Palo Alto’s Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) spent a large portion of its retreat discussing early coordination with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and other commissions, and asked staff to develop a checklist so applicants come to hearings better prepared.

Commissioners and staff said many projects that reach the PTC do so because they request exceptions—setbacks, special setbacks, daylight planes, on-site parking or traffic-circulation changes—that ARB or other boards may not treat as transportation concerns. That mismatch can leave applicants surprised and meetings lengthened when issues resurface at the PTC.

Assistant Director Jennifer Armour framed the problem as one of process and expectations: the PTC frequently sees “the unusual asks, the exceptions, the contentious projects,” and staff and commissioners agreed earlier notice and a standard checklist could reduce repetitive rounds of review and applicant rework. Armour asked the commission to consider a checklist staff could use to prompt applicants to explain and justify requested exceptions in advance.

Commissioners who had discussed the idea with ARB members said an ad hoc review or chairs’ coordination could help identify likely “hot spots” on a case-by-case basis, but they emphasized Brown Act limits on how much commissioners may discuss outside public meetings. Commissioners proposed an operational model in which chairs or staff identify upcoming cross-jurisdictional items early, staff flags likely contentious exceptions, and applicants provide a short justification document as part of their packet.

Specific items commissioners suggested be included on a checklist or flagged for early review were special setbacks, daylight-plane relief, on-site and nearby parking, and traffic circulation. Commissioners and staff discussed three practical goals: (1) ensure applicants explain why they need exceptions, (2) give staff time to suggest alternatives or mitigation measures, and (3) reduce the need for ad hoc commissioner involvement by putting guidance into staff-led pre-application steps.

Staff and several commissioners said the checklist should be designed to minimize additional staff time and applicant burden; one proposed format was an appendix or attachment that requires applicants to fill in short justifications for each potential exception. Several commissioners also suggested periodic joint sessions or targeted joint retreats with ARB for major plan-level items.

The commission did not adopt a formal motion at the retreat. Participants asked staff to return with a concrete proposal for a checklist and an outline of an early-notification process, accounting for Brown Act constraints and staff time.

Ending: Commissioners and staff said they would continue to refine the proposal and test a checklist on an upcoming project so the process can be evaluated before broader implementation.