Planning & Transportation Commission - September 25, 2024

Commissioners flag tradeoffs in proposed housing incentives

Palo Alto planning commissioners gave staff individual feedback on proposed changes to the city’s Affordable Housing Incentive Program and Housing Incentive Program, but took no vote and reached no formal decision. The study session focused on whether local incentives could make housing projects financially feasible while protecting neighborhood transitions, open space, parking, retail and other planning priorities.

For the affordable-housing program, staff presented possible expansion to Housing Element opportunity sites, residential floor-area ratios of up to 2.4 and heights of up to 60 feet for projects serving households at or below 60% of area median income. Potential changes to the broader housing program included streamlined review and modifications to height, density, setbacks, open space, parking and retail standards. Staff said the affordable-housing program had been used once in approximately six years and the broader program twice in approximately five years. Consultants reported that prototypes showed net financial costs under existing standards and surpluses under the proposed standards.

Commissioners differed in their emphasis. Bryna Chang supported making the local programs viable alternatives to state density-bonus tools but sought protections for planned sidewalks, bicycle facilities and lower-density neighbors. George Lu supported a workable package and more predictable review timelines. Allen Akin questioned the feasibility methodology and favored retaining density limits if possible to encourage family-sized units. Keith Reckdahl warned that the modeled outcomes could reduce open space, daylight and parking while producing smaller, more expensive units, and Doria Summa raised concerns about neighborhood transitions, retail loss, micro-units and fair-housing benefits. Bart Hechtman favored market-viable incentives but urged caution on broad parking reductions and suggested preserving setbacks and usable open space where possible.

Parking spillover, bicycle parking and the effect of removing maximum residential density were recurring concerns. Public commenters generally supported greater housing production, while asking the city to pair lower vehicle-parking requirements with bicycle parking and reconsider how projects receive priority for streamlined review.

Staff planned to gather additional feedback from the Architectural Review Board and use the commission’s comments to draft standards. The proposal was expected to return to the commission before the end of 2024 and go to the City Council after the new year. Staff also described a goal of holding an initial Architectural Review Board meeting within 45 to 60 days and processing applications within 90 days after they are deemed complete.

El Camino paving advances while safety work moves forward

Transportation staff reported that paving for the El Camino Real Bike Lane and Repaving Project was expected to finish in Palo Alto by the end of the following week. Temporary striping was to remain until permanent striping across Palo Alto, Los Altos and Mountain View in November. Formal completion was targeted for spring 2025, including electrical work on traffic-signal detectors.

The city had also begun its Southern Palo Alto Bike/Pedestrian Railroad Crossing Alternatives Analysis. Staff planned to start background research, data collection and development of an outreach plan, with commission review anticipated in early 2025. The work was to be coordinated with the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update.

Commissioner Bart Hechtman asked staff to provide monthly collision data that distinguishes fatalities and serious injuries from a broader injury category. Staff said it would continue coordinating with the Police Department. Hechtman also requested Police Department input on lighting and lumen concerns for the commission’s scheduled Oct. 30 discussion of draft dark-sky lighting and bird-friendly design ordinances, and staff agreed to report that input.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting packet