count towards Reena. So if you're talking about multiple beds in one unit, it doesn't count.

Let me see if I understand. So let's say I had an eight bed facility, but I had eight rooms, then the eight rooms count. But if I have like say uh three larger rooms where I've split the beds between those three rooms, it counts as three. No. So uh Al, is Albert on the call? Yes. Yes. Okay. Albert uh correct me if I'm wrong. Even if it is eight different beds, it would still count as one unit because it's one uh house or an apartment by definition of CD. Albert, Mr. Yang, are you available? Thank you. Yep, that's that's correct.

Thank you. Sorry to ask the detailed questions, but you can see these apparently it gets a little complicated.

Is that it, Commissioner Peterson? Yes, that is it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, seeing none from my Oh, Vice Chair Chang has another question. Sorry about that. I forgot to ask one more question. Um, thank you for giving thank you staff for giving us examples of um built built examples of the um alternative housing. I was wondering if there were any examples on the peninsula that are already built.

I believe Berkeley was one of the first jurisdictions to come up with microousing units. They do have built examples in the downtown area. Okay. But that's East Bay, not um not the not the peninsula. Not the peninsula. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners. I have a few questions. Uh fortunately, you've answered some of them already. Um first one is how does microunit housing differ from the SRO facilities that exist and used to exist downtown? Um so micro units are purpose-built and uh they accommodate private bathrooms and also have a kitchenet whereas SRO's generally are featured as small individual rooms with shared kitchen and community uh spaces. So community bathrooms I'm sorry. So the target population again is very different and u as SRO's are generally considered transitional housing rather than permanent housing whereas that's not the case for microousing. Again with microousing the cost is also high.

Okay. So I hear two differences there. One unit configuration may be different um and the other is um intended term of use. Okay. Uh similarly, you've already touched on this already, but uh what would you say is the difference between co-living and simply unrelated renters sharing a house? Um unrelated renters sharing a house. Again, you're talking about SRO's or No, no, we're we're into houses now, not uh not SRO's.

So co-living spaces again uh it's not program run. one uh co-housing could be multiple different individuals who basically sign a lease. They share common communal areas. Then the other type of housing basically is the same. It again depends on if it is programmatic level. Uh Greg I are you there on the call? Correct me if I'm wrong. Did I miss out on anything? Introduce it. Oh uh Greg is a consultant uh working on the project. He's with placeworks.

Good evening commissioner. Thank you for having me. Um the the two terms shared housing and co-housing and actually it's three and co-living those those are all actually formal terms from from HUD the federal housing and urban development department and um so co-ousing generally refers to a development with private self-contained units clustered around a shared space with and and the idea is to uh form intentional communities whereas as co-living is more of an urban housing model where individuals rent private furnished rooms in a multifamily building. In other words, they're just renting individual rooms with a shared kitchen and potentially a living space. So shared housing is you have your own private unit, but maybe you share a community kitchen or an outdoor open space such as the more suburban models in Pleasant Hill or Mountain or Mountain View where again the other is you are actually sharing an internal space and you have your own bedroom and perhaps bathroom, but you're sharing a kitchen and it's much more I would think of it as a group of college students living together, but each with their own lease for that bedroom, not just sharing a single lease. There are there are definitions of each of those, you know, from that HUD branch in the uh which I understand in the in the lengthy uh packet that you have.

Thank you. That's a it's a useful reference because um I felt like the differences were subtle and perhaps I was missing something important like um whether there is a a real programmatic difference between them that we should be aware of. Yeah. Yeah. Again, I I would really summarize it as as the co-housing is that more suburban model where you have your own private space and then uh a shared community space. Whereas co-living, think of it as you're really living together. You've got that private bedroom, but you're in that contained unit.

Thank you. Uh that helps a bit. And I will also do a little more research to understand the subtleties. Uh last question is could we have a map uh for where we believe overcrowding is worst in the city? Uh not tonight but I mean in the uh in the documented presentations that you're working on. We'll definitely bring that next time. Thank you. Great. Thank you. That's all the questions for me commissioners. Any any further? All right then. Mr. Dr. Divera, do we have any requests to comment

um through the chair? At the moment, we have two requests to speak. Um if you would give me one moment. Our first speaker is George F. George F, you may now speak. Yeah, I'm sitting here smoking weed and watching it. I'm not done. Okay.

Um, our next speaker is Mark H. Hello. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Uh, sorry about that. Ladies and gentlemen of the Palo Alto Planning Commission, neighbors and fellow residents, thank you for giving me the floor here tonight. I'm not here to debate zoning tweaks or missing middle housing. This program in front of you is not about enabling more housing types. It is a CCC CCPbacked red commie scheme designed and funded through Indian networks to herd our homeless people into centralized facilities. Let's call it what it is. These are not supportive housing projects. These are vampire lizard person-ledd brain sucking and organ blood harvesting centers. Once the homeless are funneled inside, they disappear. Their brains are going to be harvested for neural tissue, their blood drained for elite rituals, and their organs removed while they're still alive. Their meat is then processed, packaged, and shipped directly to Indian markets and slaughter houses run by the families of the project presenters that's sitting here tonight. Yes, the same developers and consultants pushing this ordinance have close relatives operating meat export businesses in Delhi, Mumbai and Gujarat. Follow the ownership chains, follow the visas, follow the LLC's tied to Indian real estate conglomerates, export firms and motel chains. This isn't local planning. This is a transnational operation operation. PaloAlto, streets cleared, bodies processed, profits wired back to India, while the CCP sits fat on your tax dollars. It fits the pattern perfectly. Every time a California city rams through density mandates and homelessness solutions, the vulnerable people vanish, public safety collapses, and suddenly there's a surge in exported protein and organ tourism pipelines. What are all of those Israeli tourists doing in the hospitals around here? Coincidence? I think not. This is agenda 2030 with curry, fangs, and bagels. We

still have a narrow window to stop this. Reject this program outright. Demand real housing, single family neighborhoods, honest market rate development, not CCP financed Indian-run cattle pens for human harvesting. We are not a feeding ground in Palo Alto for foreign elites and their lizard [ __ ] overlords. We are awake. We will not be silent and we will not be processed. Thank you for your time. And to the chair that concludes public comment. Thank you. Uh if I may, I will take the previous statement as read

acceptable to everyone. Yes. Good. Um, now that that's concluded, commissioners, uh, the discussion is open. Yes. Mr. Teddra, are we ready to uh begin discussion? Yes, we are.

Great. Thank you. Vice Chair Chang.

Wasn't my intention to always be the first one to go. Um all right. So thank you so much um the staff for putting this together. Um, as I read the packet, what struck me is that this is I I know that uh it was highlighted that we have a lot of regulatory barriers and I agree that there are technically regulatory barriers right now in in that it's not clearly allowed in our code, but I think that that's the easiest portion to fix. And this struck me as not so much a regulatory and local buyin problem as much as an economics and transportation problem. Um so there was a lot of references to financial feasibility and um I think that that is one of my greatest concerns. And then secondly, when I say a transportation problem, it was mentioned a number of times in the in the packet that these types of alternative housing are feasible because they often don't provide any parking, which is wonderful, assuming that it's that they're located near transit and in amenity rich locations. And where I struggle a bit is that the analogies that were given um a number of times references were made to Berkeley, San Francisco, and Seattle. I think it's a bit of a false analogy because we're not comparing apples to apples. uh because I'm not sure that you would say PaloAlto in general or actually kind of any part of PaloAlto is very comparable to the densest sections of Berkeley in terms of

accessibility to transportation as well as accessibility to health care and uh affordable food. Um so you know students living off campus near Berkeley can go get their meal for under 10 bucks or at least they used to. maybe it's more like 10 bucks now, but that's not really possible in Palo Alto. Um, so that's the biggest concern for me. And then the other thought I had was that Berkeley also I I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that Berkeley has that same huge demand by developers at least to build class A office space. Um, and so when when we were looking at the San Antonio road area plan at the last PTC meeting, we were essentially told that unless we build a lot of office, um, even the lower density housing isn't feasible. And so I'm not quite sure how this would would work here. Um, and there were examples that were given in the packet about the Berkeley housing. There's a Berkeley development. Um, and I I just made me think of the teacher housing project that we recently broke ground on on El Camino where the units were much more expensive and provided also very little parking. And so I'm just worried about the financial viability for these things. And then the final comment I would have at least for this round is that I would love to see really dense housing, but I think that what we like if it if it didn't result in spillover effects um so what we talked about with San

Antonio is that you know we have um I think it's F Fgrade um in terms of the uh level of service for traffic. I worry that if we were to pack things in, we would get F-grade everywhere in the city. So, I wonder if there's a way as we think about this. I love the idea of providing this housing in the right spots, but then if they re if the people come with no cars, that would be amazing. And so is there something that we can do with respect to residential parking per programs or anything that would limit that because that is naturally limited in places like Berkeley and San Francisco. Um because unfortunately the incentive in our area is for each person to come with a car just because we're not as transit rich. And we've heard that both from uh retail landlords um who were participating in I believe a council ad hoc meeting where it was very clear they may have also commented in a in a PTC meeting but I remember hearing from a number of retail landlords saying let's be clear this area is a car centric area and so I would love for it to not be a car centric area but I don't think that we can build this type of dense housing without expecting the um the the the traffic and problems that come with it unless we uh somehow have the transit, you know, rich area first. So, it's a chicken or the egg issue. I realize that, but I wonder if there's a way that we could somehow build these types of units, but ensure that the people don't come with a car so that they're really um in that that the incentives are aligned for for carlessness. Thank you,

Commissioner Hecman.

Thank you. Um, I'd like to start by seeing if um staff happens to have a map of the four locationational areas that they are asking us to consider on packet page 17. If I may interrupt, Mr. Goodfellow, did you have some comment you wanted to make in response to Vice Chair Chang?

No, you know, I I'm just trying to make sure that I step in at the correct time and then and was available. I'm happy to my response to that in general would be the incentive to attract those without cars is to literally not provide a parking space. And and I do think you're absolutely right. I hope the memo didn't come off as us trying to compare PaloAlto to Berkeley. It is simply that and you are absolutely correct. That is where these types of micro units have been built. And you know the other uh thing I want to impress and this was staff's very solid idea I think was that the reason we stopped this study at this point and and wanted to just share the actual types of housing before we started thinking about zoning ideas was in fact to hear this kind of input and and also just to remember that the other types of housing we're looking at you know the they are more suburban. They could be that Pleasant Hill style group of smaller but detached homes around a community garden and a community kitchen. One more example I'll throw out just because I do think it's really come up in the world of quote co-housing is this new project in Berkeley that is a spiritual co-housing group of condominiums around a Jewish kitchen and Jewish um community center and um it has I think just one space per unit but some of the units are up to three bedrooms and you know it's another example of just 12 units being in a in a not entirely urban but you know along a transit corner corridor on San Pablo Avenue. So, I do I would like the commission to remember that there are uh approaches to these that don't really fit that sort of characteristic micro unit 8-story building with tiny units. And that is what I hope this this packet uh allows you to see is that there are other approaches to these.

Thank you. staff, if you uh had time to uh respond to Commissioner Hecman.

All right, we'll bring that up in a moment.

While that's coming up, um I I don't know that I'm going to actually have more than um one round of comments. Um, I'm I'm familiar with I think with uh micro and shared housing. I think I've lived in those kinds of places. Um um my first year of law school I had a you know a self-contained studio. It was maybe 350 ft. Um I did not have a car. Uh and then the next year I I moved into a flat uh where I had my own bedroom and shared common areas with you know some other housemates. Uh and so I I'm familiar with those. I have not experienced uh intergenerational housing uh unless you uh count, you know, my father living with me for a number of months when he first moved out here. Um so so I have uh some familiarity with those. And um great, here's our map. And I think what's being asked of us tonight, or at least the way I perceive this, is is um we want we we want our code to um accommodate some of some or all of these uses rather than we're being asked which of these should we incentivize? Um and and so I think the task is a little bit simpler because that's so right now our regulations these housing types don't really fit. And so my uh thinking on this um is that you know recognizing um how much our staff already has on their plate. They've got, you know, 410 um comprehensive plan programs to to uh massage and and push forward. Um they

have all of the individual projects. Um they have all of the the housing element work we are doing. And so what I was I guess what I'm focused on is which of these potential alternate housing types is um most likely to yield a result um and to focus on that. So rather than let's make all the ordinance changes necessary so we can allow micro and shared and intergenerational which will take you know three times as much as focusing on one. And so my thought is I'm going to my feedback is going to be let's figure out which one is the least is the most likely to be taken advantage of. Um and so one of the questions I had um uh which could be for staff or the consultant is is are do any of these three seem to be favored over the others in the marketplace? In other words, you know, Vice Chair Chang had talked about the economics and obviously that's an important thing. Um, and so I'm wondering and and we have some examples that staff has provided of places where it's worked and and my you've tried you tried to provide us examples of all three. So um, so I'm not sure I get just from the examples if the market is really, you know, if the market had to choose one which one it would be. And so I'm wondering if staff has an impression of which one is um favored in the market of the three.

We've actually not done a financial feasibility analysis for the alternative housing prototypes, but I can tell you that we have done the financial feasibility economic and financial feasibility analysis for the downtown housing plan which looked at units that were a little bigger than 450 ft². We went all the way to 780 ft² and in the current market conditions well we realize none of it is feasible. So what we are really trying to do is find the missing middle and see if we can get the incentives in place today and make sure that everything is in place for whenever the market you know uh gets better so that developers will actually be interested in building something. That said, we've had uh property owners inquire to us about co-l livingiving co-ousing spaces. There are a few examples that actually exist in PaloAlto and they were really interested in building on that particular prototype. And I also believe there was uh one project that came to the commission and I'm not sure if it was approved. It was a micro unit uh micro unit housing development. uh but then again there has been some interest and this again probably was uh two decades ago. I'm not really sure but we do not know if there is any interest at the moment.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. And it may be that the consultant has some knowledge of other developments that has that are going on in the Bay Area if that would be helpful. Um I'll leave it to you commissioner if you'd like more information. Sure. If if u Mr. Gella if there's you know some more information you can add absolutely

I mean I think one of the most interesting things about doing this project was my in-depth interviews with the stakeholders with the local architects with the leader of the co-housing institute with local advocates in PaloAlto in terms of micro units I think it is pretty clear that feasibility comes with density and I I think there will be challenges to micro units and and the the you know the amount of units needed to bring a project up to that feasibility level. And I think you know as we've seen it can work in a place like Berkeley where the density is there and the density can be supported but I think the challenge will with micro units will be that in order to bring a project to financial feasibility it requires a density that I don't believe at this point would be supported in PaloAlto as commissioner Chang has pointed out and I think you know that has to be considered and I have really seen a lot of interest from the real estate market and for the planning uh world about these uh co-housing situations like the one in Berkeley and you know I spoke to the leader of the co-housing institute and she's looking at projects around the country and the value of those of course is also that those are um applicable to reena because you know they are sold as separate units and so they they fulfill that as well and you know I I would leave this also as remember this is it's hard when when we're getting so narrow into one discussion remember this is one housing program amongst tens in the housing element, you know, almost hundred. This would be, you know, one tool in the city's toolkit and to remember that it wouldn't be it would still be a success to locate uh, you know, just a few areas where just one of these could be allowed and the zoning chains based on that. So I think it it is perfectly a valuable discussion to just locate or identify one of these that that the commission and city leadership feels is is applicable and um it doesn't need to be

a massive shift in you know you know architectural or density uh paradigm in the city of Palo Alto.

All right thank you that was useful. So if we're looking at micro housing with its challenging economics right now and I'm looking at the map which staff has now provided of these areas um uh to me the log the only logical candidate where maybe we would want to focus is in the the Cal Avenue PTOD um because that's a place where we could have some significant density for people without cars because the train station is right there. The El Camino uh bus lines are are you know right there. And so um uh I like that for uh again focusing since we already have that combining district established. We could massage those regulations to allow micro, which I would include in those regulations, relaxing parking and open space requirements and and figuring out how to deal with the density issue that Mr. Goodfellow just mentioned. Um, you know, how how dense does it need to be to pencil? Um, but to me, that's the best place to locate it. I do note that there's a corner of the um south of forest area, a tiny corner that's um within a quarter mile of the of the university station. Um and so that's also a a possible area but um my my um and you know that has the benefit of well actually kind of both are close to Stanford to the extent

Stanford students might use them but to me there's kind of a different set of influences happening downtown in the ne in you know near university than along Calav. And so my thinking is that micro type uh would work best there. If we were to look instead at the And so I'm thinking you'd focus that. If instead you looked at the shared or co-housing, I I don't I don't really have a good sense to suggest where that might go because that feels like it needs a a low density setting, right? Like like either, you know, an R1 or R2. And so I I and and that's none of the areas on our map here. Um, and so I I don't really have any thoughts on where that might go. U, so I think that's really all I had to say um on this. Those are my thoughts of sort of feedback of a direction you might look at. Just to add on based on that comment, I would suggest that um there is low a fair amount of low density housing around the California Avenue station if you were looking for um an opportunity that just given the context of your uh comment.

Yeah. No. and and um uh that is um so I think you're but you're are you would you be referring to low density areas outside of the PTOD? In other words, within the within the concentric circles but not in the the brown shaded area. Correct.

Yeah. So so that would make sense to me uh as a possible location. But but I I do think for some of the reasons that Vice Chair Chang mentioned that that available transportation uh public transportation is really critical to the potential success of any of these which again we're not incentivizing. We would just be creating regulations so that we could say yes if the right project uh presented itself.

Thank you Commissioner. I have Commissioner G. then Commissioner Peterson. Thank you, chair. And I'm just going to jump on the financial feasibility discussion that we just had. And I want to direct your attention to packet page 47 where there's a section on financing and feasibility. Specifically, the second bullet from the top, I'll say, quote, "The program calls for zoning amendments, but I'd suggest the bigger barrier to micro and shared housing is not zoning, but the state of finances." So, um, just kind of if anyone else is interested in reading more, there are some other bullets from other stakeholders provided there, but it sounds like based on this comment and others that zoning isn't really the problem. It is financing. Um, and I'll defer to the experts as you continue to do your analysis. It seems like this may be a route to go. I also had a quick question for staff. Could you I I know I think we're all a little bit tied up by the wording here. which of the options are actually count towards Reena and which ones don't. I think you had a nice slide up for that, but I'll defer to you about how you want to present that information.

Yeah, we can bring that slide back up.

Um um sorry it is slide seven. While this is coming up, vice chair, did you have something you needed to do inject at this point or is it for a next round? Okay, thank you. So a micro unit or uh condo in a shared development would count towards reena. Yes. One each unit and uh shared or co-l livingiving or co- spaces with a single entrance wouldn't count. likely those count per kitchen rather than individual units.

Okay, thank you. I think that as we move forward, presenting this information in the packet would be really helpful to help us parse through the information because I think it was a little bit hard for me to understand the differences that were provided here in the packet. Also, there is nothing stopping developers from building micro units right now, right? Those would just be considered studios. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, they're just smaller in size, but then they have the same requirements as a studio. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Um, that's helpful. And then I had another question which is not quite mentioned here, but is mentioned on packet page 22. The student development housing, yes or no on Reena accounts? I suspect the answer is no, but I just want a clarification here. No, it doesn't count. The answer is no. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Um, that's helpful. And and so suppose that we decide that near Stanford we want to incentivize student housing development of some kind. If I were to build one building with a bunch of dorm rooms such as is described on packet page 22, would the answer mean that I would get zero renet count? Okay. Just that's right.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So I think stepping back here, the description provided in the packet is primarily around transit dense areas and my personal preference is and I want to acknowledge the staff work going into this program that it may be better to fold this into our SB79 discussion that the ad hoc is doing. Right? I think that it's really hard to pull this out as a separate program because fundamentally what we decide with SB79 will significantly impact what we decide here because by definition the SB79 areas are the transit dense areas of town. So I I I want to start by saying that. And second, do you mind pulling up the map again? I want to talk about some other potential areas that could be interesting to look at that aren't mentioned explicitly here. And some of those that I think are uh for example uh let's see um here. So I've circled a region on the map here. So near town and country. I think that this could be a potential area that's pretty interesting. It's not not all of it is inside the circles that are the concentric circles impacted by SP79. Uh I'll defer to staff as to whether or not the new town and country project is within that area. It looks pretty close but hard to tell. So that's one potential area because the town and country development has decided that they are proposing something in that

there. So using some kind of of the incentives that you're providing here could be interesting. In addition, I know that both that area that I've circled here as well as I'm going to circle another region that's a little bit further south of it are places where there are lots of Stanford grad students who are already living in some kind of shared house formation and and explicitly there are okay and I guess keep me honest about which of these options I think it is the shared house housing building where there are multiple buildings that are that share kind of a backyard area of which they share amenities and such. So this seems to be a type that's already existing within Paulo Alto and I think it could be interesting to go talk to some of the people who are partaking in that currently. In addition, I think that it could be also interesting to look at where are places that people don't need a car. And I believe that based on the most recent census, the the region, the the northern region that I drew, that circle area, that zip code, has the highest percentage of people who bike to work in the entire nation. So that would suggest that that is an area in which people don't need a vehicle and I suspect that many of those people are going to Stanford for work. So that's one area that I think could be interesting to look at. Along that thought though, I think that the Stanford research part could be another place where we could potentially incentivize some form of housing there. Many people, if you've ever been to Stanford campus, bike around as their primary form of commuting. And so

reducing the parking impacts of reducing parking on these buildings that we provide there may not has have as drastic of a parking secondary effects issue that Vice Chair Shen had mentioned. Um, so those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Chair. So I think uh Commissioner Gee and Commissioner Hchman uh covered every point I wanted to make. So um I think all that's left for me is to commend uh Mr. Goodfellow for really bringing I think good work and not just good work but uh good policy and um a good presentation of this. Uh from my standpoint I couldn't be more favorable to this. I think pointing out that we could even expand at University Avenue around El Camino because we have just approved um how many units I staff real quick. How many units did we approve there in the Town and Country Center? It seems it's in the hundreds I don't want to put anyone on the spot if nobody remembers exactly how

Town and Country. I think the only project that's been approved was a 70 NCAA um which was a much smaller project but there is a pre-screening that came in for a much larger project. Uh no decision or approval has been that's um on that one.

Thank you uh Miss Armor. So that's uh but that gives that leadway in there that we definitely have higher density going in there. uh the university uh housing there where there there are a lot of units and it's not university but it's um it's across the street from El Camino and there is a lot of uh essentially shared facility type housing, shared yard, shared uh community space uh that is built there. I live in the the uh strategic zoning area of Calav. I will tell you this is a great neighborhood. I haven't had to have a car in over a decade and I haven't missed it. There's not once I thought, I wish I had a car. Uh I walk out the door and I say, "There's a Cal Train, there's a bus, I can walk to city hall, I can walk anywhere from here." Uh Instacart for groceries is such a normal thing now. Amazon, uh the concept of driving to the grocery store is almost a foreign concept. And I can tell you in this neighborhood, every morning there's a parade of Whimos and lifts picking people up to work, bikes coming out of here, uh coming back. This is a a complete walkable neighborhood. And the piece that I want to add to this that I'd like um considered is uh public parking garages have become something that I've suddenly discovered is is a community asset. To park your vehicle where you live, I think is almost a dead concept, especially in Calab as they've just built massive parking garages here. um that I've noticed a lot of the cars are off the street here. And it took a minute for me to notice and then to realize cuz everyone's parking in the parking garage, buying parking garage passes and using the uh the electrical chargers particularly uh and there's huge solar panels on top of the parking garage. So, it makes a lot of sense to be charging your car there. So I think the a lot of the

parking issue is taken up by simply by having uh community parking garages uh within the strategic zoning locations. So if you look at University Avenue and you look at the um San Antonio road area plan, I think you really need to think about where is our major parking garages uh locations and they're under, you know, if they're underground parking garages. you go to Stanford campus, there are massive massive underground parking garages that just look like open fields uh and their community spaces. So, I think that's the piece that I can add to this uh as some feedback. Uh but again, uh Mr. Goodfell, I want to tell you I really commend your work and I really appreciate the the presentation you gave.

Thank you. And you know the one thing I would add to that great comment about parking garages is that uh you know the city in its objective design standards and its approaches to design has good approaches to the design of of structured parking and you know one approach to this could be you know an expanded struct you know structured parking objective design standard or zoning approach or you know allowable approach. So it can be more indirect. Um again, you know, this is I just want to keep stressing that this is one tool in a housing toolkit that every city has to have and um success does not have to be, you know, covering the entire program of of selected options.

100% I agree with everything you say.

Thank you, Commissioner. Uh I believe it's my turn. Uh I've grouped my comments into uh three sections. First is general. This applies to all the types and locations. Um I have few problems with eliminating the parking requirements if the parking demand is genuinely eliminated. And that's the key. Um I think it's unacceptable to eliminate the parking requirements if the demand just shifts to somewhere nearby. And of course downtown that issue is primarily the adjacent neighborhoods and in places with parking garages. Uh it's the parking garages because those have other commitments. Um in a sense this is the old problem of socializing the costs while privatizing the benefits. Um that's neither sustainable uh nor is it fair to other people who uh use those resources depend on them. Um and uh since we mentioned RPP programs, that's something to keep in mind because it would they would have that effect. Um second general comment is about open space requirements because they present some similar problems. Uh if the individual projects aren't providing at least common open space, then it's fair to criticize us to say that we're just we care more about warehousing people than we care about making the city livable for them. Um that will come up, I'm sure. uh having the city acquire nearby land for parks and other uh open space uses can work, but that's another case of socializing the costs. Uh so if that's the solution that's chosen, then I would be reluctant to eliminate impact fees altogether. All right. Now for comments on the

types, I'm having to evolve my position a little bit because of the good comments from my fellow commissioners here. Um, I was not convinced that there was going to be broad market acceptance for some of these types. Uh, perhaps that doesn't matter. Perhaps um perhaps this is just um a small part of what we hope to achieve. And so if we gain if we make a small gain that's sufficient. But any rate, with that uh caveat, uh the micro units seemed to me to be the most likely to succeed. So that's what I would vote to prioritize. Um and at the very least, for historical reasons, I'd like to see us develop replacements for the the micro units we've lost at places like the President Hotel and Kasahoga and and other downtown sites. Uh, next on my list would probably be senior housing because I think the the demand is likely to be greater than for the uh co-living co-ousing shared housing uh formats. Um, regarding uh larger units for larger families, I think those of us on the PTC often try to encourage that, but I wonder if uh that should be dealt with with more general incentives rather than making it a focused effort part of this program. And finally, I'd like to say a few words about locations. And uh I will uh follow up more strongly on Commissioner G's comment. I think this program is a great reason for reszoning Stanford Research Park uh to make it easier for housing development there. Uh it's close to

Stanford so microunit projects could see demand uh from students and staff. Arguably it's the largest concentration of jobs in the city. So for our sustainability goals, it may make sense to put housing and jobs together there. This would be one way to do that. Parking can be shared between commercial and residential uses there. So, it's unlikely to be a great concern, but if the goal is still to eliminate um the use of private vehicles, this area is still close enough to the Calav zones uh and parts of it to Ventura and the El Camino retail nodes u that I think residents could of SRPbased housing could make use of the services in those areas and not be isolated. So that would be a strong vote for me. All right, that's all for me for this round. I believe we have Vice Chair Chang next.

Thank you, chair. Um, I love being on this commission because everybody has such good comments. Many of what much of what I was going to say has already been said by Commissioner Hecman, uh, Chair Aken, and Commissioner G. I had wanted to start by asking a question. So, I believe we've asked this question in the past. Um, it may be uh councelor Yang who needs to answer it. Are we allowed to essentially say residents in a certain building that provides no parking cannot use cannot participate in the RPP?

Um, so it depends. um we can draw the boundaries of an RPP district to exclude certain sites uh but we cannot just say you know this property that is within the RPP boundary um can't participate right and we also can't um you know draw the RPP boundaries like like a donut you know so that you have like a a spot that's missing from

we can't jerrymander our RP Okay. Because I'm just trying to figure out how do we do this so that people don't have the incentive to essentially to socialize their private need for parking. Um, and it sounds like that may be challenging because I agree with what com um, Commissioner Peterson said about this lovely parking garage at Calav, but how many microunit developments could we have without that just filling up really quickly? Um, I'm trying, if you all remember when we were discussing 660 University and Commissioner Templeton said, "I have a solution to this underground garage problem. must just not have a garage, right? So, in a sense that's providing no parking and theoretically then the residents would be incented to not bring a car, but the developer immediately said no, we cannot do that. It would not be viable because there wouldn't be the demand. But I do think that in the areas in the map um along with those that Commissioner G mentioned like potentially Town and Country, potentially the transit center, those would be great areas um for where where I think people could be incented to not need cars and could actually live here without cars. Um I'm trying to find my notes here. So, I don't know. I I think that to the extent that staff is going to look at waving um open space requirements or parking requirements, I think that we do it written in such a way that there's a particular type of housing with specific development requirements that says

you're only allowed to wave the parking requirements if you're this type of housing because I wouldn't want to do that for the whole, you know, for say a single family home going up in the same same area. Not that those Well, no. I think that the area around Calab does have some single family homes. Um, the other thing that I think that um staff could do is try and think about how we can address that uh socialization of a private need. Okay. Um, in in terms of the the map, I do agree with Commissioner G that I think this should probably be done in conjunction with SB79 so that we're not duplicating efforts. Um but then with respect to what commissioner Hecman said about how sofa per the sofa area perhaps is not as good as Calav, what I would say is that if we are going through the trouble of adding um a definition in a code and perhaps on development requirements if we expand it to other areas where it might work um maybe the market will tell us that it doesn't but that way we have it. So, even if it's just a little bit, maybe we're doing something good there. Um, I know that we've looked at in the past at the PTC at cottage clusters and I wonder if there's a way to incentivize more things like that, but that's probably much lower on the priority list than the micro units and senior housing. So where I really agree with vice chair

um I'm sorry with chair uh Aken is that I think that senior housing is a really big opportunity and that as this effort moves forward that we should look at that very carefully because uh in the stakeholder interviews there was some discussion indicating that it was unlikely that we could do below market rate housing for these alternative models just because of the financing and all other costs. But what I wonder is that maybe some of the senior housing would be naturally more affordable than what somebody is living in right now and it could free up housing um as people want to downsize. So it could be market rate but it will be less expensive than say a single family home. And then I had a question for staff about dormatory type housing. So, I heard that that student housing isn't doesn't count for Reena, but I'm thinking about a specific type of housing on the Stanford uh campus, the Schwab Residential Center. That's for business school students where it's two units with a shared one shared kitchen for every two units. And each unit has its own bathroom and there's just a shared kitchen and each unit has its own entrance. So would something like that be able to be used for Reena?

Greg, uh, do you know if that counts?

I I think that's one of those difficult ones that is right in between that state definition of group quarters. Group quarters, which does not count to versus the traditional housing unit. And I wish I knew a little bit more about that Schwab center. Um my sense is that it wouldn't count and because I do think it's more associated with that group quarter. I can't pull the slide up. I don't have control over it. But I I think but I do think also and I you know I look closely into HCD's most recent report on the state of Reena and I do think it is pretty well agreed upon that because of programs like this you know alternative housing programs are in a lot of housing elements and there's a general assumption and a general realization that these alternative units have to be considered more as formalized reena accounting units. Um, I mean, I think that's the good news right now. And, you know, that's, you know, it it came up in discussions of a lot of the uh uh the density bonus laws that have come up for shared housing that is now referenced in your P uh AMC. But in those discussions, it was also an issue. Look, we're we're incentivizing these these types of shared units with these density bonuses, but they're still not counting towards Reena. These two things are in conflict. So I do think there really is a movement right now even into the next counting of Reena to uh expand what counts as a Reena unit. That's my spiel for that. I I would say that Schwab would not count at this point.

Okay. I mean it seems like well it seems like maybe with a little tweaking though it might because there was the discussion of um you know units with their own bathroom and like a kitchenet and then a shared kitchen you working. So Schwab seems like it's better, right? Yeah. I might I might not understand the the formal lease process and the ownership. Um

I mean maybe that's part of it is the lease process, right? Like if it were leased the way an apartment is, maybe it would be legit. And so that's an area of investigation that I would suggest for you guys kind of in conjunction with the micro units because I really think that like you know Stanford hospital workers, young professionals, um posttos, grad students would all be really interested in this type of housing. Like it just doesn't exist right now. So instead what they're doing is renting a house like a four-bedroom house and then having a shared kitchen. But I know that Schwab is over subscribed for business school students specifically and I and so a whole bunch like first years can't all live there. So some of them live off campus in Palo Alto. Second years all live off campus in Palo Alto. So right there I know that if we could free up that housing stock it would be great. And I imagine you know for posttos and everything like that too it would it could be really good. Um so that's just a a direction there. Similarly, it could be really useful for senior housing even. Um, you know, like you're not ready to move into a retirement community, but you do have a good friend that you wouldn't mind living next door to and kind of sharing a kitchenette or whatever. Um, so anyway, I just think that there are some alternatives here that could work um as I think about the various demographics in our city. Okay, let me look down the list here. um in the packet like the San Antonio area and the ROM housing element focus group were listed and as well as RM40 as potential areas and it looks like the map that you have is already much more focused. I don't think that those are good areas for us to focus on right now because it would involve more sleeping change and there's the transportation issue. Um, and then I had a question for you about the

multigenerational households because aren't our current like three plusbedroom h homes that we have, all the single family homes, the 60% of housing units in the city, um, aren't they effectively multigenerational housing depending on how people use them? Because I think about the Asian families I know and probably half of them, maybe a little less, are multigenerational, right? they've got grandma and grandpa or one of grandma and grandpa and then the the nuclear family. So I had a you know I'm I'm not sure that that's where we need to focus because I think we're seeing it naturally go that way anyway here.

Uh so the key difference here is we're talking about intergenerational housing which is more program oriented. So there is a senior living with uh youth which is basically allocated through a program. So that is a very different concept from what you're referring to. Okay. All right. I think that's it for my um my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Hecman.

Thank you. Yeah, just a sort of a reflection on the the Reena issue and which of these fit Reena and which don't. Um, I I really in this discussion don't want to get too hung up on on Reena. We have a housing shortage and we knew that before we got a Reena number and the Reena number we got is completely unachievable. I mean, that's my my belief that there's no way we're going to remotely come close in this cycle to to to doing it. But that doesn't but every time we can provide a legitimate housing uh spot for somebody we are we are you know taking uh you know adding one check mark to reducing the housing shortage. And so even though the again I I favor focusing on these micros that would count um uh I just don't think we should I I think these other housing types are going to even if they come it's going to be a small number right I I mean I don't know if it's 100 or 200 you know in the next cycle and and so if we get those units then they don't count till toward arena I'm okay with that um because I know that they're actually providing housing. Whether it, you know, meets some technical qualification that, as Mr. Goodfellow appointed, may be shifting over time, uh, or not, it it really doesn't matter to me. I think the the focus is on providing housing, not satisfying the state.

Thank you, Commissioner. I see no hands and no lights. Uh, Mr. Krishnan, is there anything um that you'd like to request of us? That's everything. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, excellent program. I certainly hope we see it bear fruit and um, plenty of opportunities to connect to other programs as well. So, that may be useful in addition. All right, it's a little early, but I suggest we take a break now before uh getting into our next item because I suspect it will need some time. So, it is 7:26. Let's return at 7:40.

Appears that we are. Welcome back everyone. Agenda item number three tonight is a quasi judicial hearing to review a conceptual plan for 788 San Antonio Road and to make a recommendation on forwarding the application to the architectural review board. For those following along at home, this begins on packet page 50. Uh, since this is quasi judicial, I'll ask if anyone needs to disclose information that's not already in the public record. Seeing none, may we have the uh staff presentation. Perfect. Thanks, Sam. Good evening, uh, commissioners. Uh, Claire Rayold, manager of current planning. The project before you tonight is 788 San Antonio Road, a planned community/planned home uh, reszoning. If you can go to the next slide. So the project location is located on the San Antonio Road area um um corridor uh which is within the boundaries of the proposed San Antonio Road area plan. Some other nearby projects include 800 808 San Antonio Road. Um there is an existing PC adjacent to the site that's five stories. They are proposing a new amendment to the PC um to make that fivestory uh housing development an eight-story housing development. uh 762 San Antonio Road, which is across Lake Hghorn, which is a proposed uh uh eightstory housing development, and uh 824 San Antonio Road, which is an

approved project uh a little bit um to the north um plan north in this uh view. And um and that's a fourstory um senior housing development. If you can go to the next slide. So a brief overview of the project. Uh planned home resoning includes new 8tory 8 m story mixeduse building with 167 residential rental units. 20% of those units or 28 units would be affordable to low income. Uh 14 there's 1,400 square ft of retail proposed. uh the parking uh 72 total on on two levels at and above grade. So no below grade parking is proposed. Some of the exceptions they're asking for include but are not limited to the height exception um to exceed the 50ft height limit of floor area and lot coverage exceptions and retail floor area requirement exceptions. And I'll get into those uh a little bit more in a few slides. A separate certificate of compliance to merge two lots is required uh and would be made a condition of approval of the project. If you could go to the next slide. So just a summary of the background process. Um as you're familiar with there's a pre-screening requirement to go to council um which this project did in May 2025. They then submitted a formal application um later that year and uh are now coming forward uh for it their first initial PTC hearing. Um, there will also be ARB hearings and ARB recommendation and then it will return to the PTC with a formal

PC ordinance for your consideration along with the um development plans as recommended by the ARB and then goes to council for a final decision. Next slide. The SQA process for this project is uh we're planning to do an addendum to the previously adopted housing incentive program in span expansion EIR. Uh we expect that there will be no significant environmental impacts. Um but they must comply with all of the adopted mitigation measures. And those measures do include um the uh measures to for impacts associated with the historic um building that's located on this property. Next slide. Site plan. Um I just wanted to get give you guys some context. Um, so, uh, there is a 25- ft setback on the San Antonio Road, um, frontage that's proposed. There are some improvements within that area. Um, so we can get into that further um, as you discuss. uh Lake Horn, there's a there is a setback on Lake Horn um in accordance with the code and uh all of the trash pickup and fire access is proposed along the Lake Horn Street. Next slide. Some of the key exceptions to the development standards for the existing CS zoning, uh they're proposing a 3.7 floor area ratio where 6 is allowed uh to one is allowed and 2.0 to1 is allowed under the housing incentive program. Uh there's uh the height of the building is 89 ft tall where 50 foot maximum is

typically allowed. There's a 67% lot coverage where 50% is allowed. I'll note that 100% of lot coverage is allowed with the housing incentive program. Uh ground floor commercial uh they have about 1,400 square ft proposed where 6,500 ft is required which is 15% of the floor area ratio for a mixeduse development under the CS zoning. Um and they're proposing 167 dwelling units per acre where 30 dwelling units per acre is typically allowed and there's no maximum density um uh under the housing incentive program. Next slide. So, some of the key feedback that we'll be um asking you to provide tonight um includes uh any comments you might have on the public benefits that are being proposed. Um any comments you might have on the parking that's proposed. Um this was a key item that was raised by council and so we're honing in on that particular component. Uh the retail. um any thoughts you have on the retail that's proposed. Um that was something that the council requested, but we're particularly interested in your thoughts on the retail and the retail as it relates to the parking. Um and finally, um transition to neighboring properties. Um the council had um requested stepbacks um which were incorporated into the San Antonio road frontage um elevations. Uh they also look they were also requesting stepbacks uh adjacent to 808 San Antonio Road which have not been incorporated.

Um, I will note that at the time it came to council, it was adjacent to an approved fivestory development, too. So, and next slide. And I did um want to add this because we did receive a resubmitt this week of the 808 San Antonio um road project. Um so they did provide some minor stepbacks. Um they do have balconies that still um encroach into that area. Um but they did step the upper wall back. Um so I just wanted to provide the context of what is currently being proposed. Um this has not gone forward to the ARB yet, but I just wanted to provide that context because we had it. Next slide. and staff recommends that the planning and transportation commission provide initial comments, feedback, and recommend that staff forward the proposed project to the architectural review board for further review. And with that, I will next slide. I'll turn it back to you and recommend that you hear from the applicant.

Thank you, Miss Rayold. Uh, if anyone has questions for M. Rael, would you rather do those now or wait until the applicant's presentation is complete? I see no requests. So, let's hear the applicant's presentation and then uh entertain questions.

Hi, evening commissioners. Um, we're very happy to be before you tonight. look forward to a robust discussion regarding 788 San Antonio. My name is Megan Watson. I'm a developer at Grub Properties. We own the property. Um I'm also joined tonight by a project consultant with Explore Real Estate as well as our architect with KTGY should there be any questions for them throughout the presentation. Um can we go to the next slide? Um actually can you do one more? Perfect. Um, so as mentioned in staff's presentation, we went and had our pre-screening last May before city council, uh, and really took that feedback to heart. One of the things that we heard as a primary concern was what this whole corridor looks like when we have multiple multi-ousing projects adjacent to each other and concerned with uh creating a tunnel or creating too much of a massing that would overwhelm the corridor. One of the biggest things that we did is while the program remained relatively similar in terms of number of units, parking, eight levels, height, uh we completely redesigned the exterior and really took that into account. Uh and that was what primarily took us to October when we uh submitted our formal application and that's what's represented before you tonight. Uh next slide. Um so in terms of massing we heard a lot about upper level stepbacks and really taking that into account. We see that as a tool in a set in a toolkit where there are many different architectural techniques things that we can do with massing to really help kind of uh tone down the scale if you will and really

break up the massing along in particular around the San Antonio road corridor. Um, so primarily we expanded our rooftop terrace right there on the hard corner on San Antonio and Legghorn up at uh level eight there. Uh, we also have a uh expansive courtyard that's up on level three. That's a 70 foot wide courtyard which is about a third of the property. That's probably one of the main tools that we've utilized to really help break up the massing. Um, we're using different materials. Uh we've also created a distinction between what we're calling the plinths or the podium level kind of levels one and uh one and two versus the upper levels. Um and using horizontal banding as well to kind of emphasize the horizontality and kind of downplay some of the verticality. So those are just an example of some of our tech techniques that um we've utilized to help with that concern. Um, and then overall just wanted to call out that in addition to the 25- ft setback that we have along San Antonio, the average step back at level 8 is 55 ft. That's when you take into account the courtyard as well as the rooftop terrace, which we think is pretty generous. Uh, next slide. Um, street activation. Uh, this is another thing um that we heard during the pre-screen. So, one thing uh one really key change that we made is we incorporated the retail back in. I anticipate we'll have some discussion around that tonight. Um I know there's uh a range of opinions, but uh we have maintained that in this design before you tonight and it's right there on the hard corner. Um that's a that is an activation tool and we really use that as a jumping off point for the rest of the ground floor experience. And that's not just through the building

architecture, but also through the treatment of the landscape and the streetscape. Uh you're seeing the bike lane represented there. It's a really wonderful pedestrian experience. Lots of street trees for shading as you come through. I know there's a lot going on in discussion with the San Antonio uh road area plan. uh what our intent here was to represent that those proposals that are being discussed are possible here and we're really excited about having those at our front door and continuing to collaborate on that. Um, also just want to note just kind of on the timeline of this, you know, we're in the PhD right now and at the end of the PhD we'll have to complete design and go through permitting and then this is about a three-year construction once we break ground. We're about 5 years out. You know, this is not a project being built tomorrow. So when we talk about ongoing uh discussions with the San Antonio Road area plan, we really mean that this can evolve uh with that and be delivered cohesively with some of those initial phases and we really look forward to that. Um next slide. One of the ways we're able to do that along San Antonio Road has to do with curb cuts. So, wanted to highlight that the current site has five curb cuts. There's three on Legghorn and two on San Antonio Road. The updated design has zero on San Antonio Road. We're really happy about that. And then there are only one on Legghorn. Um, and that was really important for us. We do have the benefit of having two street furniturees and being on the hard corner. So the the trade-off is that we have really utilized leg horn for a lot of those

back of house needs such as garage entry, trash, uh the fire access, transformers, those types of things. But the benefit is it really frees up the San Antonio uh road experience. Um next slide. Well, this this is really what I was just talking about is what we were able to accommodate. Um, again with that 25- ft setback, uh, it really there really is a lot of potential. One of the comments we did receive was to kind of limit uh, the level of design or activation that we're showing within that setback. And we certainly understand the the reasoning for the rationale for doing that when there is um, a lot still ongoing. and discussion. But for us, we really want to activate and design this space and and make it a um kind of awesome experience not just for our residents but people coming through here. Um so we have left that level of activation and design uh here in the the plan before you tonight. Um let's see next slide. Okay, the last couple slides are about parking, which is the topic I want to end on, at least for my remarks at the moment. Um, 74 stalls. It's a44 parking ratio. We do have 167 bike parking spaces for a 1:1 ratio. Um, we really want to celebrate the mobility and transportation options at this project. Uh, one of the ways we do that is by really enhancing through design elements the parking entry. One thing to note right up front uh, in this entry experience is that's where we will put our car share. Those are dedicated cars for our residents. We're proposing seven

of them. Um, that's a really meaningful uh, benefit to have for the residents that do not have a car. Uh, and we put them front and center. So, it's the first thing you see when you come into the building. Um, next slide. Okay. So, some macro trends for why we think reduced parking works. Um, we love that this really dubtales from uh the robust discussion that you guys were having just before this. Um, but things that we know ride share adoption continues to grow and we anticipate that it will that will be the trend that's here to stay. work from home or hybrid model is also a trend that we believe is here to stay. So just less uh trips in general, less demand. Cost of car ownership is at an all-time high, not just to purchase the car, but to maintain the car, insurance, gas. Um, we have a demographic profile that we tend to cater to that is very environmentally and socially conscious and living a car-free lifestyle really aligns with their values. Um and then lastly, we also heard this from one of the commissioners as well, um is just the availability of deliveries for food, groceries, daily needs, household goods, um is continues to rise as well and the adoption of that our experience. So we um we're a national multif family developer and operator. We when we build a project, we don't just sell it. We hold it long term and we operate it ourselves. So the property manager that will be at this project is my colleague. Uh and that's really important to us. We are uh significantly invested in the outcome, the viability and the success of this project. Um we have a property in Oakland not too far away that's very

similar to this in terms of number of units and parking. It's 157 units. It's 79 parking stalls. That's about a 0.5 ratio that has not created any um blockages for getting this thing leased. It's 97 per leased right now. We actually have excess parking available. It is a mechanical uh parking system. If you have questions on that, happy to share our experience operating that. Um and we delivered that in summer 2024. Oakland um it has had a lot of supply. There's a lot of housing opportunity. People have choices. And the point that we wanted to make here is that this really is a self- select type of housing if you are uh if you don't own a car. Meaning that if you did own a car and you came here and there wasn't an available parking spot or if you didn't want to park it in a mechanical stacker, which we got that feedback a lot, they uh residents and prospective residents had other choices and ultimately they made that choice. Um but it didn't ultimately uh inhibit us from maintaining or achieving the 97% lease. Couple more stats on that. Um, just wanted to highlight also some of the demographics of what we're seeing with this work from home or hybrid model. Um, pretty interesting that less than half of our residents are going into the office full-time. Um, whereas just over half are either working from home or still doing a hybrid model where maybe they go in two or three days of the week. And then the last stat on this one is that only 19% of our residents actually work in the city of Oakland. Um that's important because we think that

that's going to be very different in Palo Alto and that distinction is key. Uh next slide please. So how do we apply what we did in Oakland to Palo Alto? Because we recognize they're not apples to apples, they're different, right? So the jobs to household ratio is really where that comes into play and that's what we wanted to highlight here is it's a very different dynamic than what we're seeing at our nearby property. Um, we've heard this a lot whether with city council or from the community or even with PTC that there's a very clear stake and common initiative to want to get that jobs to house to hold ratio back in line and kind of reduce that ratio which means that residents that live here also need to work here. And so what that tells us as compared to Oakland or San Jose as well is the distinction is that the transit that we really need to enhance and make this successful is on a hyper local scale as opposed to a regional scale. And that's not to say that uh regional connectivity and regional transit isn't important and doesn't play a key role. Um, it just it's a distinction between what we're seeing in other markets where we really are focused on that last mile, the last two miles, getting people for this this really local connectivity, whether it's through uh bike lanes, which is there's been a lot of discussion around enhancing the pedestrian experience, um, additional bus stops to get to Cal Train. There's a lot of different opportunities, but it really is that last mile to two mile that can really transform the viability of this. Um, and then lastly, we just, you know, wanted

to highlight again with this this visual on the map how close we are to these resources in terms of the shoreline park, the bays, and some really key employers in the area that are set to continue to expand all within a mile of us. I mean, this really is not that far away. Um, and all of these factors are why we believe in the viability of a reduced uh, parking ratio here, which ultimately means less demand on automobiles and on the roads of San Antonio. Um, which we've heard a lot a lot of concerns about traffic and we even heard it from the consultant previously that the best way to reduce this is by just not providing the parking. Um, that's been our finding as an operator, not just in California, but across the nation. Um, and you know, we look forward to your feedback and discussion tonight on all those topics. So, thank you.

Thank you, Miss Watson. Did I get your name correctly? That's correct. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, anyone else from the applicant? No, that's the end of their time. Okay. Commissioners, do you have any clarifying questions to ask of either staff or the applicant in order to inform the public comment? I see no requests. So, Mr. Diver, do we have uh request for public comment?

Um through the chair, at the moment, we have five requests to speak. Um, if there's any other members of the public that would wish to speak to this item, I would ask that you give me a public comment card or raise your hand on Zoom. Our first speaker is Joan L. Good evening, um, commission members, city staff, and everybody else. My name is Joan Laraby. I live at 777 San Antonio Road, which is the greenhouse right across the street. 10 acres, only 140 units on 10 acres. I'm retired from the city of San Jose after 25 years and the last 20 of those were spent on traffic and transportation issues including the preconstruction phase of the light rail. So this, you know, something I would like to speak about my concerns about this um an eightstory building um with only half less than half the units getting even one parking place. Um San Antonio Road only has four lanes, no bike lanes, no bus service. There was a bus service when I moved into the greenhouse in the 80s. It stopped right outside next to our driveway. But eventually the bus service had to be pulled off because the roadway is just too narrow to even have a bus. Very disappointing.

Um, one friend of mine who lives on McKay Drive, that's those are the single family houses on the other side of Middlefield Road. She calls it the PaloAlto parking lot. San Antonio Road is a parking lot. And the commissioner who came who came in on the Zoom, she's had a level of service X. I've never heard of an X. Um, and one of the most odd things that I've heard as justification for having an eight-story building among all of the other five and six stories that keep creeping up and up is that if we have an eight-story building, then it'll bring a grocery store to this section of PaloAlto. Well, we already have the very best grocery store in PaloAlto, which is Piaza. There's a shopping center right around the other side of our block with uh Pete's Coffee and two restaurants. And there are several other um amenities up and down San Antonio Road, too. But my main concern is I find it hard to believe that a lot of people will not want to have a car. It'll park on other people's property. Um, but it's not safe to do that with no bike lanes. People right now are already using our sidewalks for the bikes.

Thank you. This concludes your time. I'm sorry. What? This concludes your time. I'm I'm mainly concerned about safety. If you're going to expect um 50 people to start using bikes, they're going to use the sidewalks. And right now, many of the people where I live are very concerned about the fact that sometimes where would a firet truck or an EMT get through all this? That's my concern. Thank you very much for your comment. We do appreciate it. Do you have any questions? Generally, we don't interact with the public commenters.

Okay. Our next speaker is Steven. Steve Bell. Sorry.

Hi, I'm Steve Levy. I think I'm going to sound a bit like Claire on this. Um, I support the staff recommendation that has two parts. Please add your comments and suggestions and please move it forward as it will come back to you. You and the council have decided already that this portion of the south side of San Antonio is appropriate for eightstory buildings. The one adjacent to this was raised from five to eight stories at the request of council. The one at 762, which is not adjacent, I walked that a couple of times, is also eight stories. So, we've already decided that this small stretch is an appropriate and beneficial location for highdensity housing. As Claire said and as the um Miss Watson emphasized, there's not going to be any development of any of these three big projects and the senior housing project until the five or 10year period. This is not about today or tomorrow. And so I have two requests. um to this staff but also to Robert Kaine on the San Antonio area plan. One is I'd like to know what car, bike, and pedestrian improvements are likely and possible in that 5 to 10

year period. And two, it's just me, but I remember um Council Member Bert on the 3265 teacher housing saying, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a Zip Car location next door in that area?" As far as the setbacks, I have no expertise, but I would remind the commission as um Clare pointed out that the original concern came when the buildings were a very very different height. So, I'm interested in what the ARB says. I'm interested in um the applicants working together. I don't know whether this Carlite project will actually work, but no one in this room knows with any degree of confidence that it won't work. So, let's let the process evolve knowing that this is 5 to 10 years out. Come back when we learn more about what is possible. um and move this forward so you'll get it back with a lot more information before you need to make a recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Levy. Our next speaker is Oscar M. Good evening, esteemed members of the PTC. So, my name is Oscar Masos. Thank you for giving me the time to speak tonight. I am a field representative with the North Coast State's Carpenters Union. I represent about 5,700 members give and take u over here in this u Santa Clara County. So tonight, as you consider this item for some much neededed housing, I urge you to also consider how this project will be built and who will be building it. Um we are in no shape or form against any housing. We just want it to be built without taking advantage of the workforce. Housing is not just about units and numbers. It's about people, both the families who will one day live in these homes, but also the men and women who will be constructing them. That is why choosing a responsible contractor is critical. A responsible contractor is one who values the workforce and invest in them. One who ensures workers are paid area standard wages and can afford to live in the communities that they serve. Um, one who provides health care benefits and workers can care for themselves and their families. um one who offers retirement security so that after decades of physical demanding work they um these trades people can retire with dignity. Equally important is a strong apprenticeship program. One that creates pathways for young men and women from the community uh to enter the trades and gain skills earn while they learn and become the next generation of highly trained craftsmen and women. These programs don't just build careers, they build safer jobs, higher quality projects, and stronger local economies. So, as you move forward with this housing project, I respectfully ask that you prioritize responsible contractors to uphold these standards. Doing so ensures the project delivers not only

housing, but long-term value for the workforce, families, and the community as a whole. And thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comment. Our next speaker is Mike B. Good. Good evening, commissioners. My name is U. Mike Brown. I'm a representative with the North Coast State's Carpenters Union, and you guys have a lot to lot goes into this, and a lot to consider when uh when you're looking at these projects. But um I'm going to echo a little bit of what my brother said, but um one thing that is grossly overlooked a lot of times is the hardworking men and women that are building these projects. And um what is the true public benefit? Are these workers getting paid area standard wages? Are these workers provided health care? Are these workers going to be able to retire with dignity? And is apprenticeship utilization being used? That would be the true public benefit would be that the developer hire a responsible contractor that provides these things to the hardworking men and women that build our nation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Our next speaker is John P. John P, you may now speak.

Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh for fairness and transparency, the planning commission is requested to consider and publish how Peloto's housing element requirements are distri are recommended and distributed across the PaloAlto neighborhoods. This is important so that a particular neighborhood doesn't feel that they're carrying much more of the burden than other neighborhoods. This the 788 790 796 San Antonio Road project is one of four projects in the queue for the east side of the section of San Antonio Road between East Charleston and Milo Road that may bring an additional 550 residential units to this small uh section of San Antonio Road if all of the exceptions are are granted. Uh the planning commission is requested to consider the appropriate dens density level for this section of San Antonio Road before accepting uh the exceptions requested for for this project. Uh this would be like a foot in the door and and that is not necessarily a good thing. The tallest buildings on in this section of San Antonio Road between East Charleston and Milfield are the five-story Marriott hotels. And at the end of this is the Ashman Center. An eight or ninestory building would be out of scale for the neighborhood. And three or four of these side by side could form an intimidating wall with unexpected consequences such as the wall could reflect traffic noise from San Antonio Road into adjacent PaloAlto neighborhoods. We just don't know. We don't have experience with this type of uh building or this density of construction.

The Saraph project has been considering has been cons uh cons considering eightstory buildings, but they've pretty much come to the conclusion that those buildings should be placed along Highway 101 and and not in the neighborhoods where where they really are are are not to scale. Uh currently the section of San Antonio Road between Milfield Road and and East Charleston Road provides in each directions two lanes of traffic. One lane of which is a shared bicycle lane, a parking lane which is also used as a right turn lane, a loading zone, a median strip, uh which is also used as a left turn lane, a sidewalk and a parking strip. This fits within 76.5 curb to curb and overall 10.5 ft u ro. SRAP presents three alternatives, two of which drops the parking lanes, both parking lanes in in each direction and the other drops one parking lane. Since on street parking seems likely to be reduced and there not appears to be space for bus or shuttle stops, reducing the parking requirements for uh project 788 um seems inappropriate. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Jeremy L. Jeremy L, you may now speak.

Good evening, PTC. Jeremy Lavine here with PaloAlto Forward. I am the relatively new executive director. Thank you all for for a really lovely staff presentation, for a great discussion on the last item. This is my first comment to the PTC, so I'm very excited to be talking before you all. We're excited for 788 San Antonio to move forward. We look forward to this project uh going to the ARB hopefully and the council and back to the PTC. I'm here to talk about something that personally excites me about this project because I do not own a car. And it is possible for me to live without owning a car in part because I live in an apartment building with a 0.5 parking ratio and unbundled parking. which means that I am able to live in an apartment and not need to pay the $200 that it would cost in order for me to have a parking space every month and to pay for the insurance and to pay for the gas and to pay for the monthly upkeep expenses of owning a vehicle. This means that I am able to uh make a series of choices about how I live my life. And uh means that that the cost of paying for a parking space is not socialized onto me by a rule that that forces me to to pay for for car ownership that others might decide totally fairly. Uh, I'm I'm really looking forward to the future of the San Antonio corridor. I think the city is planning for some really a really ambitious vision of what this corridor is going to look like and I hope that as it moves forward with the San Antonio area plan, uh, projects like this that envision the future of of a

transit oriented, walkable, bikable corridor are something that the PTC celebrates and supports. So, uh, looking forward to your discussion tonight and, uh, to many more public comments in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lavine.

And to the chair, I have no other request to speak. Thank you, Mr. Tedra. Uh, commissioners, uh, as with 800 San Antonio that we we reviewed a few weeks ago, we're making a simple decision tonight about whether to forward the project to the ARB. Uh, however, we'll see the project again. So, I encourage everyone to bring up their concerns now so that uh, the ARB and the applicant uh, have plenty of time to prepare for the questions that we're likely to have later. So general discussion is now open

through the chair. Um I would like to invite the applicant to make a closing statement if they wish. Pardon me. Absolutely right. Sorry I missed that.

Well, I'll keep it brief. Um just piggybacking on what Jeremy just said, the vision for San Antonio Road is ambitious. Um, and I just want to acknowledge that the viability of this project, while we firmly believe in it, it does require collaboration and a shared vision uh with the city as well as other regional stakeholders uh to make this come to life. Um, ultimately we appreciate all the feedback and collaboration that we've had to date and we look forward to continuing to refine the project with your feedback as well as with ARBs um, and advancing this much neededed housing for the region. Thank you.

Thank you. Apologies for not offering you that opportunity when it should have happened. All right, commissioners. Discussion is open. I have Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Hecman, Commissioner G in that. Thank you, Chair. Uh, so this might have been a question I I should have asked earlier, but I noticed attachment uh H is not in the packet and it says that's the project plans. Is that just an omission or was that not included?

You typically receive a hard copy of the project plans and then there's a link. I'm not sure. Let me check. Hold on. It's not super important. I can just ask a quick question and maybe the applicant can answer my question. Sure. The plans are available online as well, but uh you can go ahead and ask your question.

Okay. Thank you. So, for the applicant, one of the questions I have is uh you know, I see the outside of the the building, the the rendering of the the 3D and all the rest. Uh but what's the construction uh of this? Is this a mass timber construction with the heavy beam timbers? Is this a a masonry or is this steel? What type of building is this? Um yes, great question. So it's eight stories. So it'll be five level five levels of wood frame situated on top of three levels of concrete. Okay. So that probably explains why the carpenters union came in. Uh cuz it's a it's a wood frame building. Then the kind of the normal we see like a we call them podiums. Correct.

Yeah. Podium. You typically might see a five over two. This is a five over three.

Five over three. Okay. Thank you. And then uh the comment I wanted to make uh just on top of that is uh I am uh uh what's the word for it? I'm um uh sympathetic to the the comments by the um is it uh Mike Brown and uh Oscar that uh you know the carpenters union they have a a local training center and they really are um you know a high-skll workforce you know lot less rework less requests for information you know the projects get done so I would encourage um I've been to their training center in Morgan bill. And so I would I would encourage you if you're familiar with building construction in this region, uh they're just a great resource. It's just the place where you go, it's uh to get, you know, the high quality workforce. Uh but I'll I'll keep my the rest of my comments for the next round. Thank you. And for clarification, just for the record, it looks like the references to the attachments at the end of the staff report skipped the numbering for F, but the attachments are actually labeled A through G. So, um, what was referenced as the project plans as attachment H are actually labeled as attachment G.

Oh, excellent. Okay, thank you for that explanation. I have Commissioner Hecman, then G, then Vice Chair Chang. Thank you, Chair. Um, so question for staff and then I think I have three questions for the applicant. So staff, the the background here, if I understood correctly, um, the the version of this project that went to the council for pre-screen last May did not have retail. council expressed an interest in seeing retail and the version we have received now has 1,400 square feet of retail. Is that right? That is correct.

Okay. Um if I could have um Miss Watson come up um just three questions uh for you. Um you know given your organization, its background and experience, you've you've addressed the council's concern by providing retail. How does Grub feel about it? Are you are you excited to have it? Are you nervous that you won't be able to tenon it?

Um there isn't a reticence to it. Um in part and I'll I'll just disclose I have previously developed retail as well. So it is something I know intimately. Um retail likes to be clustered. uh nodes really work and having some intentionality with where that retail is located is really important. One of our concerns is uh our neighbor to the south not having it. I know there's been some back and forth of whether our neighbor to the north would have it, but ultimately how it's showing up right now is it's a bit fragmented. So for us, if the desire is to have retail, what we would ask is that it be a little bit more strategic in how we're locating it and clustering it together throughout the corridor as opposed to it being more of a broad brush. That's the that's where it starts to become more of a challenge. We've had very unsuccessful retail and some successful retail and it's really driven by the neighborhood characteristics that it's in.

Okay, thank you for that. Uh, second question, your Oakland project, the Link Apartments, 412. Yes. What's the address of that? 412 Madison. Madison. It's in Jack London Square. Okay. All right. And the third question, um, three-year construction from is that I was trying to understand your timeline. That seemed like a long time from issuance of building permits to

build it or but maybe you were saying maybe you were thinking from from sort of the land use entitlements and then the three years starts with your pursuing the building permits. No, that that's from when breaking ground. Um a project of this size, the eight stories, it's any it definitely would be I think at best we could carve it down to 32 months. Um there's other things that contribute to that such as inspections, getting power to the site. There's a lot of coordination. So for us that 3 years that 3 36 month construction schedule is what we're allocating. You are taking into account that you don't have to deal with PG Genie at this site because you have PaloAlto's own utility which

we are aware. My my impression is they're more responsive. Yeah, we look forward to that. Okay. All right. Those are my questions for you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Um um I guess let me say overall um I'm uh enthusiastic about u goodsize eightstory housing project at this location. Um and I'll have some specific comments but I want to do it on a second round. Thank you commissioner commissioner G.

Thank you chair. Um like my fellow commissioners, this will be a questioning round for me. Um I have some questions for staff and also for the applicant. For staff, on packet page 63, the daylight plane, you've listed here that it must match existing PC. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

Sure. Um it's a bit interesting the way the way that the special uh requirements in the code under 1838 read is that um if you have 60% of the site that's residential, you can uh match the daylight planes of the neighboring property that that is in a residential PC use or residential use. um so they can match the uh daylight plane of the neighboring property. The daylight plane of that neighboring PC is not really well defined. They had the the massing of their building that was approved by council under their PC ordinance at the at the setbacks that it was proposed at. um but it doesn't have a clear daylight plane and that's because when it was being developed there was no daylight plane requirement because they weren't adjacent to a um uh site that was in a residential zone district or a residential PC. Um and so uh that's the technical requirements.

I understand. I think the commissioners know I'm very familiar with 1838 15e. Um, so okay, I understand it's a little bit of a chicken and egg between this project and 808. So that makes sense. For the next line, the build to lines, you've listed leg horn none built to setback. Can you elaborate on that a little bit more? Technically the uh setback um the building is set back slightly further than the actual setback line and so they are not building up to the exact setback line.

I see. So it's like inches or very small amount is kind of what you're saying here. Okay. Thank you. And then I had a question related to the public comment from Joan who said that the road is too narrow for a bus. Is that something staff can comment on? I I would say that no, it's not too narrow for a bus. It is a truck route. Um it was too narrow. They took it off. may be that there's limitations in terms of room for bus stops and other things, but um it's something that definitely will be part of the discussions as part of the San Antonio road area plan.

Yeah. Yes, that I understand. Um I just wanted to confirm that for the record. And then also I wanted to clarify a different public comment who said that uh the city has decided to build eight stories as a part of the San Antonio area plan, but my understanding is that decision is not finalized yet. Can staff confirm that? Correct.

Thank you. Um, now I have some questions for the applicant. So, um, thank you for, uh, providing the presentation and a comparison against your project in Oakland. Can you tell me a little bit more about the like what is around the project in Oakland? Can you tell me about the transit? Can you tell me about the supermarkets? Can you tell me about the park space? Can you just tell me a little bit more about the area? Um, yeah. Are you familiar at all with Jack London that neighborhood? So, so that that's why I'm asking the question.

Yeah, understood. Um, so a couple things. So, it's located in the Jack London neighborhood. Um, our particular project which is 412 Madison is right on a freeway. It was one of the things that uh for us when we were designing the project was one of the things we were the most sensitive to. Um, Jack London is a walkable neighborhood. However, it has been impacted as a result of some COVID era and some retail vacancy. So, it's just starting to kind of get its legs again. Um, it's a couple blocks from the waterfront, which I think is probably one of the uh nicest aspects of it. Um, which is where Jack London Square itself is situated in. Um, in terms of transit, there's two key uh uh transit access to note, which is proximity to a BART station. Um, and then also the ferry uh is also uh pretty popular uh for residents within Jack London. You can hop on the ferry, commute to San Francisco. Um, so those are just

Any other comments about like supermarkets or parks? Um, well, the park would kind of be the waterfront. So, there's a whole kind of trail um and plaza area right on the waterfront. That would be the main um park hub. And then there actually really isn't a supermarket within walking distance, but there's u kind of some peppered throughout downtown Oakland, but there's not one actually within the neighborhood that's walkable. Okay. Thank you. And then can you tell me a little bit more about your decision for the retail square footage? uh how did you settle on this number?

Um so this is a I don't want to say a holdover but we were referencing the a uh previous entitlement the 102 units. This was approximately the same square footage and I can't recall the exact code reference but it basically was in reference to replacement retail and based on um the some of the existing commercial square footage that we presently have on site noting those are vacant right now but that's how we derived the calculation.

Thank you. And then for the vehicle parking, um, can you tell me a little bit more about the 74 proposed on packet page 65? So, is this including the seven that are the shared vehicles? Help me understand how these these two balance out. Yeah, the 74 is total. So, that would be inclusive of the car share. Uh there's uh two ADA I believe and then we have two that are dedicated for uh guest or prospective resident parking.

Okay. So so sorry just help me do the math here. So h how many are actually like if I'm a resident I can get a car like how many car spaces are there allocated for residents? Yeah. So there' be 74 plus 11 so 63. Oh I see. So the 74 the number that you've provided here is already subtracting out the spaces that you're out you're pre-allocating for the the opposite the 74 is total so you would net out the the seven plus the two and two so it would take you down to 63

okay so okay so that's helpful thank you and then I had another question which is in your council presentation you had said that the building manager would also be living on site Yes. And I was wondering so from a unit's perspective that is just one fewer unit. Is that for like other residents that aren't the building manager or how how does that get counted here? Um yeah, one of the 167 one of them would go to a property manager. And that's a state law by the way. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, I'm aware. I just wanted to make sure that I'm just doing all of my my math correctly. Um

okay. And those are all of my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Chang. Thanks, Chair. Uh, okay. I'll make my comments a question round as well. Uh, so for the for staff, um, how many bike spots are there exactly? I saw 167 in your presentation as well as 167 on the plans, but then looking at the TDM portion, I saw only 120. So, I just wanted to verify that the 167 is actually the planned number as of right now.

We were noting that as well in our comments on the TDM plan that there was a discrepancy. Um but uh staff's understanding is that uh based on the plan set that what's proposed is 167. Okay. Thanks. Sounds like you have the same confusion. Maybe the applicant would like to answer that question really quickly. Um that's correct. It's 167. We're planning for the 1:1 ratio. We believe there was a typo in the TDM that we'll have corrected. Okay. Thank you. Mhm.

Um and then for staff, um when you referred to 20% of the units as being below market rate units, that's a weighted average of 20%. Correct? Rather than because if I do the actual math, it's 16.7. Correct. Yes, that is the weighted average. Sorry.

Okay. No, thank you. Um, and then for staff, um, do we have data on the parking usage or other PCs that have been underparked in this city? Uh, so I know that we have at least one that was the workforce housing at the corner of Page Mill and um, El Camino, but most of our PCs require some amount of reporting. So I was wondering if we have anything that's built. There must be other PCs as well that I may not be aware of. Um, do we have any data on where those are or what, you know, what the residents have actually done or are doing?

I would have to look into that further and uh bring that back when we return to PTC. Okay, that's definitely an area that I'm interested in. Thank you. And I know that, you know, for example, there's the teacher housing on El Camino that we um requested that they monitor the parking data, but I I just am not quite familiar with all the pieces that we that we have that might have been um ahead of parking reductions. Okay. Uh, I'll just note that a lot of a lot of those newer ones aren't constructed yet, so we don't have the data from them, but we can certainly look into the ones that are constructed. Yeah,

thank you. Yeah, I'm aware that most of them are pretty recent. Okay. Um, I think the remainder of my questions are for the applicant. So, chair, if it's okay with you, I'll ask the applicant some questions. Please proceed. Okay. Um, what's your average length of tenency in Oakland? Do you have that?

Um, we could provide that. We delivered in the summer of 2024, so we don't have a long history that uh would probably be super useful, but we were very happy this past year with our renewal rate, which is a a metric that we typically track. Um, usually for a project like this, we would want to hover around 50% or half. Um, but we actually got closer to 60%. So, we were super happy with that. Okay. What about in California? Because you said you mentioned you you um have other developments in California. We have other

Yeah, this is our only operational asset in California. We do have other developments in our pipeline, but uh nationally we have uh a renewal rate that is around that 50%. That's where that metric came from.

Okay. Um my next question is, oh um so council had mentioned concerns about parking. Um, was the parking not addressed simply because you thought that you know you you in your applicant presentation went ran through a bunch of information. Was it based on that or were there other considerations as well?

So for us uh our primary uh takeaway from pre-screen we we certainly understood the concern. how we interpreted that is really believing in this typology um that our what we really needed to do was provide that additional information as well as provide the TDM which we didn't have at the time. So those have that's really been our focus to provide the TDM and to provide the additional information to support this type of parking ratio.

Okay. And then um similarly for retail, I know that council had asked for retail and thank you so much for including the retail, but it's much less retail than um the 6,000 odd 6,000 plus square feet. Um, did you consider the possibility and one of the things that we've been looking at with retails, we understand that 6,000 square feet might be too much um that it's the street frontage that needs to be activated, but was it possible to uh you know, you said retail lags clustering. So, did you guys look at all at having retail on the bottom of the other side where the bike parking is right now or is it not pencil or can you tell tell me more about this? Um we did not study that. Uh that per or that 6,000 square footage was actually um a new metric for us. The um the part of the code that we were referencing for replacement retail uh that we were um uh using to determine the square footage uh comes out to a different number. So that was uh that level was new information to us as of this report.

Thank you. That's helpful. Would you be open to having a little bit more if like is it doable? Do you know?

Uh well doable there's a lot of different things to consider. Um obviously the hot topic of the evening which is parking. you know, at at that level of 6,000 square foot, we really have to talk about the the parking impacts with that. Uh that's probably the biggest concern. Um I would also certainly be concerned with just uh taking up just more square footage and that coming kind of, you know, it has to come from somewhere. Um so that probably is going to mean either a substantial reduction in some of the amenity offering or other our ground floor services looking at the plans here. um at the dis here bike lane, our lobby, we have a co-working area. So there is a ripple effect to that unfortunately.

Is it are you concerned about the viability of the current retail given the limited amount of parking that is provided in this unit and in the area? Uh we're concerned about the viability of the retail in general. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. That's it for me, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chang. Um, my questions have been uh ablely asked by my fellow commissioners and answered by staff and Miss Watson. So, uh rather than uh extend the question round, I will begin begin commenting and uh why not start with the hard one? Let's do parking first. Um, so phrasing it delicately, the parking and TDM plans strike me as unrealistic. Uh, so this will be the single largest concern when this comes back to us from my point of view. Um, looking at link 412, uh, I see from Google Maps that within one quarter mile of that project, there are eight bus stops. the Jack London Transit Station. It's not that far to Bart and I didn't notice the ferry, but now that you've mentioned that, that's significant for commuters to San Francisco. Uh, so it it bears on the 19% of residents work in Oakland observation. How many work in San Francisco and take the ferry or BART? Um, for 788 of San Antonio within a quarter mile, there are currently just two bus stops. Those are on Charleston, not on San Antonio. Yet, this proposal has even fewer parking places per unit than link 412. And I didn't realize that you were accounting the car share places uh as spaces that were available to uh residents. Removing those from the total, it works out to be about 38 spaces per unit.

That's really low. Um I think it's worth mentioning some general statistics about PaloAlto. uh according to the the census 70% of employed Palo Alto residents work in other cities despite the 4 to one jobs housing imbalance. So that tells us something about commute patterns um that exist today. Just shy of 50% of employed Palo Alto residents commute more than 10 miles. So those are not going to be local bike and bed commuters. they're going to be transit or or vehicle. Uh unless you believe that you can attract residents that are drastically different over the lifetime of the project from PaloAlton's today, uh then you're likely to run into some difficulties here. Um, a point I often make is that in Silicon Valley, we deal with a geographic distribution of jobs that's different from many other parts of the Bay Area, including the East Bay. Uh, because we're so distributed u, so you need you need that transit access not only where people live, but also where the jobs are. And currently that's the weak link. Uh so there's a there's a major transit issue that has to be solved there to make this sort of thing viable. People also change jobs frequently here which means uh at one point I haven't checked it lately but at one point the average tenure in a tech job was around two years. So it's worth checking on that. Um, if

you live in this project on San Antonio, it's pretty likely that at some point in your life, you're going to want a job that needs to be accessed by in Silicon Valley that needs to be accessed by a car. With the limited parking we're talking about here, then that forces residents to choose whether to move or pass up that job. So, that's a a potential weakness. Uh, which leads into comment I made a few weeks ago and I'll bring it up to date today. The cautionary tale of the Fay in downtown San Jose. Um, the Fay is a 336 unit highrise that was about to be foreclosed at the end of January due to poor occupancy of the one and two-bedroom units. Studios were fine, but the one and two-bedroom units had very poor occupancy rates. The published reports claim that this low occupancy rate is mostly due to the project being underparked. Now, there's good news more recently. It won't be foreclosed. Uh but that's because the city of San Jose has agreed to subsidize 60% of the units. So that's the kind of gap we're talking about that can arise um if parking is not sufficient for the uh the lives of the people who would like to live in the the development. Um I think it goes without saying that PaloAlto probably does not have the resources to back up a project to that extent. So, we need to have a solution up front that we're comfortable with. Uh, finally, on the parking issue, uh, I mentioned to staff in the premeating that I would suggest increasing the size

of the car share facility, uh, either within the project or somewhere nearby on San Antonio. Um, I've had second thoughts about that because as I tried to analyze the the usage patterns, it looks to me like commuting is going to be the biggest problem here and car share services aren't a great solution for that. Um, so we need something else. So I I withdraw that uh that request for consideration. All right, that is uh that is all I have to say about what I regard as uh my most significant issue with the project. And in the next round, I'll have uh some other things to say that are u little less critical. All right, let's see. Commissioner Hecman, Commissioner G. So, I'm I'm going to do the reverse of what the chair did. I'm going to start with the easy stuff. Uh first of all, on uh packet page 56, the first line of the midmodal access and parking project proposes a 40% parking reduction. I think it's 60% is what they're proposing. So if if that's right, um as this moves forward and you recycle the staff report, please clean that up. Um next, I had a question for Mr. Yang on the the findings which are on and obviously we're not making findings tonight. They were just put in here to remind us of sort of ultimately what we'll have to be thinking about but I just wanted to ask Mr. Yang a question about uh B which is about the public benefits right and so this is the you know the justification for the u the plan community zone district and and we're comparing it to I think the base

district and and B is asking are we going to get public benefits not um otherwise attainable from the application of the regulations in the base district and so the two u public benefits we're talking about in the staff report. One is the provision of affordable housing and the other is possibly um the requirement of an easement in the setback area, the street setback, which incidentally I I am supportive of that idea. That's a piece that staff wanted uh feedback on. So my my question here is is I think in a uh in a residential development under the base zoning there could also be some amount of uh uh below market housing but uh not as much because of the the you know more limited uh um density. And um there could also be a requirement for this um uh e street easement. So is the is the you know I'm I'm interested in I want to make sure we can make finding B and I think that we can because of the additional BMRs generated through this kind of zoning than under the base zoning. Am I reading that right?

Uh that's right. There there is additional uh affordability that's required. Um although I guess I'd also clarify that for a rental project, we actually don't require any on-site uh affordable units, uh most the the basic requirement for rental projects is that they pay a a housing impact fee. Okay. Um and they can provide units uh instead as an alternative of paying that fee. But okay, even taking that into account, the the PHC does uh provide more units.

Okay, good. I'm comfortable with that. Um all right. So u the step back issue next to 808 um has been uh council was interested in that but things have changed since then. Now, instead of a fivetory, uh I think it's 808. Instead of a fivetory next door, it's looking like it wants to be eight. And so the same roughly the same elevation and uh so I I'm not seeing a need for a step back there. But I think so on that issue, I'm willing to route this forward and it'll get uh you know, back to council and they can say they can decide if they want both to step back or only one of them or neither. Um but so I I think um there's not so much to talk about there. Um on the uh next I want to talk about the retail. Um will staff remind me what if anything is proposed directly across Legghorn at that at the um Legghorn that other Legghorn San Antonio corner.

Yeah. So, at the very corner, the existing building um is not going to change. Um but at 762 San Antonio, which is um one parcel in from the corner and then wraps around um to have a entrance off Lake Horn as well. There was a sevenstory builder remedy. They have now resubmitted their plans as an eightstory um development. So, um, we are analyzing that change right now, but expect to bring it forward to, uh, the ARB hopefully by early June this year. Okay. All right. So, when I think about retail,

but it's just re residential. Sorry, I should clarify. It is just residential at 762 San Antonio.

Okay. So, I am concerned about this micro retail site. I do like the fact that it wraps the corner. I think that's a plus. But, you know, when I think about um um more urban areas and Santa this San Antonio cor corridor is it going to become a more urban area with all of these eight stories? You know, a model that you often see is is the retail clustered on the corners and then no retail until you get to the next cluster of corners, right? And and that's, you know, this that's kind of fun, right? You got a bodega on this side and you go across the street and there's your dry cleaner, whatever. Um, and so I like this corner for that, but it it needs the corner across Legghorn to complement it with more retail. And right now at that corner, we have a building that's staying. Uh, you know, who knows what the future will bring, but um, so that's a concern of mine. So I'm not sold that we should have retail there. Um um it might be more valuable to have additional parking um um on that ground floor. You know, there's a reconfiguration to you're not going to you're not going to put park cars behind that window, but um you know, it'll be attractive. Um um so I'm not I'm not sold on the retail um because of of these factors. And certainly um as when we're talking about San Antonio plan, I think we should have a big retail cluster as I've mentioned, you know, down at uh uh San Antonio and Middlefield. That's that I think that's should be the gathering place for our retail. Um and that'll serve this location very nicely. Um and then finally on the parking, so I'm going to sort of give you my experience as I read through the staff report. um you know um

167 units. Yeah. 74 parking spaces. Well, how does that figure? Um and then the council uh is concerned um with that. Uh but since the pre-screening, no meaningful changes. And I was thinking, you know, how does that figure? And then I got to the back of the appendix and I read the TDM and I said, oh, that's how they figure. Um because the the TDM has a methodology to explain why. Now they say 75 parking spaces. You're one shy. Put that in the retail. Um but you are one shy. But that's how they figure. And I'm not an expert. Um but some people with expertise wrote this. And so one thing I want to see is, you know, this this report came out in January of this year. the the pre-screening was last May. So, the council hasn't seen this and I rather than prejudge how they might react to the 74 not changing, I'd like to hear their feedback having reviewed this like I did. Um, and again, I don't know whether it's ultimately right or not. Um, I do think that the horizon is a little different. you know, the the FA is happening now. This is uh five years from now. I don't know if that's really going to make a difference. Um, but the other thing I think about is if it doesn't work, if there is more parking demand than But well, I I think we have to this this kind of underparking scares me a little bit, but I feel like we've got to dip our toe in the water at some point and and and see if it's going to work. And I kind of like this location because there's no single family

neighborhood um adjacent to it for the tra for the parking to bleed into if we're if this TDM is wrong. And so I like this location as sort of a pilot program uh for this concept. U so those are my thoughts. I am uh wanting to forward this to the ARB for their review and I don't really have any changes to the proposal. If I may through the chair, I thought it would be helpful to clarify the next steps in the process. The next step would be um if it is the recommendation of the planning comm transportation commission to go to ARB uh it would then return to planning commission before going to council. Okay. So just to inform your comments

for that clarification. So so when it comes back to us we won't have the benefit of the council's reaction to the TDM. Okay. Correct. Okay. So we'll have to um contend with that when it comes back to us. All right. Thanks for that clarification. Thank you, Commissioner Hecman. I have Commissioner G, then Vice Chair Chang.

So, I will join Commissioner Hecman in talking about the easy stuff first. Um, also with some questions about the TDM as well. So, I'll start by saying that this the city has agreed that the San Antonio area is a good place for higher density housing and this project as Commissioner Hecman notice noted has no spillover effects for R1 has really no other uh height impacts on its neighboring buildings because the neighboring buildings will be approximately the same height as the proposed building is right now. I will note that on the plans uh I believe uh page A10 that there is listed some parking that's going to be on the street and likely that will go away. So just kind of a note for the applicant. There's also a loading zone I believe that's on San Antonio and that will likely go away with some of the transportation projects that we are as a city doing on San Antonio Road. So just be mindful of that. I will talk also a little bit about the retail. I'm I think on the flip side of what Commissioner Hecman said in that because we're not building retail, we won't ever create more retail nodes. So if part of my personal preference on the San Antonio corridor specifically in the region designated by this project is that I prefer to have ground floor retail for every single project along this strip here and I've expressed that previously and I would like to see that occur here. Echoing what Vice Chair Chang had mentioned about the ground floor retail, I I would be excited about potentially looking into more ground flooror retail

here so that you could become the the cluster that you so desire. I don't know as vice chair Ching mentioned if 6 6583 square feet is the correct number and our retail consultants have also said that different configurations are occurring right now and so we may want to be more creative with the space there but I would like to see potentially some more ground for floor retail there. I also want to dive into the TDM a little bit more as the commission knows my background is more on the transportation side and so I did have some questions and maybe the applicant or your consultant can help answer this. So on packet page 111 you've noted that there is a 21% reduction in residential programs and services. However, if I sum up the numbers in that column you don't get to 21%. So can you help me understand how there's a like a 9% discrepancy here?

Um candidly I would have to uh defer that to our TDM consultant who is not present tonight as it's okay

access planning have to so in that case I will just kind of provide my commentary about the TDM program. Uh, Vice Chair Chang had previously asked staff about programs that have parking counts. The only PC project I do know that does do that has some kind of parking numbers that I'm aware of as Palto Commons, which I won't say is comparable, but has some kind of parking counts and does have more visitors uh there as well. So, one potential reference for a PC that's been created that has counts. So uh the other thing that I'm curious about and this is more for your consultant is the the graphs that you've provided on packet page 102 103 on 108 and 109. Are these demand like where's the baseline data for this? Is this for Paul Alto? Is this for the general area? I know you don't have any answers to these questions, but as chair Akin has mentioned, Paulo Alto residents do behave pretty differently than kind of the general populace. And so I would be curious to see if these projections would also apply to the demand that we're seeing that we would anticipate to see for this project. In addition, if you look at some of the numbers that I previously described on packet page 110, 111, and 112, you'll note that you you really don't get up to that 57% because there are a bunch of discrepancies in the the sums across these percentages. And so that makes me more worried about what Commissioner Hecman had mentioned in that the report may say the bottom line is that hey we only need 75% but a lot of the percentages aren't adding up and that worries me especially because as chair

Aken had mentioned we're looking at a 38 parking percentage and given that we're already diving way further into the parking deficit that having these numbers be pretty accurate It would help soothe a lot of the the folks here on this commission in terms of the viability of the project from a parking standpoint. I also had a question for the applicant if they are willing to provide the easement that is discussed in our packet. Is this something that you are open to? Uh yes, that's been our understanding that that was likely forthcoming.

Okay. Just wanted to confirm that. Um and I think there's some nods here from the commission that that's um exciting. I also would encourage the applicant to look into some of the designs and the feedback from the San Antonio road area plan. I think that there are some already bike plans for the area that I think could be incorporated into your design that uh would save you also a little bit of work yourself since the city's already designing that for you. And then I had a question about the the balconies. So right now are the balconies intruding into the setback or are they not? Maybe either staff or applicant can answer that.

I believe they are intruding into the setback is my recollection. Yeah, if they they do project to the setback uh on on both sides. Let me get to the plan sheet. I'm stating this because for 660 University we had a lot of discussion about balconies in setbacks. So just wanted to clarify that. And then also on both sides

on both sides. Okay. Thank you. And then uh okay, I also want to applaud the applicant for listening to council about the setbacks on the San Antonio side. I think there was a lot of concern about it seeing like a canyon and I think the the average 53 ft setback is a step in the right direction. And but for me personally, I actually think that I would prefer something that is more kind of a standard setback as opposed to having parts that are right against the street and then some parts that are further back. I think that there could be some way in which you fill in some more area within the horseshoe that you've created and kind of move back some of the sections that are right against the street. Because if I'm thinking about the experience as a pedestrian, right, it's nice that not all of the building is against where the sidewalk is going to be once we potentially put move the sidewalk due to the easement, but it's I would prefer having more sunlight on the street averaged across as opposed to mostly shade, then lots of sun, then some shade. So, I think that's some creative flexibility that I' I'd recommend you look into as we uh this potentially goes to the architectural review board. And then uh I think those are all of my comments that are not related to parking for this round. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Vice Chair Ch.

Thanks, Chair. Okay. Um I think most of you have already talked about u my major concerns as well as the major benefits of this project. Um but I did want to say that I was really pleased to say that the affordability for this project would be in the 50 to 80% range. And that is huge because that's where we finally get to actual affordability. um because that's something I've harped on many times where the state definition of affordability doesn't seem to actually apply so well in Santa Clara County. Um where like the yeah it ends up being market rate. Um so I'm I'm really pleased to see that. Um it's also a beautiful design. I think you've done really good job regarding the massing on San Antonio and so I was really pleased to see that. Uh, regarding the retail, I'm pleased to see that it's there, but wanted to encourage you. I know that there's all sorts of trade-offs to be made and I think there's larger issues with the parking, but you know, if we want to encourage the success of retail here and if five years from now we have, oh, I don't know, seven, eight, nine more developments going up in this area, um, as well as the current greenhouse development across the street. um it you might really benefit from a coffee shop and like a fast casual place and maybe one more thing there. Um so I think a little cluster could actually eventually be quite successful and I don't think we need 6,000 square feet. Um but it could be the cluster uh for the corner, right? Um, and so think about that and the storefronts are getting smaller and smaller. So you can probably do three

storefronts with 3,000 square feet. Um, and I agree that there's a good thing about this location where there's no uh height concerns in particular. And I think that the public comments that we heard that were complaining about the height um thankfully uh the greenhouse development is across the street and there's some it's it's set back pretty far. So hopefully things will be okay for those neighbors. But what I really heard from them and what I really hear from uh neighbors when they're commenting on the San Antonio area road plan is it's about the traffic and the safety and I think that remains a concern here. So if we could address the traffic and the safety I would have no problem with eight stories everywhere in this area. But unfortunately, as Commissioners G, as Commissioner G mentioned, and as Chair Aken mentioned, that's just sort of not how things work here based on the data that we have seen to date and also based on the experience that we've had with our downtown. So, um, that leads me to the downside where I'm very concerned about parking, both vehicle, uh, both car parking as well as bike parking. Um, and even if I didn't think that the TDM was really uh optimistic, we run into an issue where the TDMs are by and large uninforcable. And so as we move forward with this, if we move forward with this, I would really I I think that we need some way

to encourage as part of TDM's a contribution into the city's efforts for the San Antonio transportation corridor. Um, I'm not quite sure what those are because the San Antonio road folks are working on that, but I think that we need something where if we really see that uh the TDMs aren't being met, that that we put some teeth in them somehow. And that's not just for this project, but for all projects. um regarding the comparison to Jac London Square or you know the comparison to a development of by the same developer in Jack London Square. Jaclyn Square is one of the most happening places prior to the pandemic uh in Oakland. It's fantastic. And this is while we certainly hope to get there uh with the San Antonio area, the public commenter who mentioned that there's four lanes here um and essentially no amenities and no transportation. I think that that's really one of the challenges here. So we have a much larger transportation problem and Mr. Goodfellow from the consultant from the first item tonight didn't highlight this area as a good area for parking reductions. And so I'm very concerned about that. And this is possibly the most the the most aggressive parking reduction that I I've seen. very concerned about um ending up like the FA in San Jose. And I recognize that this is five years from

now and that we may make many changes between now and then. But I also know that it took decades, like 20 years, for the modifications for Charleston to actually happen. And so we're I I I mean it seems like things are really picking up their pace, but I would also say that San Antonio and the problems facing San Antonio are much more complex than those of Charleston because San Antonio borders two cities. There's a lot of a lot more development happening. Um, so I am not confident that in the time frame that we're talking about here, we could see the transportation changes that we would hope for. Um, so I guess I'm pretty concerned about this. Um, you know, I also wanted to address one more public comment. I think it was from Mr. Lavine about being excited about the possibility for people to live here with unbundled parking. And I just wanted to point out that you the benefit for so as you said the benefit for that is paying a lower rent if you don't need a car. I wanted to point out that for all new developments, parking is going to be unbundled. And so regardless of how much parking we have in this unit, sorry, in this development, people will always have the choice to not pay for parking if they don't want to. So that being said, I I I'm not confident about those numbers and have some very very strong reservations regarding bike parking. If we think that parking reducing car parking is going to be successful, I think we potentially need more bike parking because bike parking is what

will make it doable for people to go grocery shopping um you know, a little further away and to make it to other parts of town a little further away without a car. Um, so I I I'm glad to see that at least there's 167 spaces, but as I think about, you know, let's say there really is a hyper local household here. Um, unless they plan on Ubering all the time, they're going to probably need a bike because the public transportation doesn't really exist very well in our doesn't exist to get from all points to in our to get to and from all points in our city. So those are my comments for now. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Chair. So, my comments are going to overlap uh with Commissioner um Pecman's like 99%. I want to agree on pretty much every one of those points. the the only point I'm going to uh give a different opinion is on the commercial and even on that one I'm not sure if it differs. Um I like seeing the commercial and one of the things to point out is we've just uh we're decoupling restaurants from bars. Uh so I do want to ask staff real quick uh is that space allowable to be a bar? We have not changed the regulations yet. Um, but it is possible that it could be with a conditional use permit.

Okay. So, I think we've just probably answered somewhat exactly what that space will be, especially if it's the only one within a couple uh blocks there because I don't recall any drinking establishments in that in that area. Um, so at the first floor of a residential, I know here in, uh, California Avenue, uh, as soon as you put density of housing, you end up getting a bar pretty quick. Um, other than that, I mean, you know, the other problem is is if it becomes a liquor store, it becomes a uh we got a shop here in California Avenue that that gets a lot of the other businesses are upset with because it attracts what they feel like are the wrong people, which is uh what I don't know what it's called, but they sell uh u uh marijuana uh products or something like that. Um, but I think the commercial space and the reason why the commercial space speaks to me is because, you know, I'm frequently um I'm walking where I'm taking public transit and it's safety. As soon as I I'm standing there late at night and there's a commercial space, uh there's somebody there. So, I've also noticed the commercial spaces uh attract more people just out of the safety of that of that space being there. So, it's not just a dark corner, but it's a corner that has something going on. So, those are the reasons why uh I'm in favor of pretty much everything I've heard, but I would like to see the commercial space stay. Even though it's a small space, uh you don't need a whole lot of space for some of these uh commercial businesses. And so, the other topic that's come up a lot is transportation. And I've heard Commissioner uh Gee uh bring this up that this street is going to change. You know, it's obviously going to be bikable and we've we looked at the previous meeting. We looked at

different uh crosssections and is it going to be two bike lanes, one bike lane, bike lane on one side, two-way bike lane, and there is a uh Cal Train station. So, while I agree right now the that the building isn't really tied into the network, but we certainly do see that the idea is that this building is going to be tied into a larger bikable, walkable uh public transit network. Um, I think that's going to obviously be solved and then we're the density of population that's going into that corridor is just simply going to dictate uh public transportation. I don't think the this corridor is going to build out without uh public transportation. And then the last point I want to make is that I've heard a lot of people talking about um ride share and that at some point there's a break point I think is what's implicit where ride share no longer makes sense. I just want to say I haven't actually found that point where ride share is less expensive or more expensive than personal vehicle ownership. Um, you know, my my spouse uses the the ride share as a home health nurse. And one of the reasons why the ride share makes more sense is because she's able to work in between locations uh doing charting. Whereas, if you're driving, driving is work itself, and you don't get paid to drive, and you can't do work while you're driving. So that's one of the things to think about when you think about rid share is that uh you're able to do work while you're writing which kind of offsets the extra cost of it. Once you bring in all the other externalities of ride share uh it's really hard to make a a valid case for personal vehicle ownership outside of just simply you know luxury or status or something like that. Uh the ride

share has really gotten to that point. Bring in the Whimos with no drivers. I'm not promoting driverless vehicles, but uh the price point definitely comes back in where you can have a fully autonomous uh housing development like this where everybody really is dependent on public transit or ride share. So, I'll end it there and uh thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Uh I'll cover a few things and then I believe we have a few more comments uh from other commissioners. Um first regarding uh the public benefits, I am very happy to see the boost in unit affordability here. Uh that echoes earlier comments, but I just want to reinforce them. Um targeting low income is uh we certainly need more of it. So that's that's very much appreciated. Um, regarding daylight planes and stepbacks, uh, I think I can well, no, I I support the, uh, the U-shaped design that breaks up the massing on San Antonio. I think that's, um, I think that's a well done concept. Um, I would like to see some stepbacks elsewhere. Uh but I am more than happy to defer to the ARB's judgment on that. So please discuss that with the ARB. Um just in passing related to that uh I observe that the the U is so deep it might be a reasonable tradeoff to make it shallower above level three. uh so that some upper floor units could be moved or perhaps the uh size distribution of units could be changed. Um something to consider definitely not a requirement. Uh, regarding retail, um, one question I would ask the applicant to think about is what uses might work in this space and if we need to make allowances for more uses in order to find one that would

work, then I think that's something you should negotiate with staff because as a PhD we might have uh, more freedom to do that than we would in some other places. Um, finally, my last comment concerns the easement, and I also support that. I think that's probably a universal opinion. That's it for me, Commissioner Hecman.

Uh, thank you, Chair. I wanted to just pick up on uh uh one concept uh identified by the vice chair which I hadn't thought about but she's absolutely right. Uh, and maybe I hadn't thought about it because it's it's really pretty rare when we get a project like this with such a deep reduction in parking and I just didn't think of it but the vice chair did thankfully and that is if you've got less parking you need more bikes and I I think that's absolutely right. Um and um I don't know what the number of them is but you know for example if you know a twobedroom unit there is potentially going to have four occupants um and they're going to have you know access to I mean they're going to it's bundled so but proportionately they're going to get maybe one parking space and and one bike space and there could be four bikers there and so I think that there should be some ratio so so they're providing 74 spaces where according to the staff report 184 are required according to the TDM report uh 201 are required I'm not sure which is the right number um I do think that I noticed there were you know a few discrepancies um in the TDM report which commissioner G has brought up some. Another commissioner brought up some. Those clearly need to be cleaned up as this moves forward. But but we should be thinking about some ratio of the parking you're not providing those 110 spaces or 127 whatever it is. You know, half of those should be uh replaced with bike spaces. And so

then you got to find a place to put them. And that really brings us back to the retail uh part of that uh because you know they have to go somewhere right you know another 60 bikes is going to take up space and so um but I think it's important that that um that that alternative uh be there so thank you vice chair for for voicing it. Anything further, Commissioner G?

Okay, now it's time to go through the hard topic, which is the parking. So, I want to talk a little bit about 412, the Oakland site. It's 10 minutes walk from a BART station, each of which has 4-minute headways. The walkability score is 97 with three supermarkets within 10-minute walking distance as well as four parks and a 10-minute walk to Jack London Square. And if you compare this against the 39 other sites that Grub manages, which I took a look at in all of them have either one of two characteristics or possibly both. Strong transit, walkability, or both. Right? So this includes sites on Manhattan. These include sites in Berkeley, Santa Monica, LA, all across that either have some form of strong transit, really frequent service a and or a very high walkability score, right? So you can talk about some of these places in Chapel Hill or in Georgia that may have some weak transit but are inside the downtown zone have significantly ground flooror retail nearby. Right? And if we compare that against what we have here, we have the lowest transit score which is out of 100. This is 25 compared to the lowest previous transit score of any other grub property which is 52. Right? And our the walk score is 65, which would also be the lowest. And that's probably because right now there really aren't any amenities, right? There's really no feasible way for you right now to go to many of the amenities that you would like to go to if you lived here, right? And for me I as someone who lives in South

Paul Alto who goes on San Antonio pretty frequently it is already a parking lot right and so if as chair Akin mentioned that you end up having a job that needs a car right like I am somebody who lives in Paul Alto who works in a tech job who changes jobs pretty frequently none of those jobs have been in Paul Alto right I am I'm one of those people that commutes 10 miles or more to my job, right? I think that it's would be imperative to have a vehicle of some kind. In addition, many of my fellow tech workers have almost the opposite problem, right? Which is I make enough money and I like to go skiing, right? I have these kinds of hiking hobbies that I can't really do, but I would like to do out in the wilderness, right? and that that requires a car of some kind to get there. And I think that the park it's pretty sorely underparked. And one of the things that the council has mentioned is this first mover effect. So we will probably be removing all parking on San Antonio. That's pretty likely. I think it's across the different transportation projects that we will have. But unfortunately, or I guess fortunately depending on how you look at it, there is no place for the spillover parking to go, right? There is no residential neighborhood right on the Mountain View side. It's if you've ever been to the site is completely parked with RVs. There is there simply is no parking, right? And that also is a little bit concerning for me about your not just the housing, also the retail. When we got to chance to go take a look at the Spring Line, which is a project in Menllo Park, which is on El Camino, their retail was doing pretty poorly until they put up these huge signs that

said, "Hey, you can actually park downstairs around the corner, right? And that is what caused their retail to come to life." And the Spring Line is physically touching the Menllo Park Cal Train Station, right? And even that was not good enough to get enough business for their retail. they just kept turning over, right? And so providing no retail parking makes me pretty concerned about the retail that you have provided here. And so that's a bit concerning. In addition, I will also talk a little bit about the the potential uses, right? So Commissioner Peterson had mentioned that doing ride share is helpful because you don't want to have to drive to work, right? you'd ideally like to be able to work on your commute, but let's just take for example the carpenters who are in the room today. They they can't be working on their job really if they're not on the site, right? So whether they're driving or they're taking a ride share, it's actually they they it's very unlikely that they'll be able to work on their job there. And so this leaves me in a pretty nervous spot about the parking. I'll also mention that during the presentation to council for this project, uh the applicant had mentioned how this project compares against other projects to make sure that it's in line, right? But the current presentation actually makes it more extreme than every single other project that is in the area. With the proposed addition, you are now at 92 feet, which is the tallest out of all of the projects that are available here. You're providing a um a floor area ratio of 3.75, which is higher than your previous one, which again is the second

highest of the nine projects that you've provided. and your parking ratio is somewhere between 38 and 04 which is less than half almost a third of the nearest parking ratio. And during the city council pre-screen you had mentioned that oh the El Camino focus area has a 4.0 0 F and has an 85 ft height limit which which your new project is over the 85 ft height limit but the El Camino focus area requires a one one for the parking ratio which council member Bert had mentioned is that you can't really take the bits and pieces of the focus area that you prefer when designing a project right we've we as the commission and the council have looked to determine that those requirements are what's appropriate for El Camino. And yet, for example, the height, we said 85 ft is pretty tall and we're worried about a canyon effect for El Camino. That's three lanes on each side. This is two lanes on each side, right? And so the shade effect that we're going to see here is significantly more pronounced, right? Because the street is just a third less wide. And I also want to mention about the Fay that Chair Aken had brought up. So we we the city of Palto probably do not have the funds to subsidize a project that San Jose was able to. One of the reasons that was disclosed in the the public information about the FA is that San Antonio decided to subsidize this project because they are worried that neighboring developments might become really skittish and no longer develop because there's a giant building that is now vacant, right? I would hate to see the same fate happen to this project. If this project were suddenly to foreclose,

would this cause a ripple effect across the other projects that we're seeing across San Antonio? That's pretty concerning to me. And so all in all, I know that we are not making the findings today, but this would make me really nervous about finding three, which is the compatible with existing potential uses for adjoining sites. So that's kind of my my thoughts on parking. I just want to plus one easement plus one to the additional bike parking. I actually have other than my work commute tried to switch almost exclusively to biking. I grew up biking in the community. I think that that's important. My family of three that I live with at home has three bikes, right? We're trying to encourage reduced car trips. And so I think having the additional bike trips is important. I also know as someone who visits their friends who lives in these kinds of developments in suburbia like I have a friend who lives in Rowwood City that the guest parking is incredibly important as well. Right here there's already a minimum amount of residential parking and guests have actually no place to park because of previously mentioned parking issues. So that's something to also think about. And finally, I know that as asked during my initial questions to staff that there is no required daylight plane against the 808 project next door, but I think that's something to think about in that I would like to see potentially some stepbacks against the 808 property and I think that's a chicken and egg, but it seems like 808 has decided to produce some setbacks and I think I would like to see some here as well. Um, those are my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Vice Chair Ch.

I just have one final comment. Um, which is as much as I think that beauty the be excuse me the building is beautiful um and that U shape is really nice in terms of the massing. If I were to make a tradeoff I would make the trade-off and I know that this is not how it works. is not Legos that you can easily move around, but I would trade off a smaller U or the U starting at a higher point for more parking because I think that as you know, Commissioner G, Commissioner G just did a fantastic job highlighting some of the issues, but we want these people, we want this to not be people warehouses, as I think one of our past public commenters has said, we want this to be a wonderful place for people to live. And so those two bedrooms and larger units need the extra bike parking. There needs to be some place for visitors to come. So let's say we have some seniors living here, anybody who has friends really, but we don't want people to be in this building isolated. No people, you know, we don't want a people warehouse. So, if I were to make a trade-off, and this is something for the applicant to think about, um, you know, I wonder about providing more bike parking and car parking, um, for all of the reasons that many of us have mentioned tonight. That's it. Thanks. Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, has anyone not spoken this round? Are there any other comments, commissioners?

I was just wondering, staff had that slide with four items. Did we cover all of your items? I just want to make sure from that perspective.

Parking, sorry, I believe. So, uh, yes, we discussed retail parking. Um, hold on one second. and um transition to neighboring properties and I think public benefits and specifically we are we were looking for uh any feedback on the affordable component as well as interest in an easement. So I think we generally touched on all of those. Yes. Thank you.

Very good. Then I believe it's time for a motion. anyone. If no one wants to volunteer, I'll handle it. But well, I'll move the staff recommendation.

Second, Mr. Diver. Yep. Um, Commissioner G. No. Commissioner Hecman, yes. Commissioner Peterson, yes. Vice Chair Shane, no. Chair Aken, yes. Motion carries. 32. Thank you all. Um, can we speak to our votes, please?

Yeah, I was just about to uh just about to do that. Uh, Vice Chair Chang, since you spoke first.

Hang on, I gotta pull up my notes. Too many screens going on here. Um, okay. So, I counted the votes here and I really have no objection actually to forwarding to this to the ARB, but I'm voting no because of the signaling here. Um what I saw was that the PTC's decision in February to forward the recommendation on to the ARB has been misconstrued both by um at least one city council member and at least one public commenter tonight that we have decided that eight stories is right for this corridor uh simply because another project has been forwarded to the ARB and that is not true. that has actually been a big point of discussion for the San Antonio area road plan. Uh it's not clear that it has the larger community buy in and uh so that that's one point. The second point is um we though we will not have the benefit of council's thoughts on the TDM before it comes back to us. I will base my vote based on what I heard loud and clear from city council regarding the San Antonio road area plan on Monday. And this project's density absolutely applies to those concerns. We have a transportation problem in this corridor. It's a big transportation problem. So I don't think that it makes sense to have this level of density um until it becomes clear that having it doesn't increase our traffic problem. So as I mentioned on the prior item, we have a level of service F. F as in Frank, not X

or um and so the more cars we bring without a transportation solution, the greater our problem is. F is the lowest level of service I believe. So we would become F minus. And whether or not we use ride share or not or or not, you know, if we have our own cars, ride share is still going to increase the tra the the the transportation problem here. more bikes is great in terms of eliminating traffic jams and maybe not worsening the parking lot that is San Antonio, but it comes with a safety problem. And so I just don't have the confidence right now and want to wave a big red flag regarding uh I just don't have the confidence that we can solve these transportation problems and even one development like this is going to make things a worse and we have you know five or six coming. So that's my reason for the no vote. It's not so much that I don't want to forward it to the ARB but I need to make sure that people are paying attention to this. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner G.

Yeah. So, Vice Chair Chang basically said most of my points, but I want to echo the signaling, I I too have no problems with forwarding this through the process to the ARB. But as the representative for PTC on the coordinated area plan and also having been the PTC leazison on for council's San Antonio road area plan meeting on Monday, I do think that forwarding and moving these projects along has signaled to council that that's been taken as vice chair mentioned by at least one council member as approval of these projects. And so just like with 800 808 San Antonio, I did mention a significant number of the same reservations I had for that project as well. And my no vote is primarily around these issues and making sure that this is signaled to the public and to council that these issues are important to me and that at this time I would not be able to make one of the findings given the project today and that is how I am basing my vote. In addition, like Vice Chair Chang mentioned, we have a pretty significant transportation problem, and I think Vice Chair Chang and I and Commissioner Templeton may feel this more because we frequent San Antonio Road. San Antonio is the main way to which I get to many of to the highway, to the amenities. In fact, this project is closer to 101 than many of our transit projects. We're in a transit desert. There are s simply only two bus stops with very limited frequency for this area and the parking concerns are pretty significant to me

and the commission knows that I'm a huge bike advocate. I bike pretty frequently and think that's and I'm very excited to see bike infrastructure improvements on San Antonio. But the project today makes me pretty concerned and I would be disappointed to see a project like this potentially fall into the same fate as the FA in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners. That was uh an inspired discussion tonight and I appreciate all of the points that have been made. Moving on now, agenda item number four tonight is the approval of the draft summary and verbatim minutes for the meetings of February 25th, 2026. And um to the chair, I just did want to add for the record that um Vice Chair Chang was absent. Um so I would need her to abstain. Thank you, Mr. Tara. Do I have a motion? Yeah, I'd like to move the minutes as revised. Second.

Yep. Uh, Commissioner Peterson, yes. Commissioner G, yes. Uh, Commissioner Hecman, yes. Vice Chair Chang, abstain. Um, Chair Aken, yes. Motion carries 401. Now it's time for commissioner questions, comments, announcements, and suggestions for future agendas. I have Commissioner Peterson, then Commissioner G.

Thank you. I just wanted to I saw the applicant get up on video here. I just if they can hear me, uh I would encourage them to get business cards from the uh the carpenters union and just give them a chance to uh pedal their wares, so to speak, of of their workforce that they have there. That's it. Thank you, Commissioner G.

I would like to applaud staff and um like the police department and any of the folks working on the OSV issue. I have been avoiding Park Boulevard for quite a bit now because it's been pretty dangerous to be biking in the bike lane with the OSVs taking over a significant portion. But I did use the bike lanes today and they were very safe. there were no vehicles anywhere in the bike lane. And so I I do want to hopefully Miss Armor can pass along um the appreciation there for both the sweet stripping effort which I knew was part of phase one of the OSV project um and seeing some great progress there and I think I also want to echo that this is something that the community has expressed to me as well as someone who lives in the Ventur neighborhood. So thank you staff. Any additional comments? The meeting is adjourned.