HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-30 Planning & transportation commission Summary MinutesPage 1
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: June 30, 2021 2
Virtual Meeting 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
Approximately 6:04 pm 7
Chair Hechtman welcomed the public, Staff, and the Planning and Transportation 8
Commissioners to the June 30, 2021 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). He 9
requested that Staff roll the recording explaining how to use Zoom and that Staff conduct a roll 10
call vote. 11
12
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III, announced that Commissioner Alcheck and Vice Chair 13
Roohparvar are absent. 14
Oral Communications 15
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 16
Chair Hechtman requested that public speakers raise their hand if they wish to speak on a 17
subject not on the agenda. 18
19
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III, called on Ms. Winter Dellenbach to speak for oral 20
communications. 21
22
Ms. Winter Dellenbach disclosed that she did review the information from the prior meeting 23
where the Commission discussed affordable below-market-rate (BMR) accessory dwelling units 24
(ADU). She remarked that by reducing setback, it will cause safety issues, will limit accessibility 25
to the sides and rear of the structure, and she requested if Staff has consulted with the fire 26
department on the matter. In terms of a fourth ADU being allowed on a parcel, she noted there 27
are some very small lots in the City. 28
29
Chair Hechtman interrupted Ms. Winter and requested that she hold her comments until the 30
item is heard later in the meeting. 31
32
Ms. Dellenbach agreed she would hold her comments until the agenda item. 33
34
Mr. Nguyen announced that there are no other speakers for oral communications. 35
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 36
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 37
Page 2
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
None. 1
City Official Reports 2
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 3
Chair Hechtman invited Ms. Tanner to provide her report. 4
5
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, announced that City Council has begun their summer 6
recess. During their last meeting before their break, they did pass the City’s budget for Fiscal 7
Year 2022. They did make several restorations, including restoration of a current planner 8
position, a principle planner in the Planning and Development Services’ long-range planning 9
division, and an additional building inspector. The Council did eliminate positions that were 10
frozen in the FY 2021 Budget, but that did not result in Staff layoffs. She reported that the 11
Commission will continue to receive updates on how the City is adjusting to reopening. Also, 12
Stanford University is planning to have in-person teachings in the fall of 2021 for undergrad and 13
graduate students. In terms of the Uplift Local Streets Program, she reported that Council has 14
extended the street closures for University Avenue and California Avenue until September 30th, 15
2021. Council also advised Staff to work with the Public Works Department and the 16
Architectural Review Board (ARB) to come up with standards for a permanent parklet program. 17
Staff will be proving updates to the Commission regarding that work. In terms of in-person 18
meetings, on August 9th, 2021, Council will have their first hybrid meeting which will facilitate 19
in-person as well as virtual participation. Once all the logistical and technical difficulties have 20
been worked out, PTC, ARB, and Historic Resources Board (HRB) will begin in-person hybrid 21
meetings in September of 2021. Staff will be in person at all City facilities starting on August 2, 22
2021, with modifications in place to facilitate safety. The Development Center will be using an 23
appointment-based system to allow folks to attend face-to-face appointments as well as virtual 24
appointments. 25
26
Commissioner Chang asked if the meeting scheduled on September 8, 2021, will be the first in-27
person meeting for PTC. 28
29
Ms. Tanner confirmed that is correct. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing inquired if the retail consultant that is being hired is a budgeted position. 32
33
Ms. Tanner concurred that the project is listed under Community Economic Recovery and is 34
being led by the Administrative Services Department in collaboration with the City Manager’s 35
Office. At a prior meeting, Council refined the scope for the Request For Proposal (RFP) and the 36
RFP will be released in the fall. Planning Staff continues to work on the project regarding 37
facilitating diverse retail options for retail and retail-like uses. Staff predicted that the item will 38
Page 3
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
be coming before the Commission in August 2021. Both projects will be working in concert and 1
not in conflict with one another. 2
Action Items 3
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 4
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5
6
2. PUBLIC HEARING/LEGISLATIVE: Review and Discuss Potential Ordinance Changes to 7
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.09 to Consider Regulations to Encourage 8
Affordability for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Environmental Assessment: 9
Exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and 10
CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), and 15305. 11
Chair Hechtman read the title of the item into the record. 12
13
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director declared that Staff will summarize what took place at 14
the prior meeting when the topic was discussed and then provide a presentation regarding the 15
remaining items. She emphasized that the proposals before the Commission are not the end all 16
be all ideas. She requested that if the Commission has additional proposals, to bring those 17
forward as well. Also, the proposals are meant to be layered upon each other, and combining 18
them may provide a better incentive packet for homeowners. 19
20
Mr. Garrett Sauls, Planner, explained that item before the Commission is talking about the 21
consideration of establishing an affordable ADU program that restricts an ADU to a certain level 22
of affordability. The PTC had discussed the first half of the proposals at the May 26, 2021 23
meeting. In terms of a timeline, Staff proposed that after the PTC takes action, Staff will return 24
to the PTC in late summer/early fall of 2021 to receive feedback on potential ordinance 25
language that contains the PTC’s recommendations as well as the ADU Task Force. Staff would 26
then present the ordinance to Council in the early winter of 2021. Along with the eight 27
proposed incentives, Staff also provided a list of other policy considerations that Staff was 28
seeking feedback on from the PTC. Those considerations included duration of affordability, 29
income categories for junior accessory dwelling units (JADU), income verification and leasing 30
process for JADU, tenant selection, program administration costs, and financing ADU 31
development. Staff requested that the PTC provide input on which proposals Staff should 32
pursue or not pursue. At the May 26, 2021 meeting, PTC had discussed the duration of 33
affordability, income categories served by JADUs, reconstruction/expansion of non-conforming 34
walls, and removing the “existing” requirement for garages. Staff requested that the 35
Commission discuss and provide feedback on providing an additional affordable unit on-site, 36
exempting basement square footage from the floor area, increasing the size of the units, 37
allowing for reduced setbacks with greater constraints within the area for zero to 4-foot 38
setback are, exempting affordable units from Impact Fees, and expedited review for affordable 39
units. 40
Page 4
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Hechtman requested that the representative from Alta Housing provide an overview of 2
what Alta Housing does and how its work applies to the affordability proposals. 3
4
Ms. Georgina Mascarenhas, a representative for Alta Housing, explained that Alta Housing is a 5
local non-profit based in Palo Alto. The organization has been working in Palo Alto since 1970 6
and has been administering the City’s BMR Program since its inception in 1974. In terms of the 7
BMR Program, she reported that there are 237 purchase units in the City as well as 264 rental 8
BMR units. Alta Housing also develops and manages affordable housing complexes and is the 9
largest owner and landlord for affordable housing within the City. The organization does all the 10
work associated with income certification and annual recertification for all BMR rental units as 11
well as the sales and resales of the BMR purchase units. Alta Housing also monitors the wait list 12
for the ownership units. The waiting list has been closed for 10-years because there are many 13
applicants on the waiting list. In terms of the rental BMR waiting list, each developer has their 14
own waiting list and they make their selections off that waiting list. However, those applicants 15
must be qualified and approved by Alta Housing. The various BMR rental units have different 16
income limits and the highest area median income (AMI) that the BMR units are allowed to go 17
to is 120 percent of AMI. Alta Housing has been working closely with Staff on the affordability 18
proposals. 19
20
Chair Hechtman invited the Commissioners to ask questions of Ms. Mascarenhas. 21
22
Commissioner Summa asked if there are different income levels for housing that is produced in 23
the in-lieu program and housing units funded by tax credits. Also, are there different deed 24
restrictions in terms of years associated with those programs? 25
26
Ms. Mascarenhas confirmed that there are different income limits. Housing that is funded with 27
tax credits has a range of 60 percent of AMI or lower. For the BMR in-lieu housing units, income 28
levels range between 50 percent to 120 percent of AMI. She noted that within the City, there 29
are very few units where 50 percent of AMI is the income limit. In terms of deed restrictions, 30
there are no deed restrictions for 100 perfect affordable housing projects. For in-lieu projects, 31
there is a deed restriction for those BMR units. 32
33
Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that for both tax credit projects and in-lieu 34
projects, the City does require a regulatory agreement that restricts the project to be 35
affordable for 55- to 99-years. The City most recently had implemented the 99-years, but 36
historically it has been a 55-year restriction. 37
38
Commissioner Lauing presumed that whatever affordability range Council adopts, Alta Housing 39
can administer that. 40
Page 5
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Mascarenhas answered that is correct. 2
3
Commissioner Lauing acknowledged that Alta Housing is proposing there be a cost of $750 for 4
income certification and then $500 for renewal. 5
6
Ms. Mascarenhas confirmed that is correct. 7
8
Commissioner Lauing inquired what happens if a person’s income increases while they are in an 9
affordable unit. 10
11
Ms. Mascarenhas shared that based on the current BMR Program, the regulatory agreement 12
specifies what the process would be if that happens. Generally, folks receive a 60-day notice to 13
vacate the affordable unit, but some folks can receive income-based reduced rent based on the 14
facility they are in. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing inquired if it is normal that folks become priced out of their unit. 17
18
Ms. Mascarenhas answered no, it is not routine, and most units have a margin that allows for 19
some income flexibility. 20
21
Commissioner Lauing asked if Alta Housing would prefer that folks use their BMR Program 22
instead of allowing the landlord to do it. 23
24
Ms. Mascarenhas disclosed that one of Alta’s Housing recommendations is to have one waiting 25
list and that Alta Housing selects off that waiting list. They did not support allowing a landlord 26
to pick folks themselves. 27
28
Commissioner Lauing inquired if Staff has collected any new data since the May 26, 2021 29
meeting. He stated in particular if there are any other Cities to compare to other than San 30
Diego, what percentage of ADUs are attached and non-detached, and more concrete rents 31
within the City. 32
33
Mr. Sauls declared that there have not been any other Cities that have tried to establish an 34
affordable program. He indicated that by searching rentals online, he could not confirm if the 35
units are detached, or attached, or if the unit is even an ADU. The rents remained the same, 36
ranging from $1,800 to $2,200 per month up to $3,500 to $4,000 per month. He concluded that 37
most of the time there is not a lot of information available. 38
39
Page 6
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing agreed that is part of the collective problem that there is not a lot of data 1
to make decisions on. 2
3
Ms. Sauls noted that Staff can generate a list of addresses and do a site visit, but folks may not 4
feel comfortable having a governmental agency asking questions about their unit and rent 5
prices. 6
7
Ms. Tanner reported that Staff can provide a balance, up through 2020, of how many 8
applications have been submitted for an attached ADU and detached ADU. She said she would 9
provide that information shortly. In terms of new data, she said one piece of information that is 10
new is a report that was recently published that looked at the whole State of California and 11
ADUs. She remarked that because the housing market is regional, she would have to review the 12
report to see if it lists data for the Bay Area regarding rent prices. 13
14
Commissioner Chang thanked Ms. Mascarenhas for attending the meeting. She commented 15
that managing ADUs is different than managing other types of affordable housing. She asked 16
what challenges may Alta Housing encounter by managing affordable ADUs. 17
18
Ms. Mascarenhas indicated that there would be no challenges managing ADUs and that is 19
because the owner will want their unit maintained. One challenge though would be working 20
with so many individual owners. 21
22
Commissioner Chang inquired if Alta Housing presents the renter to the landlord and if either 23
party is allowed to announce that they are not interested in the transaction at any point. 24
25
Ms. Mascarenhas explained that the renter would have to agree that they want to live in the 26
unit and the owner would also agree. She predicted that there would be a residential selection 27
criterion that would be provided to all the owners. Alta Housing would check all those 28
categories before the renter is presented to the owner. 29
30
Commissioner Chang pressed if after all that is done, can an owner still say no. 31
32
Ms. Mascarenhas answered that the owner would have to have a legitimate reason to say no, 33
especially if the tenant passes the residential selection criteria checklist. 34
35
Commissioner Chang inquired if Ms. Mascarenhas has heard of other affordable housing 36
programs that are similar to an affordable ADU program. 37
38
Ms. Mascarenhas informed that the City of Los Altos does include ADUs in its affordable 39
program. Alta Housing does administer the City of Los Altos’s BMR Program, but not the ADUs. 40
Page 7
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Chang asked if the City of Los Altos has affordable ADUs? 2
3
Ms. Mascarenhas answered that the intent was affordable when they were set up. However, 4
because the ADUs have not been monitored, Alta Housing couldn’t if they are being used as an 5
affordable ADU. 6
7
Commissioner Chang inquired if Staff has talked to the City of Los Altos about their program. 8
9
Mr. Sauls explained that the City of Los Altos has expressed that they are lumping ADUs under 10
the category of thinking they are affordable versus confirming that they are. 11
12
Ms. Tanner added that there are state incentives that can be used towards their Regional 13
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). State law allows cities to tribute all or a portion of their ADUs 14
under a certain income group. In terms of the City of Los Altos, because the ADUs are 15
affordable by design, they are counting them as affordable units towards their RHNA. That 16
process is different than what the City is doing because the affordable program the City is 17
pursuing will use deed restrictions as a method to track and make sure the units are indeed 18
affordable. 19
20
Commissioner Chang indicated that at the May 26, 2021, PTC meeting, Staff mentioned that if 21
the ADUs are affordable, they can be counted towards the City’s RHNA number. 22
23
Ms. Tanner responded that she believes that it can be counted, but the City wants to take the 24
extra step and confirm that the ADU is affordable. 25
26
Mr. Yang specified the California Department of Housing and Community (HCD) has said that if 27
there is no deed restriction, the city will have to show evidence that the unit is being rented at 28
an affordable level. 29
30
Commissioner Lauing asked if ADUs are deed-restricted in the City of Los Altos. 31
32
Mr. Sauls answered no, they are not deed restricted. 33
34
Chair Hechtman announced that because of Ms. Mascarenhas’ comments during the question 35
and answer period, he will open up the item to public comment. 36
37
Ms. Tanner reported that in terms of how many ADUs are detached and attached, between 38
2015 to 2020, 69 percent of applications filed were for detached and 31 percent of attached 39
Page 8
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
ADUs. She mentioned that there was a report published in April of 2021 that in the San 1
Francisco Bay Area, the median rent for an ADU is $2,200 per month. 2
3
Chair Hechtman invited comments from the public on the item. 4
5
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III, called on Ms. Winter for public comment. 6
7
Ms. Winter Dellenbach was relieved to hear that Alta Housing would be processing and 8
managing the BMR ADU units. She shared that there are folks who have built an ADU to 9
increase the housing supply, but they discriminate against who can live in their ADU. With Alta 10
Housing running the process, there would be no discrimination. She cautioned the Commission 11
on allowing a fourth ADU to be built on a site. She said there are several lots in the City that 12
cannot accommodate a fourth unit without jeopardizing the privacy of the neighbors and 13
safety. 14
15
Mr. Nguyen called on Ms. Jessica for public comment. 16
17
Ms. Jessica, with ADU Collective, appreciated the discussion and the Commissioners continued 18
work on the item. She reminded the Commission not to make an affordable program more 19
complicated than it has to be. She commented that Staff has expressed many times that they 20
do not have the resources for additional programs. She encouraged the Commission and the 21
City to reduce road blocks, reduce the cost, let homeowners bear the cost and manage their 22
ADU, make the rules easy and simple, and allow flexibility. She announced that she, or the City, 23
should host an open house to allow Commissioners and folks to see completed and permitted 24
ADUs as well as explore unpermitted ADU. She encouraged a future discussion to talk about 25
multi-generational homes and how that can provide more housing in the City. 26
27
Mr. Nguyen announced that there are no more public speakers for public comment. 28
29
Chair Hechtman clarified that Palo Alto already has a robust set of regulations and processes for 30
ADUs in general. The discussion before the Commission is whether the Commission wants to 31
advise Council to create a subset of ADUs that a homeowner would make affordable in 32
exchange for specific incentives. He remarked that there are a total of 14 items and four have 33
already been covered. He summarized the process in which the Commissioners will make their 34
comments and recommendations. 35
36
Mr. Sauls proposed that the Commission discuss the proposal of providing an additional unit on 37
site when one of the units is an affordable unit. The City of San Diego has already adopted a 38
similar policy that any unit that is located within a transit priority area can have additional ADUs 39
on-site if there is one restricted affordable ADU on site. Staff proposed that one additional ADU 40
Page 9
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
or JADU be allowed on sites that contain an affordable ADU and for larger lot sizes, potentially 1
adding several ADUs if there is an affordable ADU on site. 2
3
Chair Hechtman was concerned that one potential scenario would be that there would be one 4
parking space on-site for four units. That would result in parking be pushed to the street and 5
would impact the neighbors. He agreed that only large lots can realistically accommodate more 6
than one ADU and one JADU. If adopted, he predicted this concept would not be used by many 7
and if used in large lot neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods have more available parking on 8
the street. 9
10
Commissioner Summa was worried about parking, loss of backyard habitat, loss of trees, and 11
that investors, not community members, will use the incentive. For those reasons, she did not 12
find the proposal a reasonable or attractive idea to pursue. 13
14
Commissioner Lauing agreed with Commissioner Summa and Chair Hechtman’s comments. He 15
agreed the incentive would only work on large lots and there are not many in the City. He 16
mentioned that there is not a lot of data to indicate what problems may arise and adding 17
additional ADUs on a parcel is not a smart step at this time. 18
19
Commissioner Chang noted that it seemed very inconsequential in terms of the number of 20
affordable units it could address because there is no support to expanding the floor area ratio 21
(FAR) for a parcel. If the proposal is adopted, she wanted to see the deed restriction be longer 22
than 15-years. 23
24
Commissioner Templeton asked what is the relevance of who might be incentivized by the 25
proposals. 26
27
Mr. Yang stated his only concern was if the Commission was discussing a protected class and 28
whether or not someone is a professional real estate developer is not one of those categories. 29
30
Commissioner Templeton commented that the proposal would hurt more of the smaller real 31
estate owners and would appeal more to large developers. She stated that she did not support 32
the proposal and that it is not the right way to approach adding housing to the City. 33
34
Chair Hechtman disclosed that there would be a limited reward if the proposal is adopted and it 35
would generate a lot of fear in the community. He requested that Staff present the next 36
proposal to the Commission for discussion. 37
38
Mr. Sauls shared that the next proposal is to exempt basement square footage from the 39
maximum floor area of a parcel. He noted that from previous PTC discussions, there had been 40
Page 10
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
support for modifying the existing regulation to allow basement space to not count as floor 1
area so as to be consistent with the regulations of the main house. By not counting the 2
basement floor area, it could result in units that achieve the 1,200-square foot maximum size 3
that is allowed under state law. 4
5
Chair Hechtman inquired if the size of a unit affects what income level should be charged for 6
that unit. 7
8
Ms. Tanner answered that the unit size would not impact the AMI level, but the size would 9
impact the size of the household that can occupy the unit. For example, a four-person 10
household would not be allowed to occupy a studio apartment, even if they mean the income 11
level for that apartment. 12
13
Ms. Mascarenhas answered that Alta Housing does have occupancy guidelines that are 14
followed. 15
16
Chair Hechtman found the answer very helpful. 17
18
Commissioner Summa asked for deed-restricted housing, the price is based on the number of 19
bedrooms. 20
21
Ms. Mascarenhas answered the number of bedrooms and the AMI. 22
23
Commissioner Summa remarked that the proposal is tricky because it provides larger units for 24
families, but basements cause negative environmental impacts. She stated she would not 25
support it for units that were deed-restricted to 120 percent of AMI. However, she was 26
comfortable supporting it for the lower levels of AMI despite the negative impacts basements 27
cause on the environment. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton did not support the proposal. She agreed with Commissioner Suma’s 30
comment about the challenges with basements in the City. She inquired if folks can use 31
basement apartments as a JADU currently. 32
33
Mr. Sauls answered that JADUs must be attached to the house. 34
35
Commissioner Templeton foresaw folks building a basement to allow for a basement 36
apartment, but the proposal seemed unusual and undesirable. 37
38
Commissioner Chang disclosed she is lukewarm regarding the proposal because of the 39
environmental concerns for basements. She indicated she could be persuaded to support the 40
Page 11
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
proposal if the income levels and deed restrictions were at the right level. She agreed with 1
Commissioner Summa that the proposal would allow for more units to be able to accommodate 2
a family. 3
4
Chair Hechtman believed that from a practical standpoint, the proposal is unrealistic. Folks 5
would not build an income-restricted ADU, only to receive a basement which is very costly to 6
construct. He noted that one area where this proposal would work is if a homeowner were to 7
deed restrict their JADU, and then is allowed to build a basement under their market-rate ADU. 8
9
10
Commissioner Lauing agreed that it is very costly to build a basement, but Chair Hechtman’s 11
proposal to allow the JADU to be deed-restricted is a corner case. He stated that the timing is 12
not right for the proposal, but he agreed that the strong pull to support it is to provide more 13
family housing in the community. He predicted this type of incentive would not create more 14
housing. 15
16
Chair Hechtman invited Mr. Sauls to present the next proposal. 17
18
Mr. Sauls announced that the next item is to discuss increasing the maximum size of the ADU or 19
JADU if it were affordable. Currently, the maximum size of an ADU is 900-square feet or 1,000-20
square feet for a 2-bedroom unit and a JADU has a maximum of 500-square feet. Staff 21
proposed to allow a deed-restricted ADU to reach a maximum size of 1,200-square feet and a 22
deed-restricted JADU to be up to 800-square feet. 23
24
Commissioner Chang inquired what the relationship is between the proposal and FAR. 25
26
Mr. Sauls answered that the City could maintain what the current bonus is which is up to 800-27
square of floor area is exempted from total FAR and lot coverage or to extend it to a greater 28
exemption. He clarified that the proposal suggests that 800-square feet would be exempted 29
from the total floor area if the unit is 1,200-square feet. The remaining 400-square feet would 30
contribute to the total floor area of the site. 31
32
Ms. Tanner interjected that state law does define and restrict JADUs to a maximum size of 500-33
square feet. The proposal to increase a JADU’s size to 800-feet, as written in the presentation 34
and Staff rule, is not a valid proposal and the Commission should only address ADU size. 35
36
Commissioner Chang found the proposal interesting because it would provide more family 37
housing. She stated the proposal provides the right incentive because it balances the interest of 38
the landlord and building costs against what the City wants to do which is to create affordable 39
housing. She disclosed that one concern is mitigating the impacts on the City’s infrastructure 40
Page 12
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
and the school district. She asked how Impact Fees would be addressed if the proposal is 1
adopted. 2
3
Mr. Sauls acknowledged that there is a greater share of Impact Fees associated with a larger 4
unit. When the unit is close to the size of the existing home, it would be treated as if it were 5
equivalent to the home. A new home on a site can be charged roughly $20,000 to $30,000 in 6
Impact Fees. 7
8
Commissioner Chang restated that she supports the proposal. 9
10
Commissioner Templeton asked Staff to clarify if the proposal is illegal? 11
12
Ms. Tanner restated that Staff proposed to allow the JADU to be expanded to 800-square feet if 13
it is affordable, but state law does not allow JADUs to go beyond 500-square feet. If the JADU is 14
larger than 500-square feet, it would then be categorized as an ADU. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton stated she did not understand what the value is of the proposal. She 17
summarized that the proposal is allowing a 2-bedroom ADU to be 200-square feet larger if they 18
are affordable? 19
20
Ms. Tanner confirmed that is correct. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton stated that the proposal feels like it would allow another main home 23
on a parcel and that it is not clear why the change is necessary. 24
25
Commissioner Summa agreed that there are many homes in the City that are very small on 26
substandard lots. With that said, the impact of it would not be the same on all lot sizes. She 27
asked if Staff considered lot size when they drafted the proposal? 28
29
Mr. Sauls noted it would not change how the lot size is established but would allow for more of 30
the space to be developed for an ADU. 31
32
Commissioner Summa inquired on substandard sized lots, would a 1,200-square foot ADU be 33
consistent with the open space coverage requires for residential lots? 34
35
Mr. Sauls shared that open space requirements do not apply to ADUs anymore per a change to 36
the City’s code made in 2017. 37
38
Commissioner Summa pressed if there is a percentage of the whole lot coverage? 39
40
Page 13
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner noted that because this is an incentive-based program, the Commission could 1
restrict the proposal to only standard-size lots. Anything outside of the incentive program 2
would have to follow state law which does not allow Cities to put specific restrictions on ADUs. 3
4
Commissioner Summa agreed that the proposal sounds enticing to provide more family 5
housing, but is not convinced that it would not have negative impacts on neighbors, privacy, 6
and backyard habitats. 7
8
Commissioner Lauing disclosed that the only what to put to bed Commissioner Summa’s 9
concerns is to restrict the proposal to a lot size. He felt the public would not gain anything if the 10
City allowed folks to install a 1,200-square foot ADU and folks would not be incentivized to 11
build an affordable ADU for only 200 additional square feet. He concluded that there are 12
problems with the proposal that need to be explored further. 13
14
Mr. Sauls clarified that per state law, Cities are not allowed to establish lot size limitations for 15
ADUs. 16
17
Mr. Yang stated that there may be more flexibility that lot sizes can be restricted because it is 18
an incentive program. In general, state law does not allow minimum lot size restrictions or lot 19
coverage requirements. 20
21
Commissioner Lauing agreed that that is a topic that needs further exploration and if the lot 22
size cannot be restricted, then now is not the time to allow 1,200-square foot ADUs. 23
24
Chair Hechtman articulated that the proposals layer on each other and the more items the 25
Commission say no to, it is less likely that folks will use the program to build affordable units. 26
He declared if an extra 200-square feet would incentivize folks to build more deed-restricted 27
ADUs then he supported it. 28
29
Commissioner Chang agreed with Commissioner Summa about the small lots and small homes 30
in the City. If the proposal cannot be restricted to standard-size lots, she would not support it. 31
She asked if folks who build a 1,200-square foot ADU are limited to 2-bedrooms? 32
33
Mr. Sauls answered yes, they could build it to be a 3-bedroom ADU. 34
35
Commissioner Chang stated that if the proposal is deed-restricted, affordable, and is limited to 36
standard size lots. She would support it, but she wanted to understand further if the additional 37
200-square feet would count towards FAR. 38
39
Page 14
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner reported that Staff can explore further if there are any legal concerns regarding 1
restricting it to standard size lots. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton restated that there has been no explanation on how this proposal is 4
not seen as building another main home on a parcel and how will the proposal help build more 5
ADUs? 6
7
Ms. Tanner acknowledged that it would not incentivize more ADUs, but would incentivize 8
someone to deed restrict their ADU to receive an extra 200-square feet. 9
10
Commissioner Templeton inquired if Staff believes the proposal will reduce the cost of the ADU 11
by making it larger. 12
13
Ms. Tanner answered no, it would not reduce the cost to develop or rent the ADU. 14
15
Commissioner Templeton referenced one of the public speakers who stated that the 16
Commission should reduce barriers and reduce costs for a homeowner. She confirmed that the 17
proposal does not reduce barriers and it does not reduce cost. She liked the concept but did not 18
understand why the policy is needed to achieve the goal. 19
20
Ms. Tanner noted that a homeowner has to balance what is the value received by using the 21
program. The value in this specific proposal is an additional 200-square feet which can be 22
rented out at higher market rent once the deed restriction is lifted. 23
24
Commissioner Templeton explained that as a homeowner, they have to give up 200-square feet 25
of their existing yard, to charge less for a larger ADU. She stated there is a disconnect there and 26
the average homeowner will not see any value in it. 27
28
Chair Hechtman acknowledged that presently a homeowner can build a 1,000-square foot, 2-29
bedroom ADU. If the incentive were adopted, then a homeowner can build a 1,200-square foot, 30
3-bedroom ADU and once the deed restriction is lifted. That homeowner can rent the unit out 31
at market-rent as a 3-bedroom. He noted that is the value a homeowner would receive from 32
the proposal. With that said, he supported the proposal. 33
34
Commissioner Templeton said the sticking point is why is the structure considered an ADU 35
when it is the size of the main house? 36
37
Ms. Tanner explained that the City’s Zoning Code only allows one main house. 38
39
Page 15
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Yang acknowledged that the state legislature allows multiple dwelling units to be on a lot. 1
Cities are not allowed to limit ADUs to less than 1,000-square feet or go above 1,200-square 2
feet. 3
4
Ms. Tanner added that the units are not allowed to be sold separately, they cannot become a 5
condo and other restrictions. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton appreciated the explanation but was uncomfortable approving the 8
proposal. She foresaw there being loopholes and concerns among neighbors. With respect to 9
the public speaker, she acknowledged that the incentive could provide flexibility, but she could 10
not support it due to potential unanticipated consequences. 11
12
Commissioner Summa asked if the City requires the property owner to live in one of the units 13
on site. 14
15
Ms. Tanner answered that requirement was eliminated through state legislature. 16
17
Commissioner Summa predicted that developers who do not live in the community would be 18
more drawn to the proposal than community members. She acknowledged the length of deed 19
restriction and what percentage of AMI would be allowed for the units makes the incentive 20
complicated. She noted that anything at 100 AMI or above is considered market-rate. 21
22
Chair Hechtman asked if it is correct that 100 percent of AMI is market rent? 23
24
Ms. Tanner noted that generally, 140 percent to 150 percent of AMI is the market-rate rent. 25
26
Chair Hechtman predicted that the 1,200-square foot figure comes from state law and by 27
adopting the City’s ordinance, the City is allowed to set a maximum square footage that is lower 28
than state law’s maximum square footage. 29
30
Mr. Yang confirmed that is correct. For an attached ADU, the ADU can be up to a maximum size 31
that is equivalent to 50 percent of the primary residence. 32
33
Chair Hechtman announced the Commission will break for 10-minutes. 34
35
[The Commission took a short break.] 36
37
Commissioner Templeton disclosed that her first home was 1,100-square feet, the neighbor’s 38
home was 850-square feet, and a 1,200-square foot ADU will be bigger than some of the main 39
homes in Palo Alto. She acknowledged that if approved, there is a risk that the areas that 40
Page 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
contain smaller homes will become overdeveloped, and the neighborhood will become 1
impacted. She suggested moving in the direction Mr. Sauls suggested of restricting the 2
maximum size of an ADU to the size of the home. 3
4
Chair Hechtman stated that if the Commission wants to impose a size limit, the Commission 5
should think about a parcel size limit. Rather than standard lot size versus substandard lot sizes. 6
7
Commissioner Summa acknowledged that the incentive does not include other accessory 8
buildings that may be located on the lot. She summarized that many of the Commissioners have 9
expressed that many of the proposals are not strong enough to incentivize affordable units. She 10
specified that the proposal in question will not incentivize enough folks to build affordable 11
ADUs and she did not know how the incentives together will encourage affordable ADUs in a 12
meaningful way. 13
14
Chair Hechtman invited Staff to represent their presentation on the next proposal. 15
16
Mr. Sauls announced the next proposal is allowing reduced setbacks for affordable ADU. The 17
City’s current regulation is that an ADU must follow a minimum 4-foot side or rear yard setback. 18
Staff proposed to reduce the setbacks beyond the 4-feet, but be combined with envelop-based 19
criteria that reduces impacts to neighbors and trees within the zero-to-four-foot area of the 20
structure. The reason for the proposal is that the public has been requesting to move their 21
structures further back in order to gain more yard space. 22
23
Commissioner Chang found the proposal not appealing because it would affect the neighbor’s 24
privacy. 25
26
Commissioner Summa acknowledged that accessory buildings are not restricted to a setback 27
requirement. She asked if the California Building Code has a minimum side setback for dwelling 28
units? 29
30
Mr. Sauls explained that the Building Code requires specific fire separation mitigations based on 31
how close the structure is to another structure. 32
33
Commissioner Summa summarized that an ADU placed in the 4-foot setback would be held to 34
the same fire standards as any other accessory structure on the site. 35
36
Ms. Tanner answered absolutely. 37
38
Commissioner Summa agreed with Commissioner Chang’s comment that the incentive is not 39
appealing because it would affect neighbors. Also, it would affect the maintenance of the 40
Page 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
structure and may require a person to access their neighbor’s yard to maintain the structure. 1
She specified that trees and hedges may be in jeopardy if the proposal is adopted. She shared 2
that the new Tree Ordinance that Council will be reviewing specifically states that a protected 3
tree cannot be removed solely for the purpose of an accessory unit or an ADU. 4
5
Commissioner Templeton affirmed that it is unlikely that a homeowner would move their 6
existing garage, which is located on the property line, out 4-feet in order to convert it into an 7
ADU. She asked if that is the type of scenario Staff is trying to address? 8
9
Mr. Sauls stated that rather than conversations that can be converted and not be moved. Staff 10
was addressing a situation where a person is adding to an existing non-conforming 11
conversation. 12
13
Commissioner Templeton agreed that the incentive would work for an existing structure that is 14
being converted. For new construction, she did not support the proposal. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing predicted that an existing garage that is on a lot line could be converted 17
and would be grandfathered in. 18
19
Commissioner Templeton restated that if the garage is expanded, then the homeowner would 20
receive the incentive. 21
22
Commissioner Lauing agreed that there would be privacy issues for neighbors and so he did not 23
support it. 24
25
Chair Hechtman summarized that currently, a person can build an ADU 4-feet from the 26
property line. He asked what are the height limitations for that ADU and do the height limit 27
change as the ADU is moved further away from the property line? 28
29
Mr. Sauls answer that they do not change and the maximum height is 16-feet. 30
31
Chair Hechtman understood that there is nothing important about the restriction of 4-feet. He 32
suggested the proposal be changed to 3-feet which will accommodate vegetation and 33
maintenance. In exchange for that extra foot, he suggested having limitations related to the 34
maximum height or the first-floor windows. He said with his suggestions, that may provide 35
flexibility to folks who need the extra foot. 36
37
Commissioner Lauing did not understand how 1-foot of yard space would incentivize someone 38
to income restrict their ADU. 39
40
Page 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman invited Staff to continue to the next proposal on exemptions from Impact Fees. 1
2
Mr. Sauls reported that current ADUs that are less than 750-square feet are exempted from 3
Development Impact Fees and JADUs are fully exempt from Impact Fees. Any ADU that is larger 4
than 750-square feet are required to pay Impact Fees based on its relationship with the size of 5
the primary home. Staff proposed all affordable units be exempt from Impact Fees. 6
7
Chair Hechtman asked how much are the City Fees a homeowner has to pay to process the 8
application. 9
10
Mr. Sauls answered he does not know the answer because Permit Fees are based on square 11
footage. Staff discussed waiving Plan Review Fees but Staff was not supportive of that because 12
if Plan Review Fees are waived, funding would have to be pulled from somewhere else to cover 13
Staff time. 14
15
Chair Hechtman re-asked what is the general ballpark amount for a Plan Review Fee. 16
17
Mr. Sauls noted those fees are assessed by the Building Department and he could not provide 18
an answer. 19
20
Ms. Tanner answered she could not provide an estimation either but would see if she can find 21
any information on it. 22
23
Commissioner Chang agreed that by waiving fees, the costs do not go away and that waiving 24
the fees will create a new problem in the future. She announced she would be supportive of the 25
proposal if the City budgets for it. If the City budgets up to a set amount and once that set 26
amount is spent, then the fees would apply to any newly proposed projects. She acknowledged 27
that one of the negative impacts is that Staff and/or parks and libraries would be impacted if 28
the incentive is popular. 29
30
Commissioner Summa agreed with Commissioner Chang entirely. She asked when the time 31
expires on the deed restriction, are they then charged Impact Fees? 32
33
Mr. Sauls answered no, the fees would be waived for the life of the project. He referenced the 34
Staff report from the February 2021 meetings. Staff did estimate how much Impact Fees the 35
City took in from 2017 to 2019 and it was roughly $1 million from ADUs. 36
37
Commissioner Summa stated that she supported the proposal if it did not create a deficit in the 38
City’s budget. 39
40
Page 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing agreed that the proposal is very appealing and stated that the City does 1
have to participate in funding affordable housing. He noted that the proposal is simple and 2
provides enough of an impact to be noticed. 3
4
Commissioner Chang inquired if Development Impact Fees are one-time fees assessed at the 5
time of construction. 6
7
Mr. Sauls indicated that is correct and is assessed before Building Permit issuance. 8
9
Chair Hechtman acknowledged that every Planning Commissioner and City Council promote 10
that they want to promote more affordable housing. He stated that the proposal asks the 11
question of is the City willing to put its money where its mouth is or is this just lip service. He 12
shared that in 2017, the City paid $40 million for the Bona Vista Mobile Home Park. There are 13
171-units at the mobile home park which equated to $342,000 per unit. He advised adding the 14
Plan Review Fees to the proposal and he agreed that the City should budget for it. 15
16
Commissioner Chang agreed that the proposal should be budgeted for and there should be a 17
reasonable deed restriction length on the units. 18
19
Commissioner Templeton disclosed that new affordable housing in the City adds value and she 20
supported the proposal. 21
22
Chair Hechtman invited Staff to move to the proposal for expedited review for affordable units. 23
24
Mr. Sauls indicated that currently, all ADU and JADU Building Permits require a 14-day review 25
period and a 7-day review period for resubmittal. Staff proposed to have the review times 26
reduced to 7-days for affordable units for the initial submittal and 3-days for review for 27
resubmittal. This process means that affordable unit applications would be prioritized and 28
receive review before other non-affordable projects. With the reduced review times, Staff will 29
still confirm that the affordable ADU still complies with all relevant code requirements. 30
31
Commissioner Summa congratulated Staff for reducing the timeframes from 30- to 14-days. She 32
inquired if the income certification process would take place before the Building Permit in order 33
to streamline the process. 34
35
Mr. Sauls answered that would be ideal. Alta Housing has indicated that income certification 36
can take between 30- to 60-days to receive certification. Staff will be encouraging applicants to 37
complete the certification first before moving to a Building Permit. 38
39
Page 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa inquired if a 7-day review for an ADU will make a huge difference 1
compared to the already fast 14-day review period and resubmittal means that the application 2
was submitted incomplete the first time? 3
4
Mr. Sauls answered yes, resubmittal means the first time they submitted an incomplete 5
application. He noted that many applicants have highlighted that the timeframe is a very critical 6
part of their window for developing a structure. 7
8
Commissioner Summa confirmed that Staff will provide reviews as fast as they can, but if the 9
proposal incentivizes Staff to work faster. Then she saw no downside to doing something more 10
efficiently. 11
12
Commissioner Templeton agreed that the proposal is something that Staff can initial without 13
Commission approval. She wanted to understand what is blocking Staff from implementing the 14
proposal without Commission recommendation? 15
16
Ms. Tanner stated that Staff can pursue streamlining without the PTC’s recommendation, but 17
Staff was asking if the proposal is a good enough incentive to include it into a policy and those 18
affordable units would be prioritized over other projects. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton restated if Staff is currently working with a first-in, first-out process 21
and is Staff having a problem prioritizing affordable projects over other projects. She supported 22
Staff in becoming more efficient and prioritizing affordable housing projects. 23
24
Mr. Sauls confirmed that Staff does use the first-come, first-serve process, and there is no 25
statement saying that affordable units have a shorter review time. With the proposal, Staff 26
wanted to make sure that the public is aware that Staff is exploring a way to prioritize 27
affordable ADUs and that is why the proposal is in front of the Commission. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton inquired if there would be any quality review concerns by shortening 30
the turnaround times? 31
32
Mr. Sauls confirmed that there is always a potential for that, but Staff always does a full 33
comprehensive review of every project. 34
35
Commissioner Templeton suggested removing the specific timeframes and have the proposal 36
say affordable housing projects have a priority. 37
38
Page 21
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner clarified that Staff already has a preference for affordable housing projects overall, 1
but the scale of projects is different. Larger projects will require a longer timeframe to review 2
versus a smaller ADU project. 3
4
Commissioner Lauing asked how many ADU applications are processed a month? 5
6
Mr. Sauls shared that Staff tracks it quarterly and based on the year 2020’s data, Staff 7
processed roughly 20 ADU applications per quarter. 8
9
10
Commissioner Lauing felt that Staff is processing a small amount of ADU applications per month 11
to create a whole policy for affordable ADUs. He advised Staff to prioritize all ADUs and JADUs 12
along with all affordable housing projects. 13
14
Ms. Tanner noted that Staff has already prioritized ADUs overall through the 14-day review. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing appreciated Staff reducing the timeframe for resubmittal to 3-days. He 17
restated that the proposal should apply to all ADUs, not just affordable ADUs and that the 18
proposal does not need Commission recommendation to implement. 19
20
Commissioner Chang explained that applicants have commented to Staff that having a set 21
timeframe would be helpful for them. 22
23
Mr. Sauls clarified that members of the public have requested a shorter timeframe. 24
25
Commissioner Chang agreed that if it helps folks who are trying to build an affordable ADU to 26
have a set timeframe then she supported it. She would not support it though if Staff felt that 27
adopting the proposal would tie their hands. 28
29
Ms. Tanner restated that the proposal is a policy decision on what to prioritize and how the City 30
wants to use its resources and Staff resources. 31
32
Chair Hechtman determined that the reward of a 7-day review period versus the current 14-day 33
review period is not that great and the risk of disappointment is greater. He voiced concern 34
about what happens if Staff cannot make the 7-day and 3-day timeframes? For that reason, he 35
did not support the proposal. He invited Mr. Sauls to present the next proposal which was 36
income verification. 37
38
Mr. Sauls noted that policy consideration D, tenant selection, intertwines with C, income 39
verification. Tenant selection discusses the selection process and income verification discusses 40
Page 22
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
time length. Alta Housing has stated that it takes 30- to 60-days to process income certification 1
and their preference is to have a pre-qualified list of tenants to make the process smoother. 2
Having a pre-qualified list of tenants may conflict with tenant selection if the Commission 3
decides to allow the homeowner to choose who they want to live in their unit. 4
5
Commissioner Chang summarized that a pre-qualified list would be faster, but the other option 6
is to allow homeowners to choose who they want with the understanding that there will be 7
delays. She asked if the City should make that choice? 8
9
Mr. Sauls confirmed that those are the options before the Commission. 10
11
Ms. Tanner agreed that the Commission does not have to decide on a preferred option. The 12
Commission could allow both options if it so wishes, but Staff would want to work with Alta 13
Housing to see what challenges they may have with allowing homeowners to choose their own 14
tenant. She noted that having a pre-qualified list provides an equitable way of providing 15
housing. 16
17
Commissioner Chang explained that having a random person living on your property is very 18
personal and so allowing the choice might make it seem less scary to have a deed restriction. 19
She wanted to understand what Alta Housing’s input would be on allowing owner choice and 20
she did not know enough about the implications to recommend one way or the other. 21
22
Commissioner Summa shared that folks wait on the affordable housing list for years and would 23
this proposal not prioritize the next person on the list? 24
25
Ms. Tanner proclaimed that it would depend on what income categories are served and how 26
those categories align with the list that Alta Housing has been maintaining. She did not know if 27
Alta Housing would use that list as the list for ADUs. If the Commission decided that 50 percent 28
to 80 percent of AMI is low-income, Alta Housing may have to draft a new list of folks who fall 29
in that category. 30
31
Commissioner Summa agreed with Commissioner Chang that a homeowner might want to 32
select who lives in their unit and she supported that flexibility. 33
34
Commissioner Lauing proclaimed that the critical piece is having third-party verification and 35
documentation. He was comfortable allowing homeowners to choose who they want to live in 36
their unit if they so wish. He supported the idea of having Alta Housing be the administrator of 37
the program. 38
39
Page 23
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman agreed with the other Commissioners. He agreed that there needs to be a 1
third-party income verification and that Alta Housing should be the administrator. He 2
supported having the flexibility of allowing a homeowner to make the selection of who they 3
want to live in their unit. 4
5
Commissioner Chang asked if there is any consequence of having folks construct their ADU, 6
receive the incentives, and then not rent it out? 7
8
Ms. Tanner reported that the deed-restricted unit would be required to be occupied and they 9
may be penalties if it is not occupied. Enforcement would be part of any ordinance that is 10
drafted. 11
12
Chair Hechtman invited Staff to provide their presentation for policy consideration E, program 13
administration costs. 14
15
Mr. Sauls shared that Alta Housing recommended that for initial income certification, a fee of 16
$700 would be charged and for recertification, the fee would be $500. Those costs would be 17
paid by the homeowner. Staff can investigate a state grant that may be able to be used to 18
support the program, but there may be a cap on the funds. Once the cap is reached, the 19
homeowner would have to pay the fees. 20
21
Chair Hechtman mentioned that the Staff report says that the grant could be up to $231,000 22
per year. 23
24
Mr. Sauls answered that is correct. The City can use those funds for other housing projects and 25
so the program may not receive the entire amount. He noted that Staff would have to explore 26
the grant further to see if it can be used for an affordable ADU program because the language is 27
very broad. 28
29
Commissioner Chang confirmed that if the City cannot use the grant to fund the program, then 30
the City can budget for it. She commented that with the amounts being very minimal, the City 31
should provide funding to cover the costs. She asked if the grant could be used to offset 32
Development Impact Fees. 33
34
Mr. Sauls restated that Staff would have to explore the details of the grant to confirm what the 35
funds can be used for. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Chang’s comments and that the proposal 38
is a way that the City can show that there is prioritization for affordable housing. 39
40
Page 24
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa supported finding external funding. 1
2
Chair Hechtman concurred that the fees should be paid by the City. He invited Staff to present 3
the next item, financing ADU development. 4
5
Mr. Sauls disclosed that there may be opportunities to partner with loan organizations to 6
support financing. He shared that the City of Santa Cruz partners with a local credit union to 7
provide support loans to homeowners. 8
9
Chair Hechtman commented sure, why not? 10
11
Commissioner Summa echoed Chair Hechtman’s comment. 12
13
Chair Hechtman asked the Commission if they felt comfortable moving into motions or should 14
the item be continued to the next meeting? 15
16
Commissioner Chang wanted to continue and she felt that there is consensus on many of the 17
items. 18
19
Commissioner Lauing agreed with Commissioner Chang but suggested there be another check-20
in at some point. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton concurred with Commissioner Chang and Commissioner Lauing’s 23
comments. She advised the Commission to discuss what items there is consensus on and then 24
vote on those items as one motion. 25
26
Chair Hechtman supported Commissioner Templeton’s suggestion of having one vote on the 27
items that the Commission has consensus on and then moving through the other items 28
individually. 29
30
Ms. Tanner announced that she captured the items in a table and listed out where she could 31
where each Commissioner stood on a certain item. 32
33
Commissioner Lauing inquired if the Commission will be working through the policy 34
considerations first or the eight suggestions? He explained that many Commissioners indicated 35
that some of the eight suggestions they would support only if it is based upon a certain length 36
for the deed restriction. He advised the Commission to discuss income categories and length of 37
time first. 38
39
Page 25
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman clarified that the plan is to discuss the items that do not depend on those two 1
components and vote on them. 2
3
Ms. Tanner asked if the Commission wanted to start with the policy considerations first. 4
5
Chair Hechtman answered yes. He announced that there was consensus on having third-party 6
verification for income verification. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton agreed. 9
10
Chair Hechtman moved to tenant selection and asked if any Commissioners would vote no for 11
allowing the homeowner to select a tenant. Seeing no objection, he announced that there is a 12
consensus on that item. He moved to program administrative costs and announced that there is 13
consensus among the Commission on the amount and to use grant funds if they are available. If 14
the grant funds are not available, then the City should budget for it. Seeing no objection, he 15
announced that there is consensus among the Commission on that item. He moved to 16
partnering with lenders and seeing no objections, he announced that there is consensus among 17
the Commission. He asked if the Commission would like to vote on those four items or continue 18
to move through the items? 19
20
Commissioner Templeton suggested that the Commission vote on the four items. 21
22
Commissioner Chang agreed. 23
24
MOTION #1 25
26
Commissioner Templeton moved the Staff recommendation with annotations as depicted in 27
Assistant Director Tanner’s chart for Items C through F. 28
29
SECOND 30
31
Commissioner Chang seconded. 32
33
VOTE 34
35
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 36
37
MOTION #1 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Alcheck and 38
Roohparvar absent) 39
40
Page 26
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Templeton requested that Staff add numbers to the chart for the eight 1
proposals. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton suggested that the Commissioners update the chart and indicate if 4
they support a proposal or not. 5
6
Ms. Tanner predicted that most Commissioners did not support proposal four, exempting the 7
basement from the floor area. Commissioner Summa indicated that if a unit is restricted to a 8
lower income level then she may support it. 9
10
Commissioner Chang announced that she was in line with Commissioner Summa for proposal 11
four, exempting the basement. 12
13
Commissioner Templeton reported that for proposal two, existing garage, she is a yes. For 14
proposal three, an additional ADU on a parcel, she is a no. For proposal four, exempt basement, 15
she is a no. For proposal five, 1,200-square foot ADU, she is a no. For proposal six, reduce 16
setbacks, she is a no. For proposal seven, exempt Impact Fees, she is a yes. For proposal eight, 17
expedite review, she announced that Staff does not need PTC action to implement it. 18
19
Commissioner Lauing restated that there was a lot of discussion for proposals one and two that 20
those two should be allowed for all ADUs. He asked because the Commission assignment is to 21
vote on items of only affordable units, should the Commission vote on proposals one and two? 22
23
Chair Hechtman reconfirmed that maybe those two items would require separate, individual 24
votes. 25
26
Commissioner Lauing announced that on proposal four, exempt basement, he is a no. For 27
proposal five, 1,200-square foot ADU, he is a no and for proposal six, reduce setbacks, he is a 28
no. 29
30
Chair Hechtman asked where Commissioner Lauing stands regarding proposals one and two. 31
32
Commissioner Templeton suggested that instead of it being a yes or no, Commissioners should 33
be allowed to say that they are not ready to vote until there is further discussion. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing stated that Staff can put in the chart that he supports having proposals 36
one and two be applied to all ADUs, but he felt that by saying that, the proposals do not apply 37
to the agenda item. 38
39
Page 27
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner remarked that all of the recommendations will be part of the overall ADU package 1
and so if the Commissioners want to suggest that some be applied to all ADUs. Then she saw no 2
conflict with the agenda item. 3
4
Commissioner Summa indicated that for proposal three, an additional ADU, she is a no. For 5
proposal four, exempt basement, she is a no but could be persuaded depending upon the 6
conversation about the duration of deed restriction and AMI. For proposal five, 1,200-square 7
foot ADU, she is a no. For proposal six, reduce setbacks, she is a no. For proposal seven, exempt 8
Impact Fees, she is a yes as long as funding can be provided to make up the difference. For 9
proposal eight, expedite review, she announced that Staff does not need PTC action to 10
implement it. For proposal two, the existing garage, she supported eliminating the two-step 11
process and for proposal one, reconstruction, she is a no. 12
13
Commissioner Chang disclosed for proposal one, reconstruction, she did not support it if the 14
structure is being completely demolished, but if additions are being added to an existing 15
building then she supported it for all ADUs. For proposal two, existing garage, she is a yes for all 16
ADUs. For proposal seven, exempt Impact Fees, she is a yes only if it is explicitly budgeted for. 17
For proposal eight, expedite review, she announced that Staff does not need PTC action to 18
implement it. 19
20
Ms. Tanner noted that in terms of proposal one, reconstruction, non-conforming structures are 21
allowed to be demolished then reconstructed, but they have to be exactly the same dimensions 22
as the existing structure. 23
24
Mr. Yang confirmed that is correct, but the proposal was to add 6-inches to the side of a 25
structure when it is reconstructed. 26
27
Commissioner Chang remarked that if the structure is being completely demolished, the owner 28
can move it 6-inches over. 29
30
Chair Hechtman reported that for proposal one, reconstruction, he is a yes. For proposal two, 31
existing garage, he is a yes. For proposal six, reduced setback, he is a yes with a 3-foot setback. 32
For proposal seven, exempt Impact Fees, he is a yes with the addition of Plan Review Fees. For 33
proposal eight, expedite review, he is a no because he wanted to stay with the 14-day review 34
periods and 7-days for resubmittal. 35
36
Ms. Tanner suggested that the Commission consider if what is approved by the Commission is 37
the best package of incentivizing a homeowner to build affordable ADUs. 38
39
Page 28
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman announced that the next step is to determine which items the Commission has 1
consensus on, then cluster them together, and vote on them with one motion. He suggested 2
that Staff highlight the item in the chart green if the Commissioners support Staff 3
recommendation, red if the Commissioners do not support Staff recommendation, and any 4
item that remains black will be discussed further. After moving through the list, he announced 5
that there is consensus among the Commissioners that they do not support Staff’s 6
recommendation for proposal three, proposal four, and proposal six 7
8
MOTION #2 9
10
Commissioner Chang moved that the Commission does not recommend proposals three, four, 11
and six. 12
13
SECOND 14
15
Commissioner Lauing seconded. 16
17
Commissioner Chang disclosed that the Commissioners have shared why they do not support 18
the items earlier in the meeting. 19
20
VOTE 21
22
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 23
24
MOTION #2 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) – 0 -2 (Alcheck and 25
Roohparvar absent) 26
27
Commissioner Templeton suggested that proposal eight be colored grey because it is no longer 28
under consideration. 29
30
Chair Hechtman asked if the Commission is to comment on the 7-day initial review period and 31
3-day resubmittal period; or if proposal eight is a more general idea of prioritizing affordable 32
ADU applications? 33
34
Ms. Tanner summarized that Commissioners have said to leave it to Staff to implement as they 35
can versus having a policy that says it shall be within a certain number of days. 36
37
Chair Hechtman supported that. He inquired if the Commissioners were willing to discuss and 38
move on the remaining items or to continue the meeting to a future meeting. 39
40
Page 29
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing suggested not to vote on proposals one and two because Commissioner 1
has expressed that those two should apply to all ADUs and not just affordable ADUs. 2
3
Mr. Yang confirmed that the Commission can recommend proposals one and two as strategies 4
for affordable ADUs with the additional direction that Staff included these strategies in the 5
discussion for all ADUs, or the Commission can choose not to vote on the items. 6
7
Commissioner Chang suggested that Commission make a motion for proposal seven. 8
9
Commissioner Templeton advised that Commissioners who wanted the item to be voted on 10
separately should make the motion. 11
12
MOTION #3 13
14
Commissioner Lauing proposed to group proposals one and two. In addition, because the items 15
did not apply to the agenda item of affordable housing, the Commission recommends they be 16
considered separately for all ADUs. 17
18
SECOND 19
20
Commissioner Chang seconded. 21
22
Mr. Yang noted that one consequence of including all ADUs in the motion is that there is not 23
majority Commission support. He asked if the Commission wants proposals one and two for 24
affordable AUDs if it is not adopted for all ADUs? If the Commission only wants it for affordable 25
ADUs at this time, the Commission can have another motion when the ordinance comes back 26
that proposals one and two apply to all ADUs. 27
28
Commissioner Templeton suggested that the motion be to approve Staff recommendation for 29
proposals one and two and ask Staff to come back with a policy for all ADUs for the Commission 30
to consider at a future meeting. 31
32
Commissioner Lauing did not agree that the proposals should come back to the PTC because 33
there are comments made by several Commissioners who support the idea of having the two 34
proposals apply to all ADUs. He wanted to move the proposals forward and allow Council to 35
make the change in the general ordinance, not just in the Affordable ADU Ordinance. 36
37
Chair Hechtman confirmed that there is not a consensus among the Commission that the two 38
proposals should be allowed for all ADUs. He supported the proposals to be used as incentives 39
Page 30
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
to encourage affordable ADUs to be built. He concurred with Commissioner Templeton’s 1
suggestion that the item comes back to the Commission as a policy for all ADUs. 2
3
SECOND WITHDRAWN 4
5
Commissioner Chang agreed that it is better to pass a motion for a portion of ADUs and then 6
come back for further discussion regarding if the strategies should apply to all ADUs. 7
8
MOTION #3 WITHDRAWN 9
10
Commissioner Lauing withdrew the motion. 11
12
MOTION #4 13
14
Commissioner Templeton moved that the Commission recommend the Staff recommendation 15
for proposals one and two. In addition, Staff should consider if the proposals should apply to all 16
ADUs and bring the policy back to the Commission for consideration. 17
18
SECOND 19
20
Chair Hechtman seconded the motion. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton commented that the intention is to move forward on the item where 23
there is consensus and allow for an opportunity to investigate further if the policy should apply 24
to all ADUs. 25
26
Commissioner Summa supported proposal two but had concerns regarding proposal one. She 27
requested that the proposals be split into individual motions. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton agreed to split the motion. 30
31
MOTION #4 WITHDRAWN 32
MOTION #5 33
34
Commissioner Templeton moved Staff recommendation for proposal two, the existing garage 35
conversion, with the request that Staff brings back to the Commission for consideration on how 36
it can be applied to all ADUs. 37
38
SECOND 39
40
Page 31
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa seconded. 1
2
Commissioner Lauing asked if Staff is comfortable bringing back the items? 3
4
Ms. Tanner explained that Staff would bring back an ordinance, but if the intention is to discuss 5
the items further. Staff would have no additional information to provide at a future meeting. 6
7
VOTE 8
9
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 10
11
MOTION #5 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Alcheck and 12
Roohparvar absent) 13
14
Commissioner Summa disclosed that proposal one should not always be approved without 15
consideration of the impacts. 16
17
MOTION #6 18
19
Commissioner Templeton moved Staff recommendation for proposal one and requested that it 20
be considered for all ADUs when it comes back to the Commission. She requested that 21
Commissioner Summa provide any suggestions or amendments. 22
23
SECOND 24
25
Chair Hechtman seconded. 26
27
Commissioner Chang suggested an amendment that the proposal is allowed only if there is a 28
way to maintain the structure. She noted that there have been comments made about allowing 29
it for remodeling, but for reconstruction, the building should be moved out of the undesirable 30
area. 31
32
Commissioner Summa agreed. 33
34
Ms. Tanner answered that if it is for reconstruction, an applicant is already required to move 35
the structure to the 4-foot setback. 36
37
Commissioner Chang supported the proposal only if the structure is being enhanced. If the 38
structure is being completely torn down, then it should be moved to the required setback. 39
40
Page 32
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa concurred with Commissioner Chang. 1
2
Commissioner Templeton believed that the inches and adjustments are not a threat to the 3
neighbor’s property. A structure would not be allowed to be moved onto a neighbor’s property 4
and the inches are being used for better insulation. She felt that the proposal allows for very 5
small changes that work within the edge case of enhancing an existing structure. If the 6
structure is torn down completely, it would be subject to a different set of rules. 7
8
Commissioner Chang read the Staff report that said that the proposal includes “complete 9
demolition”. So, in that case, the proposal would allow projects that have been completely 10
demolished to have an additional 6-inches. She suggested removing the words “including 11
complete demolition and reconstruction of the structure in place” and then she would support 12
it. 13
14
Commissioner Templeton inquired if that only relates to it being built in the exact same 15
dimensions? 16
17
Commissioner Chang answered yes. 18
19
Chair Hechtman: Yeah. 20
21
Commissioner Templeton requested that Staff clarify the proposal. 22
23
Mr. Sauls explained that a project could follow current policy which is that if the applicant is 24
expanding the size of a non-conforming structure. Then the project must be developed as a 25
conforming structure. The proposal is to allow an applicant to convert or build a new ADU in 26
the existing location and provide an extra 6-inches for the project, only if the ADU is affordable. 27
28
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 29
30
Commissioner Chang suggested a friendly amendment that would allow there to be an 31
expansion only in the case of conversion. She explained that if a person is choosing the 32
completely demolish a building, they can move that structure with easy. If the structure is being 33
converted, then it is harder to move it. 34
35
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT BY THE MAKER 36
37
Commissioner Templeton argued that even in complete demolition, there is still the foundation 38
in the existing location. She agreed that the language is not super clear. 39
40
Page 33
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman stated if giving 6-inches incentivized folks to build more affordable ADUs, then 1
he supported that. 2
3
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 4
5
Commissioner Chang proposed a friendly amendment that for an affordable ADU, it can be 6
completely demolished and expanded by 6-inches. Also, she supported having the proposal be 7
for all ADUs if the language regarding complete demolition is removed. 8
9
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND 10
11
Commissioner Templeton did not support the friendly amendment. 12
13
Chair Hechtman summarized that Commissioner Chang is saying to move Staff 14
recommendation only for affordable ADUs. 15
16
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 17
18
Commissioner Templeton proposed to ask Staff to come back with how it might apply to all 19
ADUs with the specific caveats that Commissioner Chang highlighted 20
21
Commissioner Chang supported that language. 22
23
Commissioner Templeton accepted the friendly amendment. 24
25
MOTION #6 RESTATED 26
27
Chair Hechtman restated that the motion is to recommend Staff recommendation as to 28
affordable ADUs and Staff will bring back a policy that is to all ADUs on conversions only. Not on 29
new construction of non-affordable ADUs. He accepted the friendly amendment. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton confirmed that is correct. 32
33
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 4-1 with two Commissioner absent. 34
35
MOTION #6 PASSED 4(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton) -1 (Summa against) -2 (Alcheck 36
and Roohparvar absent) 37
38
Chair Hechtman moved to item proposal seven. 39
40
Page 34
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang explained that she supports the proposal. She requested that there be 1
language added that says that PTC recommends that City Council budget for it. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton agreed with the concept but was unclear if the Commission should be 4
discussing budget items. 5
6
Commissioner Summa appreciated the suggested language made by Commissioner Chang. She 7
acknowledged that the PTC is recommending, at a policy level that, the City contemplate how 8
to restore the funds used by the proposal. 9
10
Commissioner Lauing agreed with Commissioner Summa and felt that the proposed language 11
made by Commissioner Chang is redundant. 12
13
Commissioner Templeton suggested asking Staff to recommend possible ways to include the 14
proposal as a line item in the budget. She noted that she will support the proposal with or 15
without the proposed language. 16
17
Commissioner Chang believed that it is not redundant because Staff explicitly said that 18
including the Plan Review Fees will impact Staff resources. She supported having Plan Review 19
Fees included in the proposal, but the City should budget for those impacts to Staff resources.: 20
21
Commissioner Templeton asked if requiring it to go into the budget will delay the project by a 22
year because the budget was just passed? 23
24
Ms. Tanner explained that Council will have to decide if they can identify a source to cover the 25
funding impacts. If they cannot then they will have to decide how to move forward. 26
27
Commissioner Chang reminded the Commission that every proposal is a suggestion to Council 28
and Council can decide to not follow through with the recommendation. 29
30
Chair Hechtman noted that he was supportive of including Plan Review Fees. 31
32
MOTION #7 33
34
Chair Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to the City Council that affordable ADUs be 35
exempt from Impact Fees and Plan Review Fees recognizing that the City will need to budget 36
for it. 37
38
SECOND 39
40
Page 35
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing seconded. 1
2
Commissioner Summa voiced concern that the Commission does not understand how the City’s 3
budget will be impacted by waiving Impact and Plan Review Fees. She predicted that the fees 4
may be small for ADUs though. 5
6
VOTE 7
8
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 9
10
MOTION 7 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0- 2(Alcheck and 11
Roohparvar absent) 12
13
MOTION #8 14
15
Commissioner Templeton moved that the Commission does not recommend proposal five, 16
1,200-square foot ADU, for affordable housing units specifically. 17
18
SECOND 19
20
Commissioner Summa seconded. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton disclosed that the proposal could strongly impact lower-income 23
neighborhoods and that it may not be equitably implemented throughout the City. 24
25
Commissioner Summa voiced concerns about losing backyard habitat and the potential loss of 26
trees. 27
28
VOTE 29
30
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 3-2 with two Commissioners absent. 31
32
MOTION #8 PASSED 3(Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -2(Hechtman, Chang) -0(Alcheck and 33
Roohparvar absent) 34
35
Commissioner Chang explained that there may be a way to implement the proposal without 36
impacts and that is why she voted no. 37
38
Chair Hechtman announced that not recommending the proposal is a missed opportunity. He 39
asked if the Commissioners wanted to continue with the last two items or continue the item to 40
Page 36
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
the next meeting. Hearing no objections, he request what item should the Commission take up 1
first. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton suggested income. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing explained that he does not support rising to a level of 120 percent of AMI 6
and that he is comfortable with the range being between 50 percent to 100 percent of AMI. 7
8
Commissioner Summa asked why Staff was not recommending 30 percent to 80 percent of 9
AMI? 10
11
Ms. Tanner answered that the Commission could choose that range. She noted that typically 30 12
percent of AMI and below is provided by 100 percent affordable housing projects. 13
14
Commissioner Summa inquired if a property owner can choose someone at the higher end of 15
the range? 16
17
Ms. Tanner confirmed that is correct. 18
19
Commissioner Summa stated that the City’s greatest need is in the lower range of 30 percent to 20
60 percent of AMI. She predicted that a small number of folks will use the incentive program. 21
22
Commissioner Chang asked how a range would be implemented? 23
24
Ms. Tanner explained that a table is drafted to help determine what AMI category a household 25
falls into. Then there is another table that determines how much rent a household must pay for 26
a specific unit size. 27
28
Commissioner Chang restated is a landlord allowed to only allow a couple to occupy a studio 29
apartment because the landlord can charge more rent for two people versus one? 30
31
Ms. Tanner answered that landlords cannot discriminate against folks based on their household 32
size or the household’s composition. 33
34
Mr. Yang added that allowable rents are based on the unit size. There is also an assumed 35
household size based on the type or size of a unit. 36
37
Commissioner Chang asked if a range is set, can a landlord choose a tenant who is at the higher 38
end of the range? 39
40
Page 37
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Yang explained that the maximum rent is going to be set regardless of the characteristics of 1
the tenant. 2
3
Commissioner Chang summarized that if the Commission recommends a larger range, the rent 4
will be lower. 5
6
Mr. Yang answered yes. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton requested that Staff display the chart outlining the 2020 BMR rents. 9
She announced she is comfortable with 50 percent to 100 percent of AMI. She acknowledged 10
that 120 percent of AMI may be the level that would draw enough attention to the program. 11
12
Commissioner Lauing reminded the Commission that the range has to be appealable for a 13
homeowner who has one unit and one tenant. He noted that overall in the City, there should be 14
a lower range than his suggested 50 percent to 100 percent of AMI, but the Commission has to 15
be realistic that this is one homeowner. He suggested listing each Commissioner’s range that 16
they are comfortable with and forward those to Council. 17
18
Chair Hechtman asked Staff to display the table that shows the City’s current RHNA numbers. 19
He pointed out that the area of greatest need in the City is moderate-income level housing and 20
typically, 100 percent of affordable housing developers pursue low and very low-income levels 21
in their projects. He disclosed that by targeting the moderate-income level of housing, more 22
folks will be incentivized to use the affordable ADU program. He inquired of Staff if the 23
moderate-income level equates to 80 percent to 120 percent of AMI? 24
25
Mr. Sauls answered that is correct. 26
27
Chair Hechtman remarked that 80 percent to 120 percent of AMI is where he is comfortable 28
because it will increase housing stock in the area that is most needed and will facilitate a 29
greater incentive. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton proclaimed that based on a quick search of rental units in Palo Alto, 32
the rents are falling in the 120 percent range. She was concerned that if 50 percent of AMI is 33
included, that will be too low for homeowners. She supported Commissioner Lauing’s 34
suggestion of forwarding the ranges each Commissioner has expressed to Council, but she 35
advised the Commission to come to a consensus on a range that overlaps the preferred ranges. 36
She restated that she would not support a range that goes 100 percent of AMI. 37
38
Page 38
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang acknowledged that by waiving the Impact Fees and the data point about 1
area median rent being charged for an ADU supports a high-end range of 100 percent of AMI. 2
She was concerned that even with all the incentives, 50 percent of AMI is too low. 3
4
Commissioner Summa restated that many folks who use the program will be doing so out of the 5
goodness of their heart. She suggested 80 percent of AMI be the high range because that would 6
help lower-income levels. 7
8
MOTION #9 9
10
Commissioner Lauing moved that the Commission recommend a range of 80 to 100 percent for 11
the affordable ADU housing units. 12
13
SECOND 14
15
Commissioner Templeton seconded. 16
17
VOTE 18
19
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 4-1 with two Commissioners absent. 20
21
MOTION #9 PASSED 4(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton) -1 (Summa) -0 (Alcheck and 22
Roohparvar absent) 23
24
Chair Hechtman announced that the Staff’s recommendation for the length of time a unit 25
should be deed-restricted is a minimum of 15-years. 26
27
Commissioner Templeton explained that the commitment to deed restrict a property should 28
not be for the entire life span of a person and so she supported a deed restriction of 15- to 20-29
years. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing emphasized that the goal is not to create temporary affordable housing 32
and he did not support residents' comments who want a 15-year deed restriction. He 33
supported having a unit be deed-restricted for 25-years. 34
35
Commissioner Summa reminded the Commission that regular deed restrictions run between 36
55- to 99-years. She announced that deed restricting for 30-years is a reasonable approach and 37
she agreed with Commissioner Lauing that the goal is not to facilitate temporary affordable 38
housing units. 39
40
Page 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang said that based on the incentives that the Commission has approved, she 1
supported a shorter deed restriction term. She appreciated Commissioner Lauing’s comment 2
that the goal is not to create temporary affordable housing and currently, many folks do no 3
move out of their affordable units. She concluded that she would not support a period of less 4
than 15-years and that too long of a period would disincentivize folks. 5
6
Chair Hechtman restated that today folks can build a 1,000-square foot ADU and charge 7
market-rate rents. He agreed with Commissioner Chang that the approved incentives do not 8
warrant a long deed-restriction period. For those reasons, he supported a duration of 10-years. 9
10
MOTION #10 11
12
Commissioner Templeton moved the Staff recommendation of 15-years. 13
14
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 15
16
Commissioner Chang suggested the motion include language that the 15-years only applies to 17
ADUs who are using the incentive program. 18
19
MOTION #10 RESTATED 20
21
Commissioner Templeton moved Staff recommendation of affordable for ADUs for a minimum 22
of 15-years based on the incentives and if those incentives change, then Council should 23
consider changing the duration. 24
25
SECOND 26
27
Commissioner Chang seconded. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton explained that 15-years is the median of the proposed ranges made 30
by the Commissioners. 31
32
Commissioner Chang explained that based on the recommend incentives, a deed restriction of 33
15-years is a very conservative duration. 34
35
Chair Hechtman announced that he will be voting no on the motion for the reasons he stated 36
above. 37
38
Page 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa stated she also will not be supporting the motion because she believes 1
that the program will not be successful. She disclosed she would have preferred a longer deed 2
restriction length to show that the City is making a meaningful effort. 3
4
VOTE 5
6
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion fails 2-3 with two Commissioners absent. 7
8
MOTION FAILED 2(Chang, Templeton) -3(Lauing, Hechtman, Summa) -2(Alcheck and 9
Roohparvar absent) 10
11
Commissioner Lauing acknowledged that the Commissioners are on opposite sides on the topic. 12
He suggested again that the Commission provide their preferred time durations and forward 13
those to Council. 14
15
Commissioner Templeton agreed. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing announced he supported 25-years. 18
19
Commissioner Summa concurred she supported a range between 25- to 30-years. 20
21
Commissioner Chang supported 15-years. 22
23
MOTION #11 24
25
Chair Hechtman moved that the Commission was unable to reach a majority on a 26
recommendation for a term and the Commissioner’s preferred durations are reflected in Ms. 27
Tanner’s chart. 28
29
SECOND 30
31
Commissioner Chang seconded. 32
33
VOTE 34
35
Mr. Nguyen announced that the motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 36
37
MOTION #11 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Alcheck and 38
Roohparvar absent) 39
40
Page 41
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Chang. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 1
Roohparvar absent) 2
Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Lauing. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, Roohparvar 3
absent) 4
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Summa. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 5
Roohparvar absent) 6
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Hechtman. Carries 4-1 7
(Summa against) (Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 8
Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lauing. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 9
Roohparvar absent) 10
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Summa. Carries 3-2 (Chang, Hechtman 11
against) (Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 12
Commission Action: Motion by Lauing, seconded by Templeton. Carries 4-1 (Summa against) 13
(Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 14
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Chang. Fails 2-3 (Hechtman, Lauing, 15
Summa against) (Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 16
Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Chang. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 17
Roohparvar absent) 18
Approval of Minutes 19
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 20
3. May 26, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes 21
Chair Hechtman called for a motion to approve the May 26, 2021 minutes as revised by himself. 22
23
MOTION 24
25
Commissioner Summa moved. 26
27
SECOND 28
29
Commissioner Chang seconded. 30
31
Mr. Nguyen announced the motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 32
33
Commission Action: Motion by Summa, seconded by Chang. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck and 34
Roohparvar absent) 35
Committee Items 36
None. 37
Page 42
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 1
Commissioner Templeton asked Staff if there are agenda items for the July 14, 2021 PTC 2
meeting? 3
4
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, answered there will be a study session item regarding 5
the Palo Alto Bikeways Project from the Office of Transportation. 6
7
Chair Hechtman announced that the grand opening of the Palo Alto Bikeway will be on July 26, 8
2021. 9
10
Ms. Tanner reminded the Commission that the July 28th, 2021, and August 11, 2021, PTC 11
meetings have been canceled. 12
Adjournment 13
12:03 am 14
Page 1
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: June 30, 2021 2
Virtual Meeting 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
Approximately 6:04 pm 7
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Good evening members of the public, Staff, and my fellow 8
Commissioners and welcome to this June 30th, 2021 meeting of the Planning and 9
Transportation Commission. Mr. Nguyen, will you roll the tape? 10
11
[An automated voice recording begins to play disclosing Zoom procedures.] 12
13
Chair Hechtman: Mr. Nguyen, please conduct the roll call. 14
15
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Commissioner Alcheck is absent. Commissioner Chang? 16
17
Commissioner Chang: Present. 18
19
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Present. 22
23
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 24
25
Commissioner Lauing: Present. 26
27
Mr. Nguyen: Vice-Chair Roohparvar is absent. Commissioner Summa? 28
29
Commissioner Summa: Present. 30
31
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: Present. 34
35
Mr. Nguyen: We have a quorum. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. We are now moving onto oral communications. 38
Page 2
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Oral Communications 1
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 2
3
Chair Hechtman: This section is for the public to speak on items not on tonight’s agenda. Please 4
raise your hand if you wish to speak. On the Zoom app, there is a raise hand button on the 5
bottom of your screen. If you’re dialing in from a phone, press *9. Do we have any public 6
speakers for oral communication tonight? 7
8
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Yes, we do have one hand and we’re going to get the 9
speaker time up. Our first and only speaker is Winter. Winter, are you there? 10
11
Ms. Winter Dellenbach: Yes, I am here. So, I have… I didn’t have any time to even think about 12
my remarks tonight so this is really off the cuff. So, here’s the thing, I did see some of the last 13
meeting on affordable BMR ADUs and I have several concerns and I hope they’re pertinent to 14
the discussion tonight. I did not have a chance to read the Staff report. Here are my concerns. 15
Setbacks, that there’s even any contemplation of reducing the now thin setbacks of 4-feet on 16
ADUs is really shocking. Both from a safety point of view. I wonder what happens… how… if a 17
fire breaks out, fire department, how are they going to get access if you further reduce these 18
setbacks? Getting behind or possibly not being able to get behind a unit, to the side, to the 19
back. I’m not even sure it comports with the… I wonder what the fire department would say 20
about this and if they’ve been consulted. That’s one thing to keep in mind. 21
22
Two, as we actually being contemplated a fourth possible structure on a lot. You know we have 23
5,000-foot lots or we have… I think we even have lots that are smaller than that. 24
25
Chair Hechtman: Winter? Can I… Mr. Nguyen, stop the clock for just a minute. Winter, the ADU 26
is on tonight’s agenda and we will be actually inviting public comment. I’ve listened for a while, 27
it seems like you’re wanting to talk about our agenda item tonight. Would you be alright to 28
suspend your remarks and then come back during public comment? And you’ll have a full 3-29
minutes and you can organize… you’ll have a little more time to organize your thoughts. Would 30
that be alright? 31
32
Ms. Dellenbach: Yes, I thought that you had announced… I came in late and [note – audio and 33
video cut out]. Wow, so I already got some off the top of my head, so I apologize for that. I 34
know better than that. 35
36
Chair Hechtman: No problem whatsoever, but you know, stay tuned and when we call for 37
public comment on that. Again, we’ll give you a full 3-minutes. 38
39
Mr. Nguyen: Alright, thank you Chair and with that, concludes oral communications. 40
Page 3
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Hechtman: Alright, we will move now onto City official reports. 2
3
[The Commission moved to City official reports.] 4
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 6
City Official Reports 7
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 8
Chair Hechtman: Ms. Tanner? 9
10
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: Thank you. Good evening Chair, good evening 11
Commissioners. Good to see you all again today. Just want to… just a few announcements. The 12
Council has begun its summer recess and they had their last meeting on last Tuesday. Last week 13
was also part of their business. They did pass the budget for the fiscal year that starts on July 1st 14
and that did pass. They did make a lot of restorations, specifically for Planning and 15
Development Services. We were able to retain a current planner position as well as a principal 16
planner in our Long-Rang Planning Division. So, that’s good news for us and we also were able 17
to add an additional inspector to our building inspector services. That said, we still did see the 18
cuts that we made in previous fiscal year, which were positions that were vacant that were 19
frozen, we did see those eliminated from the budget. So, we are reducing overall the number of 20
spaces we have. Fortunately, we did not have to have any layoffs and I think that’s true for 21
most of the departments that most layoffs were avoided. I can’t vouch for that because I have 22
to say I was a little bit myopically focused on our department, but I know it was generally pretty 23
good news. 24
25
Continue to stay tune though as discussions about the City’s fiscal state in connection to the 26
recovery. You know, are folks out shopping again? How do our Sales Tax revenues fair once 27
more offices are open? When Stanford returns to in-person classes which again, is planned for 28
the fall. Full in-person education for undergrads and graduate students on campus. You know 29
what will we see? So, stay tuned and we’ll surely be getting more updates for that as the year 30
continues. 31
32
Council did also consider what to do regarding our closed street program; the Up Lift Local 33
Streets downtown and Cal Ave. And those street closures have been extended until September 34
30th for both downtown and University Avenue. So, the summertime and even the early fall, 35
folks can continue to enjoy outdoor dining, shopping, people watching, ice cream, hopefully 36
also visiting some of our retailers there as well through the fall. And Staff will be working… 37
Council did give us referral for PDS but also Public Works to work with the ARB on coming up 38
with standards for a permanent parklet program. And so, we’ll keep you all updated as well as 39
Page 4
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that program goes to make sure that if the Council does approve a permanent parklet program 1
in the future. That we can have the good aesthetic design quality we expect to see in our public 2
realm carry over into the future for that. So, happy to answer any questions on that topic if 3
there are any. 4
5
And regarding our in-person meetings, on August 9th, Council is going to have its first hybrid 6
meeting. That is the goal, to have in-person meeting for City Council, but also be able to have 7
the public call into that meeting and participate virtually. So, I am eagerly waiting to see what 8
that looks like and how that goes and our plan tentatively would be for the PTC, ARB, and the 9
HRB to start in-person hybrid meetings in September. So, we would look for our September 14th 10
meeting to be our first in-person hybrid meeting as a Board. That gives us time to see how 11
things go at City Council and then also to learn the ropes from the Clerk’s Office regarding how 12
to manage both the online and in-person technology and just literally, how does that work. And 13
so, to the Chair and also Vice-Chair, we may do a training if needed or a dry run or something 14
just to make sure we know everything and how it will be working. 15
16
So, good news for sure and also, just generally, August 2nd is our reactivation date for City 17
facilities and really getting our Staff ready to return to work in the office as well and reactivate 18
the Development Center and City Hall. We have some modifications in place that we think will 19
be enhancements for our customers. In particular, going to an appointment-based system for 20
our Development Center. So, folks can go online, book an appointment in person or virtually if 21
they want to. They don’t have to do that. They can continue to use our online permitting 22
system if they don’t want to meet with anybody. We hope it will give predictability that you 23
know when you come in, you’ll be seen, you’ll get your business done, you won’t have to wait 24
in line, and then also reduce any risk that folks might feel from bunching up in a lobby together. 25
Any perceived risk that transmission of the virus. So, we hope it’s a service enhancement with 26
an added feature of virus reduction built into it. And it overall, it helps everyone run very 27
smoothly and get folks the work done that they need to get done. 28
29
So, that’s my update for today but happy to answer any questions on these topics or other 30
questions that you may have about things going on in the City. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang and then Commissioner Lauing. 33
34
Commissioner Chang: Just a quick question about the dates that you mentioned. I wanted to 35
make sure I heard you correctly. So, you refer to September 14th as our first meeting, but when 36
I’m looking at our meeting schedule I see September 8th. So, is it… did you mean to say 37
September 8th? 38
39
Page 5
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: I thought our meetings were on the second and last Tuesday of the month. Am I 1
looking at the wrong month maybe? 2
3
Commissioner Chang: I think it might technically be the second one. 4
5
Ms. Tanner: Oh, I’m looking at… you’re right, I’m sorry. I was looking at Wednesday for some… 6
or Tuesday, not Wednesday. You’re right, it’s the 8th, September 8th. Thank you for that correct. 7
8
Commissioner Chang: Ok, thank you. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: That was one of my comments. The other one was I presume the retail 13
tsar as I call it, the person who… person and/or consultant who comes aboard is going to come 14
aboard in planning. And is that an active project not only in the budget but are we looking for 15
the consultant now to do that? 16
17
Ms. Tanner: Yes, so that project is under if you end up digging for it, Community Economic 18
Recovery. That is right now being lead out of the Administrative Services Department which is 19
where our budget folks are seated. You can imagine they definitely are looking at our pennies 20
and also in collaboration with the City Manager’s Office. So, there was a study or a session with 21
Council probably a couple weeks ago that helped to refine the scope that they’re developing. 22
So, we have a team, Good City Company that’s helping us develop an RFP, and that RFP 23
hopefully will be released later this fall, possibly in September. And that would then provide… if 24
that’s the direction that Council does decide to go to do a consultant for Economic 25
Development Services through an RFP. Then that RFP and the proposers and selected 26
consultant or team would be the folks who would be in place. 27
28
In parallel to that, we’re continuing to work on the project that I came forward with you all 29
which is evaluating how to have diverse retail options and retail and retail-like uses. And so, I’ve 30
gotten some response from our on-call team and I’m hoping that we can even bring that to you 31
in August. Those two efforts will align though both in terms of our work in forming the scope 32
for the RFP as well as restoring that when that other team is on board. The work that we do can 33
really marry with the work that they do. So, we will be working in concert and not in conflict 34
with that team once they’re in place. Does that answer your question? 35
36
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Alright, anything further for the City reports? Nope, ok, then I did skip over 39
agenda changes, additions and deletions because we’ve got a single agenda item tonight. But I 40
Page 6
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
should have checked in with the Commissioners to make sure you concur that I don’t need to 1
bring that up. Alright, great, then we can move onto our action item. 2
3
Action Items 4
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 5
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6
7
2. PUBLIC HEARING/LEGISLATIVE: Review and Discuss Potential Ordinance Changes to 8
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.09 to Consider Regulations to Encourage 9
Affordability for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Environmental Assessment: 10
Exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and 11
CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), and 15305. 12
Chair Hechtman: And we start and finish out action items tonight with Agenda Item Number 13
Two. It’s a public hearing/legislative review and discuss potential ordinance changes to Palo 14
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.09 to consider regulations to encourage affordability for 15
accessory dwelling units or ADUs. 16
17
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: Great, so we’re going to do a brief Staff report just to 18
refresh folks’ memories from a few weeks ago what we talked about and we do have Georgina 19
who is with us from Alta Housing who will share a few remarks. Before I turn it over to Mr. 20
Sauls to remind us and just a quick overview Garrett of the different topics we discussed and 21
that we have remaining to discuss. I just want to put in the Commissioner’s that these ideas are 22
not the end all be all so if there are additional ideas that you have. Certainly, we’re open to 23
having further suggestions and then two, one of the ideas that we want to emphasize is that 24
these proposals are meant to be layered. It was challenging to think of any one kind of golden 25
goose if you will that would be so incentivizing to have someone build an affordable ADU. But 26
you can imagine that some of these could be combined and by combining them. They might be 27
an incentive package that could be attractive to those folks who are wanting to do some good 28
while redeveloping a property through an affordable ADU. So, I’m going to hand it over to Mr. 29
Sauls to take it away. 30
31
Mr. Garrett Sauls, Planner: Alright, I’m going to go ahead and share my screen real quick. Can 32
you see this? 33
34
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 35
36
Mr. Sauls: Alright, so once again to cover the broader topic of tonight, we are going to talking 37
about ADUs. And primarily, we’re going to be talking about how the City is trying to establish a 38
program or consider establishing a program to incentive restricting these units to be affordable 39
or target affordable categories for our City’s housing inventory. So, this was something that was 40
Page 7
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
brought up at the PTC last year when we… in May when we had gone through the ordinance 1
update to address items related to the state code for our own ordinance update. And we had 2
previously discussed this about a month ago on May 25th or 26th to consider the first half of 3
these items that we had discussed at that time. So, I’ll go over those items and then also 4
continue on to discuss the items that we haven’t gotten to just yet. 5
6
So, in terms of a timeline of what we may be able to consider is that with our discussion 7
tonight, what Staff would be proposing afterward would be to return to the PTC sometime in 8
late summer or early fall. To potentially pass an ordinance or get direction on an ordinance that 9
would capture the discussion that we had related to the items highlighted in Palo Alto’s ADU 10
Task Force group. Who had provided additional items they had wanted Council and PTC to 11
consider as well as the items that had been discussed last meeting about a month ago. We 12
would be looking to return back in fall of later on this year, summer to fall later this year with a 13
draft ordinance that PTC can review and hash out. And then following that, we’d return to 14
Council potentially this fall or early winter; ideally before the end of the year. 15
16
So, the items again to go over which we are going to be discussing capture what is included in 17
the Staff report about potentially allowing for reconstruction or expansion of non-conforming 18
walls, removing the requirement to have an existing garage in terms of capturing the ability to 19
replace parking spaces or required parking spaces on-site, providing potential for additional 20
ADU on-site, exempting basements from the maximum size or floor area requirements in our 21
code, increasing the potential size for a maximum ADU or JADU, potentially providing reduced 22
setbacks, allowing for a full exemption of Development Impact Fees where they apply for units 23
larger than 750-square feet, and potentially allowing for an expedited review of any affordable 24
unit. 25
26
Other policy considerations highlighted in the Staff report talk about what are the duration 27
perimeters that we want to think about for these affordable units? Staff has suggested 28
something about to the tune of 15-years which is different than typical affordability ranges 29
which usually go between 50- to 99-years. But with the fact that these are occurring on a single-30
family home with a homeowner rather than a larger organization that might have deeper 31
pockets so to speak. You know Staff is trying to balance what could be a potential for creating 32
an affordable unit and adding to that housing stock; while recognizing that homeowners don’t 33
have the same capabilities as potential market-rate developers. Others would be determining 34
what are the income categories these units are going to be trying to target? Staff has a table 35
which identifies where our current target goals are at and how much our current units are 36
addressing those categories that we need to meet for our RHNA numbers. 37
38
Also, discussing under C and D about the income verification process, how that goes about, and 39
we have Georgina here who can talk from Alta Housing’s perspective as to how that occurs; as 40
Page 8
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
well as what would be a potential either creation of a list or a long-standing list that our 1
administrator, Alta Housing, might be able to provide to homeowners as they… a pre-qualify 2
tenant list; or allowing homeowners to do that self-selection of a potential tenant and have it 3
vetted through our administrator and understanding what those costs are to do something like 4
that. Potentially considering some state-level funding that might be able to support that 5
program and also looking at potentially partnering with other organizations to help establish 6
loan support for homeowners who might be interested in this. 7
8
So, what we’d be looking overall for the PTC to provide is just motions that would identify the 9
incentive items to pursue or not to pursue. Again, Staff has established this program or the Staff 10
report is organized in a manner to try to discuss how these would layer upon each other, these 11
incentives. While maybe one individually is not the golden goose as the Assistant Director 12
Tanner had suggested, but on top of each other, they may provide a more complex web that 13
might support this type of policy initiative. 14
15
So, the items that we had gotten through and discussed last time were about the duration of 16
the affordability that we’d be looking to target for these units. We had also discussed about 17
income categories which would be served by these units and the two items that we had 18
discussed, as of last meeting, were about the potential for reconstructing or expanding non-19
conforming walls. As well as potentially removing the existing requirement or “the existing 20
garage” requirement for either a new home or in showing those spaces to be on site as either 21
uncovered spaces past the front yard setback, which is the typical requirement, or even 22
allowing them to be within the front yard setback along a driveway. 23
24
So, the other items that we still have to discuss would be potentially allowing for additional 25
affordable unit on-site, exempting basement square footage from the maximum unit size or 26
floor area. Increasing the potential size for these units, allowing for potentially reduced 27
setbacks with greater constraints within those areas for 0- to 4-foot setbacks that would 28
conform to a pre-determined height or daylight plan, and potentially exempting affordable 29
units specifically from Impact Fees as well as discussing potential for an expedited review of 30
these affordable units. 31
32
So, what we can do during the discussion is I will have each of these slides available for PTC 33
Members to understand what our current policy is and what the policy proposal may be. So, 34
that way we can have that as a frame of reference with the discussion. 35
36
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you, Mr. Sauls. Let’s see, so I’d like to now have the 37
representative of Alta and help me with the pronunciation of your last name so I don’t 38
mispronounce it. 39
40
Page 9
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Georgina Mascarenhas: It’s Mascarenhas. 1
2
Chair Hechtman: Mascarenhas. Welcome. 3
4
Ms. Mascarenhas: The “h” is silent to confuse everybody. 5
6
Chair Hechtman: Alright, well thank you and welcome. 7
8
Ms. Mascarenhas: Thank you. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: So, and thank you for joining us tonight. So, what I was hoping you could do is 11
familiarize us with kind of an overview of what Alta Housing does and then how that might 12
apply to some of these affordability incentives that we are looking at. And then perhaps field 13
some questions from the Commissioners who I know were interested in having somebody from 14
Alta here for this continuation of the item. 15
16
Ms. Mascarenhas: Sure, so Alta Housing is a local non-profit based in Palo Alto. We’ve been 17
working in Palo Alto since 1970 and we’ve been administrating the City of Palo Alto’s BMR 18
Program since its inception in 1974. We… and I’m not sure how familiar everybody is with the 19
BMR Program itself but there are 237 purchase units in the City of Palo Alto and 264 rental BMR 20
units. And our company also develops and manages all of our affordable housing in Palo Alto 21
and we are the largest owner and landlord of affordable housing within the City of Palo Alto. 22
23
We are very familiar with the qualifying residents. We do all of the income certifications and 24
[unintelligible] annual recertifications for all of the BMR rental units as well as the sale and 25
resales of the BMR purchase units. 26
27
We monitor the waiting list for the ownership units and that waiting list has been closed for 28
approximately 10-years now because we have so many applicants on the waiting lists. The BMR 29
rental waiting list, each developer has their own waiting list and they select applicants off of 30
their waiting list. However, those applicants must be qualified and approved through our office. 31
So, they identify a person, they send them to our office and we get all of the documentation 32
necessary. For example, W-2 forms, tax returns, bank statements, questionnaires, applications, 33
etc., etc. to make sure that the person is eligible to move into a particular BMR unit. 34
35
And the various BMR rents do have different income limits in some cases. For example, some… 36
the maximum income for some units may be 60 percent AMI and in some cases it's 80 percent 37
AMI and in others it could be over 100 percent. I think 120 is our highest for the rental units. 38
39
Page 10
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, again we are very grateful [unintelligible] the BMR Program and I’ve been working with 1
Garrett and Tim discussing the pros and cons of various aspects of the ADUs and qualifying 2
applicants for these and so if you have any questions I’m happy to answer them. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Alright, my first question before I go to Commissioners, Ms. Mascarenhas are 5
you able to stay with us through our discussion tonight? 6
7
Ms. Mascarenhas: Yes, yes. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Ok, great. So, Commissioners, I will invite questions of Ms. Mascarenhas or 10
Mr. Sauls at this time. But now that we know that they’ll both be with us through the 11
deliberation if you have some questions that you want to hold for when we get to a particular 12
issue, that’s fine too, but I thought that this would be a good opportunity to ask more general 13
questions or any questions on your mind before we go to public comment. Commissioner 14
Summa followed by Commissioner Lauing. You’re muted. 15
16
Commissioner Summa: Out of practice. I did have a question about the income levels and 17
whether they were the same for housing units produced to the in-lieu program as for a project 18
that’s a multi-family that’s all affordable housing that’s been mostly funded by the tax credits. 19
So, are there different income levels, and are there different deed restrictions in terms of years 20
associated with those different situations? 21
22
Ms. Mascarenhas: So, the income limits are different. The tax credits tend to have lower 23
income limits in most cases. For the tax credit units, the maximum income is either 60 percent 24
or 50 percent whereas for the BMR in lieu units it could go up to again 80, 100, 120 percent of 25
AMI. But they’re generally within Palo Alto I think there are very, very few units that are 50 26
percent of… where 50 percent of AMI is the income limit. 27
28
Commissioner Summa: Meaning mostly 50 and above or up to 50? 29
30
Ms. Mascarenhas: I’m sorry, can you (interrupted) 31
32
Commissioner Summa: I’m sorry maybe I didn’t… I’m sorry. 33
34
Ms. Mascarenhas: No, no, no, that’s fine. So, for the tax credit units, the income limits are 35
lower. 36
37
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 38
39
Ms. Mascarenhas: For the BMR units, they tend to be 50 and above. 40
Page 11
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Summa: Ok and then the deed restriction in terms of years or decades. Are they 2
the same for both types of affordable housing or different generally? 3
4
Ms. Mascarenhas: They are different. For the tax… for the 100 percent affordable, as far as I 5
know, we don’t have a deed restriction attached those properties. So, for the… of the market-6
rate developers, there is a deed restriction for the BMR units. Does that make (interrupted) 7
8
Commissioner Summa: Ok so that would be for the in lieu? 9
10
Ms. Mascarenhas: Correct. 11
12
Commissioner Summa: And the idea is that a project like Wilton Court or another one of our 13
multi-family housing facilities, it's established with… for all affordable housing. They don’t have 14
to have a deed restriction? 15
16
Ms. Mascarenhas: Correct, as far as I am aware, I haven’t seen one. 17
18
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thank you very much for clarifying that. 19
20
Ms. Mascarenhas: Of course. 21
22
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 23
24
Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney: So, if I may just jump in, Chair? Just to clarify that last 25
issue, whether it's 100 percent affordable or a part of a market-rate developers in lieu or 26
inclusionary requirement. We are always going to require some sort of regulatory agreement 27
and that will limit the… have a period of between 55- and 99-years affordability. I don’t think 28
that there is a real difference between the type of development in terms of the length. I think 29
it’s just more recently the City has moved to 99-years where it can negotiate that and 30
historically it’s been 55. 31
32
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. 33
34
Ms. Mascarenhas: And I’m sorry, I was differentiating between deed restriction and a 35
regulatory agreement. 36
37
Commissioner Summa: Thanks. 38
39
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, questions, followed by Commissioner Chang. 40
Page 12
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I’ll stay with the current witness and ask a couple more questions 2
there. So, I mean you do this every day so you’ve got all the skill sets. I presume that if it was 3
whatever Council decided was the actual affordability zone, that you could administer that 4
independent of all other stuff that you’re doing. You would just pick those 80 and below or 50 5
and below and administer it. Is that correct? 6
7
Ms. Mascarenhas: That is correct, yes. 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: And you’ve got some costs in here that you’re suggesting $700 for initial 10
and $500 for annual recertification. So, if the Council said yes, that’s the cost and you’ve got the 11
bandwidth to do this stuff? 12
13
Ms. Mascarenhas: Yes, yes. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: So, tell us what happens as things change? If somebody goes into that 16
ADU and after a year they go up, let’s its 80 percent, and they get a great promotion and 17
they’re at 110 percent. So, at the next year, they don’t qualify. Is there an eviction period of 30-18
days or how does that work? 19
20
Ms. Mascarenhas: So… sorry and I can address this based on the current BMR Program that we 21
have. So, we do go to the regulatory agreement and the regulatory agreement actually specifies 22
what the process would be. Generally, it’s a 60-days’ notice in some cases. Meaning that the 23
resident get’s a 60-day notice to move out, to vacate. In some… at some properties we have 24
different AMI so for example, I can refer to Mayfield as one example. They have some units that 25
are at 50 percent AMI, some at 60 percent AMI, some at 100 percent AMI. So, if that happens 26
and we can flip flop. So, for example, if somebody is in a 50 percent AMI unit paying… qualifies 27
for a 50 percent AMI but is paying 60 percent. We would give them the lower rent and increase 28
that person… assign that person to the higher AMI unit. I’m not sure that… so, we always keep 29
the ratio. The ratio needs to remain the same. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: But is it routine every year that some people price out because they do 32
better in their work? 33
34
Ms. Mascarenhas: It’s not routine. It’s not, no. 35
36
Commissioner Lauing: I mean this could (interrupted) 37
38
Ms. Mascarenhas: It’s very rare. 39
40
Page 13
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing: This may not fit that pattern because in some affordable housing there’s 1
certain income levels that are, I don’t want to say fixed, but pretty stable. Whereas if this is just 2
a person just out of college and he just needs a place for a year. It could change a lot, so it may 3
not be the same pattern that you see with other tenants that you manage. 4
5
Ms. Mascarenhas: Exactly and also there’s a margin. So, even if the income limit is set at let’s 6
say 60 percent of AMI. Most of the regulatory agreements allow for an additional… so they can 7
go up to for example 80 percent of AMI before they would be asked to vacate. 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: That’s a good point to know as well and then there’s one of the 10
proposals… possible proposals is that the landlord would have a choice to do it themselves or 11
go through you. Do you care about that or does that make it more complicated for you? 12
13
Ms. Mascarenhas: It does, it does, so in fact, our recommendation to the City was to have one 14
waiting list, and that way we select the person. We qualify them based on their place on the 15
waiting list and we send them to the landlord. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, so it all goes through one funnel basically. 18
19
Ms. Mascarenhas: You know one… yes and so there’s no question about skipping people or 20
jumping over or just selecting based on whatever criteria a land lord decides. 21
22
Commissioner Lauing: Chair, we’re still in the question round. Can I ask questions of Staff or 23
would you like to have somebody else take a chance… a turn first? 24
25
Chair Hechtman: You can keep going and yes, this was intended that you can ask questions of 26
Staff as well. 27
28
Commissioner Lauing: So, I’m wondering if there’s any new data in the last 30-days since we 29
looked at this? Particularly, in the areas of any other Cities other than the one data point of 30
what San Diego did in terms of proliferation of ADUs. And let’s see, secondly, do we have any 31
further data on what percentage that we know are detached or not detached? I think they’re 32
mostly detached but we ought to be able to check that out. And then also, any further 33
developments on the rent issue? You were kind of guestimating rents of $1,800 to $4,000 for a 34
300- and 900-square foot unit based on Craig’s List and Apartment.com. So, I’m just wondering 35
if there’s anything that’s more concrete, more accurate than that? So those three items, rents, 36
and detached percentages, and any other data from other Cities. 37
38
Mr. Sauls: Thanks, so there hasn’t… for what my research has provided there hasn’t been other 39
Cities… there haven’t been any other Cities I’ve found that have tried to establish an affordable 40
Page 14
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
program. The incomes that I’ve or the rents that I’ve been finding were not so much guesses as 1
what I had actually been seeing when I did my search online for different affordable units. That 2
I could break down to more clearly actually confirm that they were. A lot of times when you use 3
these online search engines, you… they’re not… the parameters aren’t so clear yet to identify or 4
specify detached ADU or even utilize that term ADU. Sometimes they are lumped underneath 5
studio, so trying to kind of balance those kind of search engines or search parameters leads you 6
to a mixed bag of a lot of things. But the items or the units that I had seen, some of them were 7
lower. Seeing, again like I suggested the last time, anywhere from $1,800 to $2,200 a month to 8
some units that I had seen that were being proposed as $3,500 or even upwards to $4,000 a 9
month for rent. So, there was a large variety and a greater disparity in terms of information or 10
even information in that gap between those higher low ends to really give a lot more 11
information, unfortunately. Most of the time it didn’t seem like there was a lot of information 12
really available sadly and (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: And so that’s part of our collective problem right now is that there’s not 15
a lot of data to make decisions on and I’m not suggesting that you didn’t do your job. I think 16
you did a fine job, but you had to sort a guess. I say guess because it looks like a detached ADU 17
but they don’t use those words and they talk about square footage and then a number. So, it’s 18
just a bit sketchy right now. 19
20
Mr. Sauls: Yeah, definitely feels that way when you look online trying to find some of these is to 21
you know you really have to start staring at an image for a long time and try to guess. Is that 22
what I think it is so is that not? It’s interesting. 23
24
Commissioner Lauing: Right, you might have to go on field trips. 25
26
Ms. Sauls: Yeah, right? So, you know it would be one thing, you obviously have a list now or can 27
generate a list of addresses that we can go to but I think there’s also that challenge of a 28
government entity requesting information from a member of the public about how much 29
they’re charging people for their units. So, I think that’s also been a challenge too. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: That’s all for now, thank you. 32
33
Ms. Tanner: I did want to add Commissioner Lauing, we can give you… I need to do some quick 34
calculations but I can give you a calc in a minute about the balance at least up through 2020 of 35
the detached versus attached. It certainly is that detached is far more popular than attached 36
but not necessarily hugely. So, I’ll run that for you and I can get that to you in a moment. 37
38
And then as far as new data, I think Garrett… Mr. Sauls did kind of explain it. One piece of 39
information that is relatively new and I believe will be built upon. There was a report looking at 40
Page 15
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
the whole state of California and ADUs. And so that’s helpful but because the housing market is 1
so regional. It’s not… I have to look through it to see if they had any data specific to the Bay 2
Area regarding rent prices. But certainly, an interesting report about ADUs just in general in 3
California. 4
5
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang, you’re up. 6
7
Commissioner Chang: Great. Thanks for coming, Ms. Mascarenhas. I have two question for you. 8
The first is ADU… managing ADUs would be pretty different front managing a lot of the other 9
types of affordable housing that you manage and I wanted to ask you what challenges are 10
there? I mean for one I can think of that each ADU is going to be completely different from the 11
next ADU rather than having a building of similar affordable housing units. But I would be 12
interested to hear what the challenges are that you have discussed with Mr. Sauls in terms of 13
making this actually doable and I think it will really inform some of the decisions that we’re 14
recommending also. 15
16
Ms. Mascarenhas: So, well, the ADUs themselves, I don’t see as being a challenge, and the 17
reason being is that whomever the owner is. They’re not going to want… they’re going to want 18
their unit maintained. So, that’s the one big thing. The challenge I see is working with so many 19
different owners for each unit. You know, right now we have let’s say 10 or 15 o 20 or 30 units 20
managed by one person whereas in this case, each unit would have a different personality, a 21
different owner, a different set of rules that they want to follow versus what we think they 22
need to abide by. But otherwise, the unit themselves I don’t see as being a challenge. Qualifying 23
the person for their recertification or initial certification, I think it’s going to be exactly the 24
same. We’re going to be essentially working with a similar group of people, applicants, as we 25
work with for our affordable housing. 26
27
Commissioner Chang: So, then a follow onto that part is how would this actually work? So, an 28
ADU comes up open, and then you have a wait… let's assume for now that there’s a single 29
waitlist. So, you look at the first person on the list and you say ok, this is available for you. And 30
so, do you present that unit to the renter? And then do you also present the renter to the 31
landlord and at any point any party can say nope, this is not a fit for me. How does that 32
decision-making process work? 33
34
Ms. Mascarenhas: So, yes, to both. So, the renter would certainly have to agree that they want 35
to live where that unit is. It’s suitable for their family, whatever that family size may be, and the 36
owner would also… the owner… so, I see it as having a set of like a resident selection criteria 37
that would be distributed to all the owners. You know, this is what we are going to check. We 38
check credit, landlord history, income if we decide to put in criminal history as well which I 39
Page 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
think most owners might want because it’s part of their personal space in a way. And so, we 1
would check all of that before presenting the renter to the owner and (interrupted) 2
3
Commissioner Chang: And so then could an owner still legitimately say no thank you, I don’t like 4
this tenant for whatever reason, or are they… I’m trying to understand what the limitation that 5
are be… going to… that might be put on a landlord. So, that we understand how sweet we need 6
to make the or how attractive we need to make the carrot. 7
8
Ms. Mascarenhas: Right, right and I totally get that. I think they would have to have a legitimate 9
reason to say that they don’t. Especially if all of the boxes are checked. In other words, the 10
person does have good credit, the person has no evictions, the person does not have a criminal 11
history. They would have to have a good reason or the owner may not want pets for example 12
and the person has a pet. Or comes up at the last minute and says you know, yes, I have a dog 13
and we didn’t know that the person… this applicant had a dog. So, if it’s not a legitimate reason, 14
I… we would definitely have to look into that and it would be a challenge. 15
16
Commissioner Chang: Yeah, I imagine that might be one of the challenges for ADUs versus 17
affordable housing developments. So, my other question or now it’s expanded but my last 18
question now of you is so Mr. Sauls did some research and didn’t know of other examples 19
necessarily where or couldn’t find a lot of examples where there were affordable ADUs. Have 20
you heard of other similar situations for affordable housing even if it’s not exactly ADUs? 21
Maybe analogous to ADUs with many different landlords and every unit being unique. 22
23
Ms. Mascarenhas: So, the City of Los Altos does have ADUs. Yes, and we also administer the 24
BMR Program for the City of Los Altos. However, we do not administer the ADUs and I don’t 25
think it’s appropriate to go into why or what. I don’t think the ADUs have ever been 26
administered yet. However, I do know that they have it. I do know that we are still looking into 27
how to approach monitoring the ADUs. So, that’s the only City that I’m aware of right now. 28
29
Commissioner Chang: And in Los Altos, just to be crystal clear, it’s affordable ADUs that they 30
have? 31
32
Ms. Mascarenhas: The intent was affordable when they were set up. 33
34
Commissioner Chang: Ok. 35
36
Ms. Mascarenhas: However, because they have not been monitored, I couldn’t tell you for sure 37
that they are. 38
39
Commissioner Chang: Ok, thank you. 40
Page 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Mascarenhas: Sure. 2
3
Commissioner Chang: Then I guess I have one… I lied. I have one more follow on question that I 4
think everybody is wondering about. I wanted to ask Staff if they’ve talked to Los Altos at all 5
about their program since it’s right next door and we probably could learn a lot from it. 6
7
Mr. Sauls: So, in the conversations that we’ve had, it’s that they are lumping affordable… 8
they’re lumping ADUs under a category of thinking they’re affordable versus actually confirming 9
that they are. Or doing that extra step to be able to be able to demonstrate that they are 10
actually meeting the affordability targets. So, to my understanding again, it’s more that the City 11
has said that affordable or sorry, ADUs in general target a category that can capture something 12
underneath that umbrella of being affordable but that they don’t necessarily have the targeted 13
program like what we’re considering tonight. Or what we had discussed last time of having a 14
more organized deed-restricted process that specifically captures and delineates what is being 15
used as an affordable unit versus simply saying well, we’re going to classify any ADU that gets 16
submitted to us as being an affordable category whether it's being rented at those bubbles or 17
not. 18
19
Ms. Tanner: And I think the distinction because I see your face like why would you do that, is 20
that there are some state incentives in terms of how… when Cities have to provide and plan for 21
the housing-related to the Regional Needs Allocation that each jurisdiction receives. And so 22
state law has allowed Cities to attribute either all or a portion of their ADUs under a certain 23
income group. So, as Mr. Sauls is saying, Los Altos is saying well, because these are ADUs and 24
they’re affordable by design. We’re going to count them as being affordable units for the 25
purposes of saying how are we tracking our progress on our affordable units versus what we’re 26
discussing is a program to incentive deed restrictions to ensure that these are actually rented to 27
an affordable household that qualifies for affordable housing. I hope that makes clear the 28
distinction. 29
30
Commissioner Chang: It does make… it helps, but it makes me even more confused because I 31
remember at the last meeting when we discussed this topic. Commissioner Templeton was 32
asking about what making something officially affordable does and I think you had said that it 33
allows us to count it under the RHNA target. But it sounds like (interrupted) 34
35
Ms. Tanner: Right so we (interrupted) 36
37
Commissioner Chang: We can count it anyway if we just sort of wave our hands the way Los 38
Altos did and said well, they’re all affordable. 39
40
Page 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: I believe that’s the case and I will say I would want to confirm it with Tim Wong our 1
senior housing planner but I do believe that’s the case in state law. I think that we can count it 2
but I think we could also know that it’s actually being… housing an affordable household that 3
would qualify for affordable housing. I see my City Attorney has come to my aide so what would 4
you add Mr. Yang? 5
6
Mr. Yang: So, I would just add, I think this may be a distinction between the current Housing 7
Element period and future Housing Element periods. And I have seen some guidance from HCD 8
indicating that if you don’t have a deed restriction. You have to be able to show evidence that 9
it’s actually being rented at that affordable level. So, certainly going forward, I think we’re going 10
to need a little bit more than just [unintelligible – audio cut out]. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: Thank you. 13
14
Commissioner Chang: Thanks very much. That helps a lot. 15
16
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, more questions? 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: Just one to confirm that this is not deed-restricted in Los Altos? 19
20
Mr. Sauls: Not that I’ve seen, no. 21
22
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thanks. 23
24
Chair Hechtman: Alright, I’m not seeing any more Commission hands for questions of Staff at 25
this point. So, I’m going to open the floor for public comments primarily because on this 26
continued item we really had an augmentation of our Staff report with Ms. Mascarenhas. And 27
so, to me, that is new information that we and the members of the public hadn’t heard before 28
and so I think it’s appropriate to let the members of the public who want to comment. 29
30
So, with that, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. In the Zoom App, there is a raise hand 31
button on the bottom of your screen. If you are dialing in from a phone, please press *9. Mr. 32
Nguyen (interrupted) 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Chair Hechtman, just one moment before. I did get a question… answers to two of 35
Commissioner Lauing’s questions just in case any members of the public want to comment on 36
that. There was a question you had Commissioner Lauing about the detached versus attached 37
and from what I’m looking at over I think this is going back to 2015 through 2020. So, not 38
including 2021, about 70, 69 percent of ADU applications submitted have been for detached 39
Page 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
and about 31 percent for attached ADUs. So, 70/30 split roughly for in favor of detached being 1
more popular. 2
3
And I was able to… I just had heard about just the other day a study that was released in April 4
of this year that did look at some ADU statewide. It’s based on a survey that they were able to 5
do and they did have enough data in the San Francisco Bay Area, but again it’s the whole Bay 6
Area aggregated. They found the median rent for an ADU, and I don’t know if this attached or 7
detached, is about $2,200 a month. So, that’s just the median rent that ADUs were offered in 8
the San Francisco Bay Area. I’m happy to share that with the Commission as well, the document 9
that is. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: Let’s then go to public comment. Mr. Nguyen, I see one public speaker for this 12
item at this time. 13
14
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Yes, we do have one hand raised. Let me get the screen 15
share. Ok, Ms. Winter, if you can please unmute yourself, you can speak. 16
17
Ms. Winter Dellenbach: There. I again apologize for earlier. I came in late and I didn’t know 18
where you were. I thought you had already gone to the agenda item. Sorry, so a couple of 19
things. I want to piggyback on the representative from Alta Housing. I’m so glad that she’s 20
there. I’m relieved that Alta Housing would be… if this happens that there are… be actual 21
below-market-rate housing that Alta Housing would be processing at hopefully the candidates 22
and possible tenants because for 5-years I was a fair housing attorney. Meaning I dealt with 23
issues of discrimination in housing on the mid-peninsula. My office being in Palo Alto and yes, 24
those issues are alive and well in housing right here in Palo Alto. And I have… that one of the 25
things that I was going to comment on. 26
27
I have friends that have are building or have built ADUs and they’re the sweetest people. And 28
they built them for reasons of, in this case, of actually wanting to supply affordable housing and 29
every single one of them have said to me. Oh, I just want to pick out the people that I want to 30
have live there, and every one of them it was by color of skin. Every single one of them and I 31
have said to every single one of them you can’t do that because that violates both state and 32
federal fair housing laws. And for instance, some of those race disability, families with children, 33
sexual orientation, national origin, religion, age, primary language, immigration status, 34
citizenship. And it has really concerned me as people talk about ADUs and the… I think the vast 35
majority of ADUs are not used for housing and certainly not affordable housing. 36
37
And I would caution you mightily to the idea of a fourth, yet a fourth unit. We have a slew of 38
lots in Palo Alto that are 6,000-square feet, quite a lot of 5,000-square feet. You put four 39
housing units on a 6,000-square foot lot, that’s about 1,500-square feet for, you know, a main 40
Page 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
house would take up more. But I mean four in the 6,000 is 1,500-square feet and that ends up 1
being about 40 by 35 foot that 1,5000-square feet. All of this is very rough but I just think we 2
have to be really real and this was all justified ADUs. Oh, we’re going to have all this affordable 3
housing and it’s not which is why you’re talking about this now and don’t allow a fourth house 4
for goodness sake. Thank you. 5
6
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for joining us tonight. Chair Hechtman, that concludes public comments 7
for this item. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. I will bring back to the Commission (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Nguyen: Chair, I do apologize but someone just raised their hand. Did you want to give this 12
person an opportunity to speak? I’m sorry? 13
14
Chair Hechtman: Yes, please. 15
16
Mr. Nguyen: Ok, our next speaker is Jess. 17
18
Ms. Jessica: Oh hi, can you hear me? 19
20
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can hear you thank you. 21
22
Ms. Jessica: Oh hi, great, thank you, guys. This is Jessica with ADU Collective and I just wanted 23
to chime in. Thank you everyone for all the great discussions and being here tonight and your 24
continued work. I just thought on a big picture and the 3-minutes that I have, I just want to 25
chime in for a minute. I’m boots on the ground, taking the rules and implementing them as 26
ADUs here in Palo Alto, working really closely with Rachael and Garrett. And I just want to 27
remind everybody not to make all of this more complicated than it needs to be. I continually 28
hear from Staff, especially Rachael, that they just don’t have the resources for additional 29
programs. And the truth is, there is no shortage of people who want to build and rent an ADU. 30
So, what I encourage the City to do is just reduce road blocks, reduce the cost, let homeowners 31
bear the cost, and manage the ADU for themselves. Make all the rules easy for anyone and 32
everyone to follow and just encourage Staff, PTC. If they really want to encourage housing, is to 33
keep in mind that each project brings its own complications and nuances and just allow 34
flexibility. Keep an eye on the big pictures and don’t create roadblocks. 35
36
I would love for the City or even myself to host an ADU open house and I would invite you to 37
come and see some ADUs that are completed. You know teacher living in them and 270-square 38
feet with a loft, all sort of configurations. I would even encourage City Staff to come and see a 39
lot of unpermitted ADUs where people are living in conditions where people can’t afford to 40
Page 21
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
jump through all the roadblocks that the City has. So, then they make make-shift situations and 1
I just really hope that we can stop the conversations and debating over ticky-tacky stuff. 2
Detached, attached, doors, inches on expansion, all these things. It’s like just make it simple. If 3
you really want to create housing, which I believe you guys have good intentions to do that. 4
Just take a step back, make it easy for people and reduce the costs. And there’s a lot of other 5
elements we can talk about with discriminatory practices, comparing ADU sizes to the house 6
size for fees and for flood zones and things like that. Also, creates more blocks for… roadblocks 7
for ADUs so that’s just the big picture. 8
9
In the future, I really encourage us to talk about multi-generational. I’m working on quite a few 10
multi-generational homes and that is a huge thing that I think could be a success for creating 11
housing in Palo Alto. So, anyway, great work guys, keep it up. 12
13
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Chair Hechtman, that concludes public comment 14
for this item. 15
16
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you, and as I bring it back to the Commission, just for the 17
benefit of the public, I want to clarify that Palo Alto has a robust set of regulations and 18
processes for ADUs in general. And tonight, the continued discussion we’re having is on 19
whether we think it’s advisable to recommend to the Council to create a subset of ADUs 20
focused particularly on ADUs that the owners will agree to limit the rent to some level of 21
affordability, in exchange for a menu of incentives which is a lot of what we’re talking about 22
tonight. So, it’s really a subset of ADUs and we’re dialoguing whether we, as a Commission, 23
think this kind of program overall is a good idea. And if so, what are the particulars that we 24
think would make property owners voluntarily build a unit and agree to take less rent than the 25
market might otherwise allow them to. 26
27
So, with that, I am going to bring it back to the Commission and remind them of the process 28
that we created when we started this item at a prior meeting which is we have a total of 14 29
items. We have covered four of them. As we got started it was recognized by some of our 30
Commissioners that so many of these are interrelated, it’s really difficult to vote on them the 31
first time through, since we don’t know how they’ll relate to items we would subsequently 32
discuss and we didn’t even know what other Commissioners felt about those items. So, the way 33
we handled it is we’re going all the way through all 14 with we tried to do 2-minute rounds. 34
One just to get your base concept out there for the other Commissioners and then a second-35
minute round to react to what you’ve heard. And then move onto the next item ideally for that 36
kind of discussion and once we’ve completed all 14, we’ll come back and cycle through 37
hopefully with a series of motions that follow the slide that Mr. Sauls had shown towards the 38
end of his abbreviated presentation tonight; which is sort of thumbs up or thumbs down to the 39
concept and to the extent that we want to put a little bit of a fine point on it, we can do that as 40
Page 22
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
well. So, that’s where we are and so the way we’re going to do this as we started, Mr. Sauls has 1
a slide for each of the remaining items and so we’ll start with that, any comments of his, and 2
then we’ll go to Commission discussion for that item. Mr. Sauls? 3
4
Mr. Sauls: Alright, can you see my screen here? 5
6
Page 23
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: Yes, we can see it, Garrett. 1
2
Mr. Sauls: Ok, thank you. So, we had finished last time discussing the potential for removing the 3
requirement for an existing garage to be placed at the site in order to benefit from the parking 4
conversion allowance that is afforded for converting a garage for a JADU, or sorry, converting a 5
garage to an ADU or a JADU. 6
7
So, the following item after that was a discussion about the potential for providing an 8
additional unit when one of the units onsite… one of the units proposed on the site is an 9
affordable unit. So, this was a policy that had been adopted as discussed in the Staff report by 10
the City of San Diego that had been brought to Staff’s attention while we were discussing this 11
prior to coming to PTC earlier this year. Where effectively what the City of San Diego had 12
provided was that for any unit that was, in their ordinance, within a transit priority area they 13
had defined. Any one unit that was provided that was restricted an affordable price could 14
provide a benefit to the homeowner to provide one additional unit and when they’re in a 15
transit priority area they could provide an unlimited number of units on site. Given that that 16
parameter is not so useful I guess in Palo Alto as our transit priority areas are little bit more 17
localized along places like El Camino or Alma. Staff felt it was more appropriate to potentially 18
provide either one additional ADU or JADU when an affordable unit is provided on-site. 19
20
And so, one potential concept that Staff had considered was to provide either an allowance for 21
just the one standard unit of an ADU or a JADU or even potentially allowing for additional units 22
based on some sort of lot size dimension. Which as you can see on the screen here may… as an 23
example, could be something like one additional unit per 10,000-square feet of lot available on 24
site. So, that certainly would benefit properties that are much larger. Meaning properties that 25
are most likely in a residential estate or open space districts would be able to benefit more 26
from how many more units could be provided on-site. But this is all again, based on whether or 27
not the PTC is supportive of providing this as an incentive to encourage homeowners to 28
develop affordable units. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Alright Commissioners, lighting round. You’re thoughts on this potential 31
incentive. Who’d like to go first? Alright, while I’m waiting for you all to warm up, I guess I will 32
lead off. 33
34
The thing that strikes me about this possibility, two things. One is I believe we could end up 35
potentially with one on-site parking space for four units. I’d like to know if I’m doing my math 36
right if Staff can confirm that. That could concern me because I think that that would… I don’t 37
expect that those four units would have one car and so I think that would push cars into the 38
street. But I balance that against, I think the reality that only large lots can realistically have a 39
fourth units. I know it’s not physically possible on my 6,000-square foot lot to get a fourth unit. I 40
Page 24
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
could do a JADU in the garage and one in the back. An ADU detached but I could not do a fourth 1
and so I don’t… if we did this, I don’t think it will be much used and where it's used, it will be in 2
the large lot neighborhoods which frankly have more parking available on the street. 3
Commissioner Summa? 4
5
Commissioner Summa: So, Chair I share some of your concerns about this. I think this is moving 6
a little too quickly in general and I worry that… I worry about the parking. I worry about the loss 7
of backyard habitat for flora and fauna which is really, really important. I worry about the loss 8
of trees. I worry about… I mean we’ve certainly seen a lot of extreme heat. Luckily not here but 9
on the west coast and I worry about the parking. And I also worry that this would be attractive 10
mostly to investors that aren’t really a part of the community but would like to maximize a 11
profit from a place they don’t live in. So, I… at this time I would not find this a reasonable or 12
attractive ideas to pursue. 13
14
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, not much to add to my two colleagues that just spoke, but I start 17
with where you started with Chair Hechtman is that this would only work on pretty large lots. 18
And there aren’t very many in town so, you know, you factor that in and start putting the 19
vectors on this of how many people with that size lot. I just don’t think it’s going to be that 20
appealing to many folks and I share pretty much everything that Commissioner Summa said. 21
22
You know it’s just we’ve got to… we don’t even know what’s going to happen now with an ADU 23
and a JADU in terms of any problems. Not saying that they’re going to be there but they could 24
be. We just don’t have… we don’t have a lot of experience yet. So instantly, without much 25
experience going to yet another ADU or god forbid, that the San Diego approach and say sure, 26
go for it. I just don’t think that’s prudent. You know, we don’t have to do that now to get 27
affordable housing or one or two every 5-years that might come up with this kind of provision. 28
So, I don’t think we’re going to… I don’t think this one makes sense. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang followed by Commissioner Templeton. 31
32
Commissioner Chang: I also don’t have much to add in addition to what the three of you who 33
have spoken have already said. But it just seems to be very inconsequential in terms of the 34
numbers that it… of affordable units that it could address because since we’re not talking about 35
expanding the FAR that’s allowed. You know a small lot is still stuck with the same FAR, if I 36
understand correctly, so it really only applies to large lots. 37
38
And then I would just say that if for some reason we were to decide that this is appropriate, 39
which I’m not sure that this is… that it should be appropriate, but if we were to decide that it 40
Page 25
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
where appropriate. The deed restriction that Staff had stuck out there as a straw man of 15-1
years just seems way too small for something like this. If we’re cramming… if the community 2
benefit is affordable housing and the community cost would be parking overflowing onto the 3
streets. And if… I do agree that Commissioner Summa… I agree with Commissioner Summa’s 4
comment that this to be somebody who’s interested in this for a profit motive. Then really, if 5
they’re more like… acting more like a developer, then we should be deed restricting this at a 6
much longer time to if we were to allow something like this. Because it’s such… this is the 7
biggest gift I would say on this list… on this menu of items. So, that’s my two sense. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Before I make my comments, I would like to get some 12
clarity from Mr. Yang about the relevance of who might be incentivized by certain things in our 13
deliberations. I just want to make sure that we’re not in any way… that we’re really clear on 14
whether we can take that into consideration or not since it has been brought up. Do you have 15
any comments on that? 16
17
Mr. Yang: So, I would really only have concerns if we were talking about a protected class in 18
some way and whether someone or not is a professional real estate developers is not one of 19
those categories so. 20
21
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. So, the comment I have then, I think that this would hurt 22
more of the small real estate owners. It’s hard to define small in Palo Alto because everything’s 23
very expensive and costly. I think that large developers would be looking at putting many more 24
properties… many more units on their properties. However, although we have come to the 25
conclusion, perhaps different directions, I don’t support this at all. I think this is a… not the right 26
way to approach adding housing for many of the reason that were mentioned already. 27
Including the limited number of extra-large lots, lack of parking, and kind of the haphazard 28
nature of what’s being described. I think it’s not the right way to approach this so I wouldn’t 29
support this one either. Thank you. 30
31
Chair Hechtman: [unintelligible] Commissioners for a second round on this item? Then let me 32
just say briefly having listened to my fellow Commissioners, the other thing that strikes me is 33
that while I think there would be limited reward from keeping this or from including this as an 34
incentive, I think it would generate a lot of fear in the community because not everyone is going 35
to do the math to figure out that that fourth units can’t fit next door to me on that 6,000-36
square foot lot. And so, we’re going to have a lot of people unnecessarily worried and for as all 37
of you have… many of you have said, for really very little actual benefit. 38
39
Alright, let’s then move to the next category of potential incentives. Mr. Sauls? 40
Page 26
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Mr. Sauls: So, the next item that we would be talking about is potentially exempting basement 2
square footage from the max floor area. So, the reason that this is policy in our ordinance right 3
now is that currently, it’s a bit of a holdover from previous proposals. That it contributed to the 4
maximum size of the unit as well as the floor area to control the total development of these 5
units. Additionally, with the state updating to their language, they weren’t more clear on this 6
aspect or more concise as to how basements may affect the total size of the unit. Rather than 7
saying that something more blindly as 800-square feet of a unit must be developed. It wasn’t 8
clear to parse out whether basement is to be contributing, you know, if it’s below or above 9
ground. Or as our ordinance currently looks at a lot of things, whether there’s a significant 10
amount of the basement space that is protruding above the ground level or not can contribute 11
to that space counting as floor area. 12
13
So, as previously discussed in Council… sorry, in PTC meetings, there had a been support for 14
modifying this regulation such that the basement space would not be considered as floor area 15
for the site. So, that it would be consistent with what the current regulations are for main 16
houses such that again if the first finish floor is greater than 3-feet above ground or above 17
grade. Then that basement space would be counting towards floor area. However, if it is less 18
than 3-feet or at grade, then that space is not going to count towards floor area for the site. 19
20
Now what this could potentially allow for is for a larger sized unit where you may have a 600-21
square foot unit on top or anywhere a merit of 6, 7, 8, 900-square foot unit above ground and 22
continuation of the unit below ground. To be able to capture what would also be considered or 23
another item that’s considered in this policy proposal to allow for a maximum size of the 1,200-24
square foot unit. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Commissioners, I actually have a question of Staff which might 27
help illuminate this discussion. So, one of the items we talked about last time and we’re going 28
to come back and vote on it is the income category. If we do this, where are we going to 29
recommend that the income level be set? 120 percent, 100 percent, 80, 60, something else? 30
Help me understand the relationship between whatever income level we recommend and the 31
size of the unit. Does the size of the unit affect it? The rent that can be charged to whatever 32
income level we recommend, assuming the Council were to adopt that. 33
34
Ms. Tanner: So, I’ll jump in with my best guess at an answer and Georgina may add to this if she 35
has any insight. I don’t believe the unit size would necessarily impact the AMI level that the PTC 36
and ultimately the Council may choose in terms of what income levels qualify. But certainly, the 37
size would impact the household that can occupy it. So, I don’t believe that Alta, for example, 38
would knowingly permit a four-person household to occupy a studio ADU for example. Even if 39
they met the income qualification for that household. So, I think that would probably be the 40
Page 27
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
biggest relationship between size and the renter, but I invite any other insight if there is any 1
from Alta Housing. 2
3
Ms. Mascarenhas: No, you are absolutely correct Rachael. The specific size of the unit won’t 4
matter. We do have occupancy guidelines so for example, in a studio we would allow two 5
people and a 1-bedroom the maximum occupancies is three. And the rent would be based on a 6
studio versus a 1-bedroom and not a studio of 500-square feet versus a studio of 700-square 7
feet. 8
9
Ms. Tanner: Thank you. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you. That was very helpful for me, so let’s go-to lightning round 12
Commissioners. Commissioner Summa. 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. So, for deed-restricted housing Ms. Mascarenhas, am I 15
correct in thinking it’s based… the price is based on the number of bedrooms? 16
17
Ms. Mascarenhas: That is correct. Yes, it’s the number of bedrooms and the AMI. So, a 1-18
bedroom at 50 percent, yeah. 19
20
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. So, this is a kind of tricky one I think because I very much 21
would like to continue to provide housing for families. I think a lot of people move to Palo Alto 22
because of the excellence of our public schools and I think family housing is super important. 23
But then I have to balance that with the other factors and variables here and this is why this 24
whole conversation is tricky because whereas I might find it reasonable to consider this despite 25
the negative environmental impacts of basements that I feel are actually documented 26
accurately. I also would like to have create family housing at a deed-restricted level but I guess 27
it really depends on the deed restriction level for me too. 28
29
So, I… in general I think basements creates problems with groundwater and we don’t have any 30
requirements that these secant walls be used. We allow groundwater to be pumped. We’re in a 31
drought and also larger units will use more water. 32
33
So, one has to really balance these ideas and for 120 percent AMI, I might not be interested in 34
doing this. But for the lower levels of AMI and really providing family housing. It might be more 35
attractive despite the impacts on trees and groundwater and those other what I consider 36
negative impacts. So, I don’t know, that’s not really a very clear answer but those are the 37
concerns that are… that come to me. Thank you. 38
39
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 40
Page 28
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I’m also not super excited about this. I don’t think there’s 2
been a case to be made that justifies that. I agree with Commissioner Summa about the 3
challenges with basements in our area, but also, I just think there has to be a really strong 4
affirmative case for this before we would want to start encouraging people to do more 5
basements. Can… I have a question for Staff. Can people use basement apartments as JADUs 6
right now? 7
8
Mr. Sauls: So currently JADUs have to be attached to the house. So, in theory, there could be an 9
opportunity where someone would be developing a basement ADU or JADU. If it was a 10
detached garage, those currently aren’t allowed to be converted to a JADU. It would only be an 11
ADU. 12
13
Commissioner Templeton: So, I can see people that are already building basements wanting to 14
have a basement apartment, things like this, but this one seems unusual and undesirable. So, 15
I’m not supportive of this idea. Thank you. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Chang. 18
19
Commissioner Chang: So, I’m also pretty lukewarm on this because of the environmental 20
concerns for basements. And but I think… but I could be persuaded if the income level and deed 21
restriction were the right thing because like Commissioner Summa. What really excites me 22
about this idea is gee, if you could really create a 1,200-square foot ADU. Now you have 23
something where a family could live there and that is very exciting because most of the… you 24
know if you’re talking about an 800-square foot ADU. That’s a lot harder for a family of four to 25
live in and so if we were to… I’d be open to thinking more about and curious about what the 26
other Commissioners would say if we could make sure that this… that allowing such an 27
exemption would really enable us to have families in affordable housing long term. That’s it. 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? Alright, I’ll go while we’re waiting to see other hands. 30
So, I want to start by saying that this is, practically speaking, whole unrealistic. If you’re talking 31
about asking somebody to build something that they have to charge below-market rent for 32
some period of time we haven’t decided. Maybe it’s 10-years, maybe it’s 15, maybe it’s longer 33
and you offer them the opportunity to enlarge it by through the most expensive construction 34
possible which is to dig down. No one is going to do it. No one is going to build a basement for a 35
deed-restricted, rent-restricted ADU. 36
37
I think where this has some potential though is if a homeowner were to deed restrict the JADU 38
in the home, attached as Ms. Sauls said and we provided this incentive for the non-restricted, 39
open market ADU. Now maybe we get those larger units that can hold a family because the 40
Page 29
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
owner can charge rent that’s commensurate with the additional cost. So, that would be how I 1
would parse that issue. 2
3
Mr. Sauls: Just for some clarification on that. What you’re suggesting is that if an individual 4
developed three units on their lot as is currently allowed. A primary home, ADU, and a JADU. 5
Either the ADU or the JADU or you’re saying specifically we would say the JADU would be deed-6
restricted be affordable and the ADU could then be the market-rate unit. Whereas primarily or 7
currently, either of those two units could be market rent. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Right, I was focusing on the JADU which must be attached definitionally as 10
what they… what an owner would create as a deed-restricted, rent-restricted, unit. And that 11
would… as an incentive to get them to do that when they then built the detached ADU, they 12
could include a basement pursuant to this incentive. That was the concept. Commissioner 13
Lauing. You have like an angel’s glow behind you. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: Do I? Wow, that’s new. So, I think that you’re analysis that you just went 16
through on the basement in terms of the cost and that is absolutely correct. But I think that the 17
case you outlined there, while creative, is a corner case. I just don’t feel like that’s going to be 18
driving a lot of customers here. So, there’s enough wrong with it, it just feels like the timing is 19
not right for this, but I do admit that the bright shiny object here is family housing. Because 20
that’s going to be a problem for us in the next 2-years of the Housing Element. So, I think we 21
need to keep that front burner, but I’m not sure that this one is going to create a lot of building. 22
That’s all. 23
24
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Alright, I think that’s a first round. Any Commissioners want to 25
come back around for additional comments? Alright, then let’s move on to the next item, Mr. 26
Sauls. 27
28
Mr. Sauls: So, the next item would be discussing potentially allowing the maximum sizes for a 29
JADU or ADU to increase. Currently, when our detached or attached ADU maximum sizes are 30
either 900-square feet for any kind of size of bedroom or a 1-bedroom unit or less; or 1,00-31
square foot unit for a 2-bedroom unit. That 1,000-square foot requirement is one of the state 32
code requirements. If you’ll remember that can occur but there are instances based on our 33
code where a portion of the size of that unit will still need to be contributing towards the 34
maximum floor area for the site. The current JADU size allowances are 500-square feet and 35
that’s consistent with the state code and that doesn’t appear to have been changed in the new 36
update state code ordinance. 37
38
Page 30
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
The policy proposal that we have would be to consider allowing for an ADU to be up to a 1,200-1
square foot sized unit and allow for a JADU to be up to 800 size… 800-square feet in size if 2
either of those were rented at an affordable rate or deed-restricted for affordability. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Chang. 5
6
Commissioner Chang: So, I just had a question for Ms. Sauls. So, what is the relationship with 7
FAR here if we were to agree to this or to recommend this proposal? 8
9
Mr. Sauls: So, it could be two-fold. It could be one, to maintain what our current bonus is within 10
our ordinance which is up to 800-square feet is exempted from total FAR in lot coverage on the 11
site; or even potentially to extend that to a greater point here that you see on the screen. So, it 12
could be to say we’ll allow for the maximum size to increase but still retain the 800-square foot 13
bonus. So, now for an ADU for example, we’ll take to make it a little bit clearer. 800-square feet 14
of that 1,200-square foot unit would be exempt, 400 would be contributing towards the total 15
square footage for the site. 16
17
Similarly, for a JADU, we could technically maintain that and not necessarily have to change 18
that regulation as it would still encapsulate the total size for the JADU at that point. 19
20
Ms. Tanner: Sorry, I just want to cut in, sorry Commissioner Chang. Albert, our attorney, is 21
letting us know that the state law does define and restrict JADUs to a maximum size of 500-22
square foot. So, we do apologize for this oversight that apparently if it’s more than that, then it 23
bumps itself into the ADU category. We do expect to see some more changes for JADUs as it 24
continues to evolve and ADUs as well. But so, if the Commission might focus on the upper box 25
that looks at expanding the size potentially of the ADU and the JADU would need to stay at that 26
500-square feet size. Apologies. 27
28
Commissioner Chang: Thank you. Just to continue then, I just think that of all the proposals… I 29
mean we talk… Commissioner Lauing spoke in the last round about how the jewel to keep our 30
eye on is this family housing. This proposal seems particularly interesting to me because it 31
seems to be the right incentive. We have the interest of the landlord and building costs in line 32
with what we want to do which is create better and more affordable housing. So, I’m more 33
open to this proposal. 34
35
My one concern would be about mitigating the impacts on our City infrastructure and on the 36
school district. And I’m wondering how the Impact Fees would be addressed with something 37
like this? And I know that there is a separate item later on about Impact Fees, but I’m 38
wondering for Staff… my question for Staff is what would be the Impact Fee implication of 39
doing something like this where we not to also do something else to mitigate the Impact Fees? 40
Page 31
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Mr. Sauls: Right, so basically what that would mean is that there is a greater share of Impact 2
Fees associated with a larger unit and when the larger unit is closer in size to the size of the 3
existing or proposed home. That means that it’s going to be a more significant amount of 4
money than or it’s going to be treated as if it is equivalent to a brand-new home. 5
6
Currently, the way Impact Fees… Development Impact Fees are charged are based on is there… 7
imagine a vacant lot that has never been developed. Very rare in the City but it has happened in 8
the last couple of years. A new primary home developed on the site can be anywhere from 9
$20,000 to 30,000 in terms of Development Impact Fees. If for example, we were to allow a 10
maximum size of 1,200-square feet and we didn’t extend the exemption for that to match that 11
size and you had a homeowner who had an existing home that was 1,200-square feet. If they 12
built an ADU to match that size, then the Impact Fees they would be paying would be 13
equivalent to one new home. Rather than if it were 2,400-square feet, the size of the home 14
today or proposed home today where 2,400-square feet, it would be half that cost. 15
16
Commissioner Chang: Alright, well, thank you for explaining that to me. It’s very helpful and at 17
any rate, my answer for lightning round with regard to this proposal is it seems like it could be 18
ok and make a lot of sense. 19
20
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Just a question to Staff, can you clarify, did you say that 23
this proposal is illegal? 24
25
Ms. Tanner: No, what I said is that the JADU cannot be greater than 500-square feet and be a 26
JADU. So, if the PTC is interested in expanding the size, then it would be an ADU that the size 27
could be expanded. Does that make sense? 28
29
Commissioner Templeton: So, in that bottom right quadrant, we would just remove the J? 30
31
Ms. Tanner: Certainly, that would be one way to look at it, but already an ADU is allowed to be 32
900-square feet. So, essentially, we had an oversight in the preparation of this suggestion and 33
we should have just focused on the ADU being a place that could have the larger size. 34
35
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, so just strike that bottom row altogether. 36
37
Ms. Tanner: Yes, and that is a constraint from state law that which defines the JADU as being 38
attached and 500-square feet and when it goes greater than that size. Then it would not fall 39
into the JADU category anymore. I know, it’s kind of funky but. 40
Page 32
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, I’m just trying to think of what the value of this proposal is. So, 2
really, it’s allowing 2-bedroom units that are ADUs to be 200-square feet larger if they’re 3
affordable? 4
5
Ms. Tanner: That’s the proposal, yes. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton: And is that… that is legal? 8
9
Ms. Tanner: Yes. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, thank you for answer that question. I guess I mean 1,200-square 12
feet is larger than my first house in Palo Alto so it does feel like a whole other house on the lot. 13
But, you know, maybe there’s some people that that’s what they’re looking for and if it 14
becomes an affordable home maybe that’s a good thing. Again, I’m not super clear on why this 15
change is necessary but it seems ok. So, just to share with the other Commissioners kind of 16
where my head’s at. Thanks. 17
18
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 19
20
Commissioner Summa: Thank you and to pile on to what Commissioner Templeton just said. A 21
lot of neighborhoods in Palo Alto have, mine for instance, College Terrace, has a variety of 22
houses and some really, really small. I mean people live in 750-square foot houses in Palo Alto 23
on substandard lots so they’re really, really small. So, our… so I don’t think the impact of this 24
would be the same on all lot sizes. So, is Staff considering lot size at all when they’re thinking of 25
this? 26
27
Mr. Sauls: Yeah, so it wouldn’t necessarily change how the low size obviously established today, 28
but what it would allow for is for more of that space to be used to be developed for an ADU. So, 29
if a homeowner chose to build a larger unit and make it affordable. They could certainly do so. 30
It would mean that the larger space may be in their back yard or side yard, however, it’s 31
configured on their lot current, would be occupied by this structure. 32
33
Commissioner Summa: Sure, but would it be consistent with the requirement… on small 34
substandard lots would this sized ADU be consistent with the open space coverage 35
requirements for residential lots, or could we come into conflict with that? 36
37
Mr. Sauls: The open space issue is not necessarily one that applies to ADUs anymore. The City 38
has had that regulation in place since 2017 that the… what’s considered the rear coverage of 39
that rear yard setback doesn’t apply to an ADU for the sake of being able to develop these units 40
Page 33
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
on site. Whereas prior to 2017, that was a restriction that prevented many lots, smaller lots for 1
example, from being able to develop something on-site and still satisfy that coverage 2
requirement. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: I see so but is there still a percentage of the whole lot coverage? I forget 5
what it is, or is that not… do we not consider that for ADUs at all? I mean I know we can build in 6
the rear setback but the overall (interrupted) 7
8
Mr. Sauls: Right so there would be a total lot coverage and similar to the concept of extending 9
the allowance for exemption of those fees. You could extend that exemption of that square 10
footage. So, if you said we would exempt up to 1,200-square feet for an affordable ADU to be 11
developed. Then while there’s still obviously a physical structure in that location, it would be 12
treated as if there is nothing that is creating an imprint or a footprint on that site when it comes 13
to determining the calculation of what is permitted by normal standard policies. 14
15
Commissioner Summa: I see. 16
17
Ms. Tanner: And perhaps… sorry Commissioner Summa, just to add on to that. One way to 18
think about it too if the Commission is interested in this particular topic is that it could be for 19
standard size lots. But I think in general for the regulations that we have adopted that the 20
Commission then recommends to Council is really following the state rules in terms of what we 21
have to allow. And so that’s kind of where we’re not discriminating between lot size but 22
obviously an incentive-based programs we could have some more discretion. 23
24
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thank you. So, I guess I agree with my colleagues that have spoken 25
before me that this sounds kind of enticing but… to provide more housing. But I’m not sure that 26
I’m really convinced that it’s a good idea and that it won’t have negative impacts on neighbors 27
and privacy and backyard habitat once again, especially on smaller lots. Thank you. 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, Commissioner Summa raises a number of very good points and I 32
think the solution to her concerns would be that we would have to restrict the lot size in a way 33
that we haven’t done otherwise. And so, it’s real and past the state law anyway, we could do 34
that. That is another level of complication, but so it comes down to are we doing the public a 35
favor by putting up now with our limited experience a number of 1,200-square foot ADUs? 36
Probably not and are we going to incent very many people to put affordable ADUs, deed-37
restricted, because they’re getting 200 more square feet that they can charge rent for? I think 38
probably not. I just feel like this is a squeeze to get this to be an incentive. So, I have… and 39
Page 34
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
maybe that was the other thing Commissioner Templeton was getting at. Is this really an 1
incentive to do much. 2
3
So, I think there’s problems on both sides of it that would have to be tweaked and it may just 4
be that it's just too soon. I don’t know but I think there’s problems that we would have to dig 5
into deeper. 6
7
Mr. Sauls: One thing that I would just like to clarify on that is that we aren’t able to establish 8
any lot size limitations for these units. So, the new state law said that there is no minimum lot 9
size you need in order to develop a unit of this size. So, I don’t think we… and maybe Mr. Yang 10
may be able to confirm that or clarify that more, but I don’t believe we’d be able to establish a 11
new lot size limitation even in this instance. 12
13
Mr. Yang: So, I think this is what Ms. Tanner was referring to earlier where if we are creating an 14
incentive program we may have a little bit more flexibility in that area. So, in general, we can’t 15
have a minimum lot size, in general, we can’t have lot coverage requirements if they would 16
prevent an ADU of 800-square feet. But you know I think we could take the position and be 17
fairly well supported that for an incentive program like this we could have additional 18
regulations. 19
20
Commissioner Summa: Commissioner Lauing, your hand is still up. Are you continuing? 21
22
Commissioner Lauing: No, I was… I’ll just respond that I think that we have to sort that out as I 23
said because what Mr. Sauls said and what Attorney Yang said is different. And I think if we 24
can’t restrict the lot size is that makes the decision for me easier that now is not the time to be 25
putting 1,200-square foot ADUs next to 800-square foot houses on small lots. That’s all. 26
27
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 28
29
Commissioner Chang: I don’t think you’ve spoken yet Chair Hechtman so this is a second round 30
for me. So, I was just going to have a very quick statement but I’ll let you go first. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: So, as I mentioned when we started the Commission discussion, we’re here 33
with a limited task to see if we can come up with a menu of incentives that would entice 34
someone to build something and charge less rent for it than they could otherwise for some 35
period of time. And the more of these potential ideas that we, as a Commission, say no to and 36
the Council says no to, the less likely it is that anyone is going to do this other than somebody 37
who’s just philanthropically minded and they don’t need this ordinance that we’re working on 38
to do that. They can go ahead and do that on their own. 39
40
Page 35
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, this one I think is one where it's an easy incentive, particularly now that we know we’re only 1
talking about ADUs. And if getting that extra 200-square feet would get somebody to deed 2
restrict and rent restrict their ADU and allow more people inside of it, I say yes. 3
4
Commissioner Chang, now you’re up. 5
6
Commissioner Chang: So, I… Commissioner Summa brought up a great point about the very 7
small lots and I think I’m in agreement with Commissioner Summa and Commissioner Lauing 8
that if we cannot restrict this to standard size lots. I would not be in favor of it because that just 9
doesn’t seem appropriate but otherwise, can I just ask a question of Staff here? So, if the… 10
we’re not limiting the ADUs to 2-bedrooms, correct? In other words, if it were a 1,200-square 11
feet ADU, they could make another pretty small bedroom. Is that correct? 12
13
Mr. Sauls: Correct. 14
15
Ms. Tanner: In terms of… it could be a small bedroom but a larger living area. Is that what 16
you’re saying? 17
18
Commissioner Chang: No, I’m just saying (interrupted) 19
20
Mr. Yang: It would be a 3-bedroom ADU. 21
22
Commissioner Chang: We could have a 3-bedroom ADU. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: Oh yes. 25
26
Commissioner Chang: Ok, great, fantastic. I mean I think that I’m… if it’s going to be deed-27
restricted and affordable and we can limit this to standard size lots. Then I think I would be in 28
favor of it provided we… I mean I think it would depend on what the actual proposal were with 29
respect to the additional square footage and whether that cuts into the FAR or not. I don’t think 30
I would want to waive the FAR requirement because that might be going too far. But, you know, 31
if somebody is already allowed to build on that area then I would say why not make it deed-32
restricted and affordable? 33
34
Ms. Tanner: And if the Commission were interested, one of the things if this did get support for 35
either on standard size lots and larger or even 3-bedrooms. We can work with the City attorney 36
to research that if that would pose any legal risk. Again, as an incentive base program, having a 37
little bit more parameters but leading toward that family size housing. Because conversely, I 38
don’t think we want a 1,200-square foot studio where there’s no walls or anything if the 39
Commission is interested in family style and family size housing. 40
Page 36
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Hechtman: Alright, other Commissioners? Commissioner Templeton. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I still haven’t heard a reason about why this isn’t just 4
building another home on the same lot. I don’t… are we lot splitting? Are we building two-size 5
homes on a lot? I don’t really understand what makes this special ADU target? Why is this going 6
to help people build more ADUs? Can someone from Staff try and help me grasp that better? 7
8
Ms. Tanner: Well, it won’t necessarily incentivize more ADUs. What we are trying to incentives 9
or think of our incentives to have someone deed restrict this ADU they’re building to be 10
affordable. And so, in this case, it would be a concept of just additional square footage of that 11
ADU being an incentive that that property owner finds appealing in exchange for a deed 12
restriction. 13
14
Commissioner Templeton: So, we don’t… thank you. Ok, so we don’t think this will incentive 15
more ADUs to be built. We do think this will reduce the cost of an ADU by making it larger. 16
17
Ms. Tanner: I don’t think we’re arguing that it would reduce the cost to develop the ADU. 18
19
Commissioner Templeton: Right but to rent it. 20
21
Ms. Tanner: Well, it’s not reducing the cost to rent it. It’s that the owner is choosing to 22
volunteer for a program to say I will restrict the rents I can charge for this unit because I can 23
build a larger unit. Does that make sense? 24
25
Commissioner Templeton: Yes, thank you. I mean I understand where you’re coming from. I’m 26
not seeing how it will work and I’m just thinking back to one of our public commenters was 27
talking about focusing on reducing barriers and reducing costs and flexibility and to me, this 28
proposal doesn’t do that. It does something slightly different and I don’t think it’s going to be 29
more affordable. I do think it’s going to cost more to build and I’m not sure as a… if I were a 30
property owner with enough land to build another home on my lot like as described here. I’m 31
trying to understand that connection. What would incentive me to do this based on this 32
proposal and it’s not connecting for me. So, I like the concept, I just don’t understand why this 33
policy is needed to achieve our goals. I think that it would cost more. It would take up more of 34
the space. It’s not connecting for me so I’m still struggling and not totally on board with this yet. 35
36
Ms. Tanner: I think the overall for all of these policy ideas that a way to think about it is what 37
would be that trade-off where the homeowner says I’m going to have a bit less control over my 38
tenant who can live there. And depending on the way that the program is administrated, they 39
could have far less control over who is living there. What will be the value that I’m getting that 40
Page 37
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
would make me want to participate in that program? And so, this value would be 200-square 1
feet of additional building that they may say well in the future when I’m no longer deed 2
restricted. That value is still there and that’s important and incentivizing or again combine with 3
the other incentives that the PTC may recommend. Does that create a package that creates 4
enough value for there to be that exchange of restriction for the value created? So, certainly it… 5
these may not be enough or may not connect and it may not hit that target. That’s certainly 6
trying but that’s kind of the overall framework we were trying to understand. What could we 7
think of that might create that value for the property owner? 8
9
Commissioner Templeton: That’s really helpful, thank you, and it helps me also specify what my 10
concern is. As a homeowner, I’m looking at in exchange for giving up 200 more square feet of 11
my yard, I get to charge less. It doesn’t add up and I think that’s the disconnect and we may 12
have individuals who would be cool with that and excited about that. Particularly housing 13
advocates and things like that, but if you’re taking the average homeowner. It doesn’t… this 14
one doesn’t add up for me. So, that’s where I’m coming from. Thank you so much for clarifying. 15
16
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? While I’m waiting for hands, so here’s how I do the 17
math that in my mind makes it add up. Today I can build a 1,000-square foot, 2-bedroom ADU, 18
but I can’t build a 1,200-square foot, 3-bedroom ADU. But if we… if the Council were to adopt 19
this incentive then I could choose… and this is really where another one of our items, the length 20
of duration of the deed restriction is really critical. So, let me just say hypothetically, that was 21
10-years. I can say to myself alright, I’m going to build 1,200-square feet. I’m going to deed 22
restrict it to be affordable for 10-years because I know that in the 11-year when it comes out of 23
the deed restriction, I now have a 1,200-square foot, 3-bedroom home ADU that I can rent at 24
market rent and that will be more valuable. It will bring me more rent than the 2-bedroom, 25
1,00-square foot. And then it’s just a matter of math if I think that in the years to come after 26
that I will make up for the lost rent that I didn’t get accepting below-market rent for the first 27
10-years. So, to me… and so I like this idea because I’m willing to give homeowners the option… 28
the ability to do that math and if it works for them, great, we get an affordable unit for 10-years 29
or whatever time period the Council decides. Commissioner Templeton, I see your hand up 30
again. 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: If you will indulge me a little bit of discussion on that I’m curious. I 33
guess my sticking point here is why is it still an ADU when it’s the size of the whole house 34
(interrupted) 35
36
Ms. Tanner: So (interrupted) 37
38
Commissioner Templeton: But the ADU las apply. 39
40
Page 38
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, so part of what might help distinguish is part of it is and Mr. Yang can jump in 1
if I get this wrong. It’s dangerous when I try to be a land-use lawyer but part of what I 2
understand the distinction is, is our zoning, let’s say it's an RH-1 lot, only allows one house. So, 3
what makes it accessory is kind of how we have essentially through the legislature through the 4
State of California. Move from RH-1 Zoning everywhere to allowing accessory units under 5
certain conditions with certain parameters that are different from the restrictions we would 6
have on either our local… that our local code would require for an RH-2. So, RH-2 we would 7
have certain requirements setbacks, etc. and ADUs are exempted from that in large part 8
because of state law that has said and also you can do these accessory uses. So, that’s what 9
makes it accessory, is the way that it’s defined. Certainly, we could have RH-2 and allow two 10
homes and say they can be this many square feet and thus. And so that would be way to create 11
more housing but in this particular case it’s imagining a lot and obviously, it could be on other 12
lots are allowed to do ADUs. So, I don’t want to suggest that ADUs are only allowed in RH-1 but 13
that’s a predominant land use for residential zoning in Palo Alto. So, Mr. Yang, I don’t know if 14
you’d add anything to that to distinguish a standard dwelling unit from an accessory dwelling 15
unit. How we might envision that? 16
17
Mr. Yang: No, I think I would just say I think the question is a good one and I think the policy 18
that we are seeing from the state legislature is to allow a second dwelling that could be… in 19
some cases we can’t say that it… we can’t limit it to less than 1,000-square feet under state law. 20
And we also can’t allow it to be more than 1.200-square feet under state law, but you could as 21
some Commissioners have commented. We have small homes in some areas of Palo Alto and 22
1,000-square feet is larger than some of those and 1,200-square feet could be larger. But this is 23
the policy that’s set forth in state law that these have to be allowed. 24
25
Ms. Tanner: And at least under current state law and our local laws we’ve adopted these can’t 26
be sold separately. There’s other restrictions that would be different. They can’t become a 27
condo for example. So, there’s different restrictions here than would apply to other multi-28
family dwellings that are again, why is it not just a house that homes would have access to and 29
rights to. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you for clarifying that. I still feel really uncomfortable with this 32
differentiation in name only. It’s very perplexing to me. I think I would be concerned about a 33
potential for loopholes in this and potentially… yeah, I think it could cause some concerns I 34
think among neighbors. If these start to get 1,200-square feet, ok that’s fine. What if we go to 35
1,500? You know, what if we go to 3,000? It’s… there is a line drawing thing going on here and 36
the line currently is at 1,000-square feet and I don’t know what the motivation is. 37
38
Page 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
And I can see thinking about to our public speaker tonight who wants flexibility. This may be a 1
way to allow flexibility. We can’t guarantee everybody would always go up to 1,200, but maybe 2
they need 1,050 or something like that and that flexibility would allow it work in their property. 3
4
So, I can understand it from that perspective, but I do feel like… you know I can see some 5
scenarios where this undisguisable in practice from having a second home on the property and 6
that’s not how things are zoned. Overtly, is this a way to work around it and if it is, then we 7
need to be a little bit more direct about that and fair to be able to apply this equally. And I think 8
that’s where the lot size starts to come in and it gets complicated. So, I’m just concerned about 9
this one that there’s some anticipated consequence lurking around the corner. Thanks. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 12
13
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. Just a question for Staff first and then I’ll make an 14
observation. I forget honestly if we still require the property owner to live in one of the units. 15
Either the primary unit or the accessory one or whether we did away with that requirement. 16
17
Ms. Tanner: The owner-occupancy requirement was eliminated through the state legislation. 18
19
Commissioner Summa: Ok, that’s… I couldn’t remember. Thank you for that and to that end, I 20
do think this sort of is beginning to feel… to address Chair… Commissioner Templeton’s 21
comments. You know, so if we did this and we also let basements not be counted and extend 22
beyond the footprint. I mean it’s how all these things work together. So, and you’re looking 23
again I think at maybe encouraging development that impacts neighbors with regards to 24
parking all the other things I’ve mentioned and other Commissioners have mentioned. That 25
would be maybe more desirable to developers rather than people in the community and will 26
end up serving them better. And it also is very complicated with the deed restriction times and 27
the length of the deed restriction I mean and also the AMI. I mean once you get to 100 AMI, 28
you’re basically at market-rate so I share Commissioner Templeton’s concerns about this. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Let me ask Staff, is that correct 100 percent of AMI is market-rent? 31
32
Ms. Tanner: I would need to look at the table to see what the rents are and compare that with 33
the market rate rents, but it is common that it could be. This is the AMI table, it’s not the rents 34
though, but thank you, Garrett. So, it can give you a sense of the household’s income based on 35
that size. We’d have to compare that to the rents that are established. Generally, it’s about 140 36
to 150 percent of AMI is the market-rate rent. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: So, I guess I have a question for Mr. Yang. I want to check my memory on this. 39
First of all, the 1,200-square foot figure is not a figure that Staff invented as a possibility here, 40
Page 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
but rather I think that figure finds its origin in state law. I thought I heard Mr. Yang say a few 1
minutes ago that state law caps, basically, the definition of an ADU is a structure that is 1,200-2
square feet or smaller and Mr. Yang my memory is that… and I don’t remember which bill it 3
was, but a few years ago, in one of the earlier state laws that said ok Cities, if you don’t have a 4
regulation in place, these are the rules that apply and one of those rules was the ADU could be 5
up to 1,200-square feet. And by adopting its ordinance, Palo Alto was able to set a maximum 6
that was lower than the default maximum set in state law. Am I remembering that accurately? 7
8
Mr. Yang: Yeah, that’s all correct. For detached ADUs, the state law says… gives Cities a small 9
window in which to work and we can set our limit between 1,000 and 1,200-square feet for a 2-10
bedroom detached ADU. For attached ADUs, it’s a little bit different. It’s 50 percent of the 11
primary residences is the maximum size. And then for a 1-bedroom detached it’s a little bit 12
lower than 1,000, but 1,200 is the ceiling that state law placed for detached ADUs. And it is also 13
the default rule if we don’t adopt our own regulation. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Alright, more Commission comments on this item, or are we ready to move to 16
a break and then come back to talk about reduced setbacks? I don’t see any hands. It’s 8:10 so 17
let’s take a 10-minute break and come back at 8:20. Thanks. 18
19
[The Commission took a short break.] 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Alright, we are back from break, and let me call on Commissioner Templeton. 22
23
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. Had a snack during the break and was trying to think 24
about to express my concerns more concretely. So, that we might be able to do something 25
about it because you know, I hear the other Commissioners saying this has potential. I’m 26
thinking particularly about my experience living in Ventura and my neighbor’s property was an 27
850-square foot house, mine was a 1,100-square foot. You know if we build these 1,200-square 28
foot ADUs on the property, they’ll be bigger than the main home. They’ll also… this is also kind 29
a very entry-level neighborhood and there are couple other sprinkled around town. 30
Commissioner Summa mentioned College Terrace has some smaller homes. 31
32
You know I just feel like we’re always running the risk of over-developing in these areas. And by 33
over-developing, I don’t mean finding creative ways to have higher-density housing and things 34
that would be environmentally sound. But I’m thinking about things that would allow…things 35
that might not be for the best interest for the neighborhood to happen. So, that might, for 36
example, be having a defacto R-2 Zone instead actually zoning it that way. 37
38
So, that’s where I’m getting concerned and one of the speakers, I think it was Mr. Sauls, said 39
something like there are certain ADUs that can be tied to the size of the home and 40
Page 41
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
proportionate to the other properties… other buildings on the property. You know, maybe 1
that’s a direction we could go that I would get on board with. But I just want to make sure that 2
we’re not taking advantage of the lower-income communities and doing our development 3
there. Because some of these things are clearly going to happen due to the nature of the lots, 4
right? You have smaller homes on a standard lot, you’re going to see this kind of development 5
particularly focused on that area. So, I want to make sure that we’re being thoughtful and 6
intentional with our choices here and understand the consequences in that way. So, that’s 7
where I’m coming from. Thanks for giving me that opportunity to speak. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Thanks Commissioner and while I was having a fruit popsicle over the break, it 10
occurred to me that if we’re going to talk about tying this possible 200-square foot bonus, 11
square footage if you want to call it that, to some notion of lot size, there was a reference 12
earlier to standard-sized lots and what occurred to me was I would understand that if in my 13
neighborhood it’s 6,000-square foot lots. So, if somebody has something that’s less than 6,000, 14
maybe it’s not appropriate. But on the other hand, in other areas of town, the lot sizes are 15
10,000-square foot minimum. I think around Cal… the school, Castilleja thank you, they’re 16
10,000, right, and so if I have a 9,000-square foot lot which would be substandard, there’s still a 17
lot more room to build on than my 6,000-square foot lot which is standard. So, I think if we 18
want to impose a size limit, we should maybe think about a parcel size limit rather than the 19
standard versus substandard. Commissioner Summa? 20
21
Commissioner Summa: Yeah and another thing I was thinking about but I didn’t enjoy a fruity 22
popsicle on my break was this doesn’t preclude other accessory buildings. So, you can have 23
other accessory buildings. Pool houses and sheds. Ones that don’t provide sleeping space, 24
traditional accessory buildings. So, I am concerned a bit and when I said when you get to 100 25
percent AMI you’re market-rate. Market-rate really has a lot of various in it depending on how 26
nice the unit is. I mean there’s a lot of less… older housing stock that is a lot less expensive per 27
square foot than a newer build would be. Just in general, I feel like none of us are very 28
convinced about these being incentives. 29
30
And I kind of worry… I mean especially in my neighborhood there are a whole lot of legally non-31
conforming ADUs, and people renting out rooms in their homes, converted garages and it’s just 32
the nature of my neighborhood may be more than some. Its proximity to Stanford and I really 33
worry that people who are either need to rent a portion of their property for income reasons or 34
would like to do it for just philanthropic, or the company even. Some older people or single 35
people might like having the second person. I worry that this isn’t going to be very attractive to 36
a lot of those. This whole… this won’t incentive those people so I just kind of wonder how these 37
are really going to work as incentives to get below-market-rate housing in a meaningful way. 38
Just in general, so I just thought I’d add that. 39
40
Page 42
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Alright, let’s move to the next subtopic which I think is reduced setbacks. Mr. 1
Sauls? 2
3
Mr. Sauls: Can you see my screen? 4
5
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 6
7
Mr. Sauls: Alright, so this topic, as the Chair was just talking about, is about reduced… 8
potentially allowing for reduced setbacks. So, the current regulations are that an ADU much 9
follow at a minimum a 4-foot side or rear yard setback for a detached ADU. In some instances, 10
attached ADUs may also be able to have a 4-foot side setback as well. Otherwise, if they fall 11
underneath the Table 1 project in our ordinance, they would be required to follow the same 12
setback as the house. What is the policy consideration in front of the PTC tonight would be 13
potentially considering reduced setbacks beyond that 4-foot requirement; where the City might 14
be able to impose more stringent, or specific design criteria to organize or shape what that 15
structure would look like within that area. 16
17
So, we have in the Staff report examples of requiring either some predetermined height and 18
daylight plan to be met for areas of construction within those setbacks. Or even establish 19
something based off of a roof pitch were within that… if PTC was willing to entertain it… either 20
a 0 to 4 setback, or 1- or 2- or 3-foot setback from the property line. There could be a space 21
with which the unit can be no greater than this predetermined height, or dimension and so 22
again, this policy consideration was brought around. How are we going to be able to try to 23
incentivize homeowners to develop a unit that’s affordable? And try to play off the ideas of 24
while many homeowners want to utilize their backyard as much as they can and by being able 25
to push some sort of structure closer towards that portion. While maintaining separation or 26
distance, if PTC wanted to require that, say 2-feet at a minimum of separation. That might help 27
to offset that space in terms of what they might be able to retain for their own yard space. So, 28
again, trying to think about what are some things that we commonly receive as issues from the 29
public that they’re trying to mitigate with their designs. And trying to utilize that maybe as 30
potential incentives in combination with all the other ones that we’ve discussed tonight 31
already. Might be that strong enough pole to get someone to do something like this. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Questions or initial comments? Commissioner Chang. 34
35
Commissioner Chang: I’ll make this one my lightning round. I am a lot less interested in this one. 36
This was a lot… this is not very appealing to me because where as the last one was talking about 37
a property owner making decisions about their own property. When we start encroaching into 38
setbacks, now we’re… of course, I would rather affect my neighbor’s privacy than my own. And 39
so, I think that this is one that, like Commissioner or Chair Hechtman mentioned before, this 40
Page 43
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
one is one that causes some amount of an alarm I think and so I don’t find this one appealing. 1
Thank you. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. I have a question for Staff and that is accessory buildings 6
were allowed to be… have zero setback basically. Is… does the California Building Code, which 7
we adopt and add to, have any minimum side setback for buildings that have people who are 8
residing in? (interrupted) 9
10
Mr. Sauls: So… go ahead sorry. 11
12
Commissioner Summa: Oh no, go ahead. Thank you. 13
14
Mr. Sauls: The Building Code typically requires fire separation. You know in terms of when 15
something is closer to or further away from a property line. So, rather than saying specifically 16
that it has to be a minimum 6- or 7-feet away from a property line. It would maybe require a 17
greater or more intensive amount of fire separation or one 3-hour wall rating in terms of how 18
long that would be burning before something may have some other… launch over from that 19
structure. So, rather than saying specifically that it needs to be a certain distance away. Case 20
and point, like you, were highlighting for a detached accessory structure like a garage or pool 21
house. Those can be at or adjacent to the property line. And in those instances, building would 22
say sure, put in this kind of separation… this kind of fire rating so that if the structure does 23
ignite. There would be some time for emergency services to arrive before it spilled over. 24
25
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. So, we would have to require additional fire rating standards 26
for properties that were on… adjacent to property lines if they’re adjacent to another 27
structure? Is that (interrupted) 28
29
Ms. Tanner: I don’t think it’s so much that we would require as much as the Building Code 30
already accounts for that by requiring different levels of fire rating when structures are at or 31
near two property lines. So, it’s already built-in, we wouldn’t need to take any further action to 32
have that be part of our regulations. 33
34
Commissioner Summa: Ok, so we wouldn’t need to add that in because it’s already there and 35
these structures since they’re basically housing people, would be held to the same standards as 36
the primary structure. 37
38
Ms. Tanner: Absolutely. 39
40
Page 44
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: That helps, that clarification helps and then I think I agree with 1
Commissioner Chang. This one isn’t particularly appealing to me because I think it affects 2
neighbors. I think it could reduce the amount of… I think we touched on this last… at our last 3
meeting, but the maintenance… how you can maintain the sides of your buildings if they’re up 4
against the property line which is already a problem for accessory buildings like garages. 5
6
And also, that is an area where typically we see trees and hedges planted for privacy and that 7
could be affected. And I think that protection for trees is a general concern of mine in this area 8
and I will note that I was reviewing… because it’s going to go to Council when Council comes 9
back after their hiatus. The Tree Ordinance basically which had been drafted some years ago on 10
kind of is just coming back now. And they do… that… the draft of that new Tree Ordinance, 11
which Council will be looking at in August I think or it goes to Policy and Services in August, 12
specifically states you can’t remove a protected tree solely for the purpose of an accessory unit 13
or ADU. So, once again, I’m kind of concerned that all our laws are aligning with one another 14
but in general, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think it’s too impactful on the surrounding 15
properties as and neighbors as Commissioner Chang said. Thanks. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? Let me ask a question while I’m waiting for… there’s 18
Commissioner Templeton. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I’m trying to think of some scenarios where this would be 21
potentially useful and I’m glad Commissioner Summa brought up the other types of structures 22
question because in that home in Ventura. Our garage is directly on the property line and that 23
could be potentially converted into an ADU. But if you had to move it 4-feet in order to do that, 24
it’s unlikely that the owner would do that, so I mean maybe. Is that the kind of scenario that 25
you’re thinking about Staff? Is that… 26
27
Mr. Sauls: I mean the issue I guess is more so that rather than for conversions like you were just 28
talking about, which can be converted in place, and not have to be moved. If someone were 29
building a new detached structure or potentially even doing an addition to an existing what 30
would be then considered non-conforming conversion, an addition to that structure. Then 31
instead of following a 4-foot setback, we may say something as you’d be able to allow… we 32
would allow for the addition to be at a 2-foot setback. And the area between 2-feet and 4-feet 33
would have greater height restrictions or daylight plan restrictions that it would need to meet. 34
35
Commissioner Templeton: I mean I think in a situation like that, it would be ok for something 36
that was never there before. I would feel similar to Commissioner Chang’s comment, but if you 37
were expanding or somehow working with a structure that was already on the zero lot line. 38
Then I could see how this would be useful. So, just throwing that out there in case other 39
Commissioners are interested in somehow adjusting this in this proposal in such a way that 40
Page 45
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
would allow it where it’s already an issue and doesn’t infringe upon neighbors. Maybe that’s a 1
way we could go forward with this one. Thanks. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: I ask a question to… ok, Commissioner Lauing. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: So, an existing garage that’s on a lot line can be converted anyway and 6
it's sort of grandfathered in, right? So, that’s not a… so, that’s not a concern. In (interrupted) 7
8
Commissioner Templeton: Commissioner Lauing? 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah? 11
12
Commissioner Templeton: Where you asking me or Staff? 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: Staff. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton: Oh ok. 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: I’m happy to ask you too. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton: Well, I think Staff just answered my question. He was saying if you 21
expand a building instead of just converting an existing structure. If you added to that to make 22
it larger than the 1-car garage or just whatever it was, then these things start to kick in. That’s 23
what he said, so you can’t keep the zero lot line in that case. 24
25
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, ok, ok. So, I mean people have already commented on this. I think 26
it really is pushing the privacy issue to the neighbors which I think is a very high concern. As I 27
read this, you could have walls of two ADUs and adjoining yards touching each other, and as 28
you guys point out in your Staff report. You could go down to zero setback, no vegetation, no 29
pass through there. So, it just seems like a bridge too far to use that phrase. That’s all. 30
31
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Let me ask Staff a question. Right now, I 32
can build an ordinance… per our ordinance I can build an ADU 4-feet from the property line. 33
What are the height limitations for that ADU that’s 4-feet from the property line and do they 34
change as I get further away from the property line? 35
36
Mr. Sauls: They do not change and the maximum height is 16-feet. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Alright, so I guess my initial thoughts are I don’t think there’s anything magical 39
about 4-feet. One of the items we talked about in our last meeting when we were talking about 40
Page 46
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
this is these non-conforming structures and whether we want to let them flex by 6-inches on 1
each side. I do think that we could, again as an incentive, go from 4-feet down to 3-feet. That is 2
still wide enough for vegetation, it’s still wide enough for a pass-through, a sidewalk and maybe 3
we could in exchange for that have limitations related to the maximum height which we’ve just 4
heard is 16-feet, or to those first-floor windows. And so that way we give these ADU builders a 5
choice. Maybe for their particular yard, it’s better for them to be 3-feet than 4-feet and maybe 6
in exchange for that, they’d be willing to step back the roof so that first foot or so is only 14-7
feet tall. So, it’s actually less impactful in terms of height than the 16-foot that’s 4-feet away. 8
So, again, and we’ve had a couple of Commissioners reference the member of the public who 9
talked about building in flexibility and so I think that’s something that we could do here 10
without… if we don’t invade the setback too much. Give people a little more flexibility to design 11
what’s best for the property taking into account the privacy issues that might be created by 12
moving a foot closer. So, Commissioner Lauing, you’re hand is up. Is that still up or you want… is 13
it up a new? 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: It was up but I want to be up a new to address that. So, the net change in 16
your counter-proposal here is the owner would get an incentive of one more foot of yard as 17
opposed to four more feet of yard, right? So, again I think the math is good, I think the 18
creativity is good, but we’re trying to create key incentives here. And I just don’t know how a 19
foot of the yard does that. Particularly, if they have to go and make a lot of correction at the 20
top. 21
22
So, and the flexibility that was called for I think we can have in a number of areas. But most of 23
Jessica’s comments were about ADUs in general and how to get those put up; which I still think 24
is the bigger opportunity here for us to kind of be pushing forward. So, it doesn’t feel to me like 25
that changes the game plan to allow somebody to save only 1-foot and I’m really appreciative 26
of Staff talking about where this idea came from. What people saying can I somehow push the 27
ADUs back so I can use more of my yard which is by definition a trade-off for the homeowner, 28
but I just don’t see that 1-foot is going to get us there. Thank you. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Any other Commission discussion on this item? Alright, let's move to 31
exemptions from Impact Fees. 32
33
Mr. Sauls: Alright so this policy proposal is fairly straightforward. Currently, our ADUs that are 34
less than 750-square feet are exempted from being charged Development Impact Fees. That’s 35
the new state law requirement. JADUs are fully exempted from Impact Fees and any ADU that’s 36
larger or sorry, that’s 750-square feet or larger pay Impact Fees based on its relationship to the 37
size of the house. So, in the example, we had discussed earlier, if we had a primary home that 38
was 1,200-square feet and someone built a 1,200-square foot ADU. That relationship would be 39
a one-to-one. Meaning they’d pay the same amount of Development Impact Fees for that new 40
Page 47
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
unit as the primary home would be charged today which could be between $20,000 and 1
$30,000. If an ADU was half that size, 50 percent, you could do quickly the math that it may be 2
more $10,000 to $15,000 that they would be paying in terms of a Development Impact Fee. If 3
we were to encourage affordable units, we could simply say that all units that are following 4
this. All sized ADU units that are following this affordability program, whether it’s 750 or 900 or 5
1,000 or if we decided to allow up to 1,200-square feet, could be exempted from paying 6
Development Impact Fees. Which, as I just suggested, could be a very significant reduction in 7
cost that would otherwise be charged to the applicant. 8
9
And to play on… I’m not hearing anybody else but just to play on this right-hand side, bottom 10
right column. This was in discussion with the potential for allowing an additional unit which it 11
sounds like the PTC is not necessarily supportive of. But if there were an additional unit 12
provided there could be discussion on whether those are charged Impact Fees or not as well. 13
But, as always, this policy came to light as discussion with members of the public and the task 14
force about what are the constraints that homeowners are constantly dealing with when it 15
comes to developing ADUs. And cost is a number one issue for everybody about anything and 16
any project. So, if we are able to reduce that cost as it’s already been dictated to us by the state 17
to a certain extent. That on hand incentivizes larger units which again could potentially be used 18
for families as the PTC has discussed tonight. While also kind of doing that trade-off of getting a 19
larger unit in the future getting potentially more income from that as the homeowner. 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Questions of Staff before we go to the lightning round. So, let me ask one, so 22
you’ve explained to us the roughly cost of what the Impact Fees could be. Mr. Sauls, what are 23
the Permit Fees? In other words, to make the application to build the ADU I’m paying certain 24
City Fees and then one of the Conditions of Approval is the payment of an Impact Fee. Can you 25
ballpark for me what those City fees are for the processing of the application? 26
27
Mr. Sauls: Not really no and that’s because it’s dependent upon square footage. So, that will 28
really kind of draw or drive how much that’s going to be charging. We did have preliminary 29
discussions about considerations on waiving Project Review Fees and Staff is not supportive 30
really of doing something like that. The fees we charge currently are offset by large 31
development projects and any small projects like these are not really recouped to an 32
appropriate stance… to an appropriate level that it fully funds our positions. And if we were to 33
exempt or waive other plan review fees, that cost could be born somewhere else. It would not 34
be free, so that would be through some other General Fund program that would effectively 35
most like be put of onto homeowners and property owners in the City anyway. 36
37
Ms. Tanner: Yes, just to clarify what Mr. Sauls said. I think in terms… there’s the Plan Review 38
Fees and then there are the Impact Fees. And so, Impact Fees, of course, help to pay for parks 39
and libraries and other items that would need to be expanded in the City due to increased 40
Page 48
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
population or demand for services due to new development. And then there are Plan Review 1
Fees which pay for the services of the Staff to review the plans, inspect construction projects, 2
etc. and so if those fees were waived, the cost does not go away. Similar to Impact Fees, even if 3
Impact Fees are waived, the demand for those services does not go away and so it ultimately 4
will have to be paid from somewhere and so with the Plan Review Fees. There’s a more direct 5
relationship between the Staffing and the plans. And so, the Council would ultimately have to 6
identify where those funds would come from to pay for the Staff hours for the review and 7
likewise with Impact Fees in the future. Our libraries, schools, etc. would have to figure out how 8
to find funds to construct new facilities. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Understood. I would… I want to come back to the number though and it 11
sounds from Mr. Sauls like the Plan Review Fees are dependent on the size of the structure. So, 12
the largest ADU I can build right now is 1,000-square feet. Ballpark for me what the Plan Review 13
Fee is? Is that $10,000, is it $20,000? I’m just looking for a general sense here. 14
15
Mr. Sauls: I don’t have that number for you. That fee is assessed by the Building Department so 16
unfortunately, I’m not too much involved on that fee right there. 17
18
Chair Hechtman: Ms. Tanner, any idea? 19
20
Ms. Tanner: I would not hazard a guess at that, unfortunately. Although I do think that we 21
streamlined our ADU Fees so I can look in to see if we have that. 22
23
Chair Hechtman: Ok, alright, good enough, thank you. Alright, lightning round. Commissioner 24
Chang. 25
26
Commissioner Chang: So, my concern is exactly what Mr. Sauls outlined with respect to not… 27
Staff not being in favor of waiving Plan Review Fees. I mean the costs don’t go away and by not 28
covering those fees somehow, we’re creating a problem for the future. Right, there’s no free 29
lunch here. So, I would be… this is a question of whether we, as a City, want to subsidize 30
affordable housing which I think is a very reasonable question. So, I would be in favor of doing 31
this where we budgeting for it. If I were to recommend this suggestion to Council, I would also 32
recommend that Council create a budget for it. In other words, we… I’m making up numbers… 33
we’re going to set aside a million dollars and every time we waive either Plan Review Fees or 34
Development Impact Fees because we have a budget for it. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t 35
also waive Plan Review Fees if we’re trying to create an incentive. So, if we were to say here’s a 36
million-dollar to set aside and we’ll do it until that million is spent. So, that City Council’s 37
budgeting for it and planning for it and you draw down that account the same way when 38
there’s rebates for an appliance. You do that until that fund is gone and then, at that point, City 39
Council could decide to re-up. So, I would be in favor if we’re not creating a limitless problem 40
Page 49
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
because we don’t really know… there’s no data on how many people would take advantage of 1
this, what the short fall would be. What I would hate to see is that this is such a wonderful 2
incentive that then for we’ve got 100s of ADUs going up. I mean that would be fantastic if we 3
had 100 affordable ADUs going up, but what we don’t want is then there to be a negative Staff 4
impact if we’re waiving Plan Review Fees, or a negative parks and library impact because we’re 5
waiving Impact Fees. So, I would be in favor of it only if we budgeted it. This seems like a very 6
reasonable incentive that doesn’t have many of the undesirable and unforeseen effects that 7
many of the other proposals could… might have, but we need to plan for it is what I would say. 8
That’s it. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 11
12
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. I agreed with Commissioner Chang entirely and in a sense, 13
the City does have a housing fund. I think it’s about dried up right now. I think the last monies in 14
it went to support the Wilton or there’s a little bit left but I think it's promised to the county 15
project and we went to Wilton Court. So, if the Council wants to build that into their budget 16
ideas and that housing fund is created from Impact Fees from commercial construction. Also, 17
and I know that the Council is having some conversation sometime soon about raising those 18
fees. So that and/or maybe a Business Tax, if we get to the point where there be an appropriate 19
Business Tax, could contribute to this, but I don’t think you can… the cost as Assistant Director 20
Tanner said and as Mr. Sauls said. The cost doesn’t go away because you’re not charging it. It 21
just adds up as debt but so I agree with Commissioner Chang. And I did want to ask when the 22
period for the deed restriction is over, then do they… would they be charged Impact Fees? 23
24
Mr. Sauls: No, I don’t think that that’s the anticipation. I think the idea is more so that it would 25
simply be waived for the life of the project. And then to just share a little bit, I believe in the 26
Staff report for the February meetings, we did get a ballpark ideas as to how much Impact Fees 27
we had taken in since 2017. And I believe in the years from 2017 to 2018 or ’19, the 28
Development Impact Fees from ADU development had come to about a million dollars or so. 29
So, overall, it is a substantial amount that could be… that now over time can be lost as a result 30
of updated legislation at the state level. That obviously is our… of our control at the moment 31
but that is something that could be… could have an accumulative impact on this. 32
33
Commissioner Summa: Thank you for that and this would be wonderful if we could do it 34
without creating a deficit in the budget. So, if the Council would consider how to do that 35
because that’s really not our purview. Then I think this is one that really could incentive people 36
so thank you. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 39
40
Page 50
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing: There is definitely some appeal here. I’m always sensitive to in the City 1
saying well, we don’t really need these Development Fees. It’s soft money and so on. It’s not 2
soft money, it puts up infrastructure and more people in town need more infrastructure. But I 3
do think that the City has to participate in funding affordable housing and this would be a very 4
direct way to do it. And I think that it’s very simple for the applicant and the architect and so on 5
to understand what the incentive is and it’s big enough in terms of dollars that it gets your 6
attention. So, I think we should try to work with this and it would be easy to go ahead, and if we 7
move this one to Council, said this needs funding and it’s about this much to give 100 percent 8
away. It costs you a million dollars a year, but don’t even have to do that. You could calculate 9
what the fee is going to be based on the formula they gave us for over 750-square foot ADUs 10
and Council could decide on half of that is waived. I mean there’s ways… I just think it needs to 11
be big enough to get people’s attention. So, but whether it’s half or 2/3s or the whole thing, 12
you know that’s almost like a detail that could be worked out. But I think that Council has to 13
step up to fund affordable housing and this is a very direct way to do it. And we’ll get some 14
yeses or noes based on the number which will tell us something in terms of our data gathering 15
pretty quickly. Thanks. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang, I can’t remember, would this be your second round or 18
first? 19
20
Commissioner Chang: This would be the second round. I just have a question, a follow-up 21
question based on something if it’s ok to ask that? So, for Mr. Sauls, I think Commissioner 22
Summa had asked a question about whether Development Fees would be permanently waived. 23
Am I understanding correctly that the Development Fees are a one-time fee assessed at the 24
time of construction? So, it’s not like if we waive it, they’re permanently waived because 25
they’re only charged once, is that correct? 26
27
Mr. Sauls: That’s correct and it’s assessed prior to Building Permit issuance just for the sake of 28
being able to collect that in an appropriate time manner before people can begin construction. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Alright, Commissioner Lauing I think your hand is just still up. Alright, I will 31
weigh in. Every Planning Commissioner says that they want to… they support and want to 32
promote more affordable housing. Every City Council Member says that they want to support 33
and promote more affordable housing. I think this item, more than any other item of these 34
incentives, really asks the question is the City of Palo Alto willing to put its money where its 35
mouth is or is this just lip service to an idea? 36
37
In 2017, City of Palo Alto joined with two other entities… two other governmental entities and 38
paid $40 million for the Bona Vista Mobile Home Park. There are 117 units at the Bona Vista 39
Mobile Home Park, so that is $342,000 per unit that was paid in 2017. 40
Page 51
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Now what we’re talking about here, if you’re just talking about the Impact Fees, is it sounds like 2
at most something in the $20,000 to $30,000 range and that’s only if you build your ADU the 3
same size as your home. So, most of the time that won’t be the case but even if we take that 4
$30,000 and I think we add to that the Plan Review Fees, we can’t get a number for that but I’m 5
going to say it’s $20,000. Just to have a number, that’s $50,000 worth of fees which is 1/7th of 6
what we’ve been paying for units. So, if the City could pay $50,000 for another deed-restricted 7
affordable unit, I say we do it. 8
9
I agree with Commissioner Lauing that the City has to step up and start to contribute and I 10
don’t remember when the City paid that $14 million dollars in 2017 that it resulted in slashing 11
Staff. It’s a budgeting issue and this City I think, if it’s serious about getting more affordable 12
housing, it needs to budget for it. And if that means that they’re going to cap it, so we’ve got 13
whatever, $2 million a year which will pay for 40… the first 40 ADUs that pull Building Permits, 14
deed-restricted get this, well I can live with that. But this idea that we’re going to ask these 15
people to limit the amount of money that they can get but not kick in to soften the blow 16
doesn’t make sense to me. Commissioner Chang. 17
18
Commissioner Chang: I just wanted to respond to one piece of what you said. So, I completely 19
agree with what you said, Chair Hechtman. The one nuance there I think is that my 20
understanding is Bona Vista, those are I believe deed-restricted for I don’t know how long but a 21
very long time. So, I think that the deed… the devils in the details and as long as this is budgeted 22
for and that we can come up with a reasonable deed restriction amount. I mean I don’t know 23
how to put a value on it but we can probably do some analysis to figure out how much is the 24
BMR rate? How much lower is it than the market rate and then just figure out well then how 25
many years should be deed restricting based on the benefit that the land lord is getting, and the 26
cost in terms of reduced rent, and figure it out that way. 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 29
30
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I realized I haven’t chime in on this one yet. I’m not sure 31
that it’s on us to do those calculations. You know new housing, especially new affordable 32
housing, adds value for the City in its own right. So, I think this is a very easy one for me to 33
support. Thank you. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioner comments? Alright, let’s move onto expedited review. 36
37
Mr. Sauls: So, this one, like the last one, is fairly straightforward. Currently, our Building Permit 38
review process for most applications require at least a 30-day review period. For ADUs, that has 39
been reduced more recently to a 14-day review period which is consistent with what would 40
Page 52
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
have been a resubmittal timeframe for Staff to review the project underneath the previous 1
guidelines. So, currently, what it is established at is we can do… when a project for an ADU or 2
JADU is submitted to Staff for review. We have 14-days, calendar days, to review that project 3
and provide comments on it. Any resubmittal following that would follow a 7-day review 4
timeframe. If we were trying to encourage affordable units, we could seek or the PTC could 5
direct Staff to investigate having an even shorter timeframe for review. 6
7
The purpose isn’t to try to ignore or push through a project for the simple sake of pushing it 8
through. Staff would certainly provide its due diligence to confirm that all relevant code 9
sections, building, fire, Planning Code, or Zoning Code, would be consistent with what is being 10
proposed. It would simply reprioritize what these projects are or give another leg behind the 11
priority for this type of a project. In which case we may be able to consider provide a 7-day 12
review of these types of affordable units with something like a 3-day review timeframe for 13
turnaround. 14
15
Obviously, this doesn’t happen in a vacuum, in which case it would result in a shifting of Staff 16
priorities when these types of projects come in and because this is such a new concept. It’s 17
unclear how much of an impact that may have, but as what we hear again for the public and 18
architects and contractors who come to submit projects for us for anything. Time is money and 19
one other way that we might be able to address this might be reducing the amount of time that 20
is within our Staff review. I know that there has been a push for trying to do these types of 21
projects as an over counter type review. And I think that maybe in the future when there’s a 22
greater Staff infrastructure to accommodate something like that. It may be possible but it’s 23
likely that there’s going to be an amount of documentation that needs to be provided in 24
advance or would need to be communicated to the applicant. Such as the confirmation of the 25
tenant who’s going to be moving in there. The income certification of that tenant, sorry, of the 26
tenant moving in there, that we may need to consider having that documentation in advance of 27
issuing the permit or that would most likely be the case. Because right now we don’t have the 28
ability to provide a condition of approval for a Building Permit type of project where we might 29
have that for a planning application. So, there’s a bit of nuance on kind of the back end as how 30
once the review is provided. Making sure that the applicant gets the individual income certified 31
and that can add some time to the project, but when it is within Staff hands to review that. Our 32
purpose would be to ensure that it is a very much more streamlined or intensive time for us to 33
be reviewing that project in a shorter window. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Mr. Sauls, the box on the bottom left, it looks likes that’s something that Staff 36
is looking into for all ADUs and JADUs. Is that… am I reading that right? It wouldn’t… you’re not 37
looking that just for affordable ADU/JADUs? 38
39
Page 53
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Sauls: Sorry, thank you for pointing that out. That is an error. This is… this slide didn’t look 1
like it got updated in the last review but it’s been my understanding and Rachael, I think you’ve 2
been working with the Chief Building Official about new processing times for permits. But my 3
understanding is that we have reduced the previous review time for ADU and JADUs from 30-4
days on the initial submittal to 14-days. And so, what this policy proposal would do would be to 5
direct Staff to investigate even… an even shorter timeframe for affordable units. 6
7
Ms. Tanner: That’s correct. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Summa. 10
11
Commissioner Summa: Thanks, and congratulations to Staff for reducing the timeframe from 30 12
to 14-days. That’s a big… that’s good and I just had a question, Mr. Sauls. I believe you said that 13
to really make this faster the certification process would have to take place before the Building 14
Permit process. Did I understand that correctly? 15
16
Mr. Sauls: It would certainly be ideal. From our conversations with Alta Housing, it can take in a 17
worst-case scenario somewhere between 30- to 60-days to get that certification of the 18
individual. And so obviously, if we try to think of the whole window of when a project is being 19
reviewed to… from submittal to approval. If we do that step-in advance of the submittal then 20
that just saves time once it’s actually in our hands and we’re doing that more specific, you 21
know, is the setback matching this, or is the height matching that kind of review. But it’s likely 22
that many applicants based on experience from what I had reviewing ADUs for just requiring 23
the deed restriction. Often time homeowners left that as the last item and so that could… just 24
that alone before when we had that requirement could added some time to the project before 25
we could issue the permit. So, it’s possible that it may not change that relationship but Staff 26
would certainly be more assertive and more forward about making sure that that timeframe is 27
recognized by the applicant if they don’t have that documentation ready on day one. 28
29
Commissioner Summa: And so, does Staff think that 7-days versus 1-week is going to make a 30
huge difference to applicants? I mean 14-days seems pretty fast. I mean you can only do it as 31
fast as you have Staff to do it. It has to go to each different department and so when you say 3-32
day review for resubmittal. That means if something was incorrectly submitted or insufficient or 33
incomplete. They resubmit it back to you and then you’ll try to get it back to them in 3-days? 34
35
Mr. Sauls: That’s correct and to your first point, like I said earlier, a lot of applicants I wouldn’t 36
say complain, but certainly highlight the timeframe as being a very critical part to their approval 37
or their construction and their whole window for developing anything on a property. And so 38
even if it’s cut by a week, I can imagine that applicants would be much more supportive of that 39
than saying well, we’ll drop it from 14-days to 12-days for example. I think that shorter window 40
Page 54
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
they’d be more appreciative of than in terms of getting a response from the City rather than 1
just saying 7-days is better than 14. I think the purpose is that once they give something to us, 2
their hope is that we give something back to them sooner rather than later. And so, if we can 3
do that in a more recognized organized fashion that is clearly highlighted as a Staff priority. 4
Then I think that’s the benefit that we’re trying to provide while we can’t necessarily provide 5
that as an over-the-counter type process which some may prefer instead. 6
7
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thank you for that. It seems to me like Staff is going to do this as fast 8
as they can anyway because that’s what they’re there to do. Process these so but if it gives Staff 9
more of an incentive to work on it quickly. I don’t… there’s no downsides to doing something 10
more efficiently. I guess that’s the way I put it. Thanks. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton followed by Commissioner Lauing. 13
14
Commissioner Templeton: Thanks. I agree. I feel like this is something Staff doesn’t need us to 15
weigh in on. Becoming a more efficient organization is a great idea. I guess I’m wondering 16
what’s blocking you? Why are you not able to pursue this without our recommendation? 17
18
Ms. Tanner: Not that we’re not able to pursue streamlining without the PTC’s recommendation. 19
It’s just whether or not this would be an incentive that we would create as a policy that this 20
faster review is reserved for those who chose to have a deed-restricted affordable ADU. It 21
would not be available to the… to just any ADU. 22
23
Commissioner Templeton: So, do you have… can we dig in a little bit more on what’s blocking 24
you from saying we’re going to prioritize affordable… are you working on a first in, first out 25
process right now and you don’t have a way to bump something to the top? 26
27
Ms. Tanner: We don’t have a program to have deed-restricted affordable ADUs in the City right 28
now. So, this whole discussion is about whether or not we would create such a program and 29
what would be the incentives that would be part of that program. So, this could be an incentive 30
that’s part of that program. Does that make sense? 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: Well, I mean I know that the program doesn’t exist. That’s what 33
we’re discussing. What I don’t understand is how to manage that program is normally up to 34
Staff. I think that if you can be more efficient or can prioritize affordable housing items, that 35
would be great, and I’m just wondering how we can help you with that? Because it seems like a 36
great idea that you might not necessarily need our input on. 37
38
Mr. Sauls: I think the challenge is that we do have more of a first-come, first-serve process. 39
There’s nothing intrinsic to our reviews that says this has this shortened review time because a 40
Page 55
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
lot of them are lumped underneath is it a 30-day review? Is it a 14-day review? So, it’s a bit 1
more non-specific in terms of how something can be lumped under a certain category, and 2
while the City has highlighted housing as a priority concept or policy. This would work in 3
tandem with that, but I think on one hand Staff understands they certainly have the ability to 4
make that decision themselves. But we also want to make sure that we’re being forward to 5
express that this is what we would be also trying to do. So, it doesn’t necessarily seem like this 6
part of the review process is ignored during this whole policy discussion. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton: And do you currently… do you think there would be any kind of 9
quality concerns by shortening the turnaround time? 10
11
Mr. Sauls: It’s always a potential just given Staff workload or lack thereof of ability to fit 12
something else in. But, you know, Staff… even if something may be a day or so late, Staff does a 13
full comprehensive review of the project. So, that they are making sure that the project 14
complies with all of our codes. The priority would be to realize in the status of workflow that 15
this will come before your new commercial office building that you just got 20-days ago. That 16
you…even though that might be due in 10-day, that is important but this housing project is 17
much more important than that. 18
19
Commissioner Templeton: Would it be possible rather than specifying the days here, would it 20
be possible and/or preferable to just say affordable housing projects have priority? 21
22
Ms. Tanner: So, we certainly have a preference for affordable housing project overall, but the 23
scale of projects is different. And so, we wouldn’t want to say 7-day review for a Wilton Court 24
thing because that’s a huge redevelopment. That’s not the scale of an ADU for example, so they 25
certainly have priority. I think to Mr. Sauls’ point, just trying to be specific and I think that the 26
overall effect, granted we don’t know how many of these we will see. And so, the volume 27
would also be a factor but ultimately as the City creates priorities. It means other things may 28
take longer and so one of the things that we’re looking at overall for our review times is just 29
how many things can we have as priorities. That means that other things need to take longer 30
and we actually need to readjust our commitments to our customers. So that they know like 31
well, we’re prioritizing these things. It’s going to jump ahead of yours even though your 32
application was submitted first because we have a commitment to getting it done faster. And 33
so, that’s… globally there could be some reshuffling. I don’t know if it would be just because of 34
this particular program unless we did see a very large volume and we needed to readjust other 35
reviews because of it. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, thank you. 38
39
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 40
Page 56
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, to Staff, I mean how many ADU applications do you process a 2
month? 3
4
Ms. Tanner: Monthly I would not know. Garrett, if you have a sense of monthly? We do our 5
quarterly counts and I can see if I can pull up that report again. 6
7
Mr. Sauls: Yeah, we don’t track it monthly and it is more so quarterly. From the last report that I 8
had looked at, I think the Quarter Three and Four 2020 showed that we had about 75 or 80 9
ADUs that came or dwelling units came in (interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Lauing: Per quarter? 12
13
Mr. Sauls: Over the… per the whole year. So, break that down by four and so it’s I guess maybe 14
between (interrupted) 15
16
Ms. Tanner: 20 a quarter and then (interrupted) 17
18
Mr. Sauls: Yeah, 20 a quarter. 19
20
Ms. Tanner: 10 or so (interrupted) 21
22
Mr. Sauls: 5 to 10. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: A month, yeah. 25
26
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, so with 5 to 10 a month overall, and if we got really lucky here and 27
got 10 percent of those to go affordable. You know you’re down to, I don’t know, a half of one a 28
month, or it just seems like a de minimis amount to create a whole policy around affordable 29
ADUs. I would rather see you basically just prioritize ADUs because they’re affordable along 30
with affordable housing and say those things get prioritized. 31
32
Ms. Tanner: We have (interrupted) 33
34
Commissioner Lauing: And let (interrupted) 35
36
Ms. Tanner: 14-day review because typically our review would be 30-days and so we’ve cut that 37
in half. And so, this would cut that half to half for (interrupted) 38
39
Commissioner Lauing: Well, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the first part. What was 30? 40
Page 57
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Tanner: 30-days is our standard review and so we already have prioritized ADUs overall 2
through the 14-day review. 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, yeah, so I’m saying that looks good to me. 14-days looks pretty darn 5
good and I’m really happy to see this proposal of 3-day review on resubmittals because I’ve 6
gotten in discussions with a couple of residents who said that was really the problem. When it 7
started to come back and there’s problems. They weren’t saying where the problems were, just 8
it just took too long. So, I think this is like one and two on the list here from the last couple 9
meetings is that this should apply to all affordable units. I’m sorry, excuse me, to all ADUs, not 10
just to affordable ADUs because for one thing, there are going to be very many affordable ADUs 11
in terms of Staff time and so on. But secondly, I think getting this done in 14, sorry, in 7- and 3-12
days for ADUs would be great and I agree with Commissioner Templeton that you guys could 13
just activate that. I don’t think this needs ours or Council recommendation. That’s all, thanks. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 16
17
Commissioner Chang: I guess what I’m hearing from Mr. Sauls and Assistant Director Tanner is 18
that the applicant have been giving you feedback that having a set timeframe would be helpful 19
for their planning. Is that correct? 20
21
Ms. Tanner: Right. 22
23
Mr. Sauls: I think it’s just the… a shorter timeframe. 24
25
Commissioner Chang: Shorter timeframe. 26
27
Ms. Tanner: Because we have set timeframes. So, maybe one thing that would be helpful is just 28
generally our review times do have set review time periods per the type of application that’s 29
being submitted. 30
31
Commissioner Chang: Right so I understand that 14-days is great and 7-days seems not 32
necessarily that much better but if it makes… I mean this one’s free I feel like. It feels like it’s 33
not free in that somebody else is going to be slightly delayed because of it. But because of the 34
volume of ADU projects, you’re talking about and the volume of affordable ADUs projects is 35
even smaller than that. I agree, it’s like this de minimis thing but if it helps by… if it helps the 36
people that are trying to build them by being able to have a very short set timeframe. Then I 37
would say why not and it also does at least make a public statement sort of saying these are the 38
priorities and if anybody else is complaining. Well, the reason why is because you’re project is 39
not an affordable AUD. So, I mean I could either way on this but I would say that sort of why 40
Page 58
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
not unless you, as Staff, think that doing so would tie your hands somehow. Because it does 1
decrease flexibility, but it doesn’t sound like it's decreasing flexibility much either. So, I think 2
that I could either way on this one. 3
4
Ms. Tanner: I don’t think there’s any real downside. I think part of why we’re bringing it forward 5
as a policy discussion because it is a policy decision to what to prioritize and how the City wants 6
to use its resources and deploy the Staff resources. So, if the affordable ADU, like ADUs, is a 7
policy decision that we want to prioritize. We hope there would be limited impact to other 8
projects but you know we… not knowing if there were. Staff would want to be able to let 9
customers know part of the reason is that we need to prioritize certain projects and so there 10
may be delays to others. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: So, I think it’s my turn. I think this would… this was a more interesting 13
discussion when the incentive was going from 30/14 to 7/3. Now, Staff has, and I think it’s 14
terrific, has prioritized ADUs. So, now the comparison is between 14/7 and 7/3. And for that, I 15
guess I’m going to be protective of Staff here and say that the reward is not that great to the 16
development community, but the risk of disappointment is greater. We have a fantastic 17
planning Staff but every one of them that I’ve met was human. And humans make mistakes as a 18
matter of course and they make more mistakes when they’re under pressure. And a 3-day 19
turnaround on a resubmittal, you know I’ve been doing this for three decades, that is fast. 20
Particularly when you’ve got a pile of files on your desk that other people are clamoring for and 21
so I’m concerned that we might well ask what if you don’t do the resubmittal in 3-days? What if 22
it takes 5? What is the person who has committed to take less rent, what do they say about 23
that? Well, the deals off and again, there’s very little benefit and I think more risk of 24
disappointment or hiccups for just not much gain. 25
26
So, I like Commissioner Lauing’s idea that prioritize all ADUs. I think Staff’s already done that 27
with the 14/7 and so on this one, I’m not so supportive of it. 28
29
Commissioner Lauing, I think you have a ghost hand up. Ok, more discussion on this item? Any 30
Commissioners? Alright, then we go to the other possibilities, the policy considerations which 31
we’ve already discussed the first two and we’ll go now into the third one. 32
33
Mr. Sauls: This third item talks a lot about in the Staff report the process of income verification 34
and then the time length of what we can kind of expect that might take. So, Alta Housing is the 35
City’s BMR administrator. We would look to utilize them again to provide that income 36
certification of potential tenants and similar to D. So, C and D are somewhat intertwined or 37
interconnected in this conversation as to time length as well as how the selection occurs. So, 38
the time length that we’ve heard from Alta Housing is that it can take somewhere between 30- 39
to 60-days to go through the documents that a potential renter provides to do the income 40
Page 59
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
certification of the individual. In addition to that, we have discussed in combination with D, 1
what would be potential options? As mentioned earlier by Georgina, Alta Housing’s preference 2
is to have a list of prequalified tenants. That makes it easier to cycle through individuals and put 3
them into different locations. The challenge becomes the homeowner’s right to decide whether 4
they want that individual to live there or not. And how that can cause maybe potentially a tense 5
relationship or tense interaction as to whether some reason that is provided as to why the 6
homeowner does or doesn’t want the individual to be there is justifiable. So, these two C and D 7
items are fairly interconnected in the conversation. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Alright, Commissioners? Commissioner Chang. 10
11
Commissioner Chang: Question for Staff, does this have to be a one-size-fits all process? In 12
other words, could we let homeowners choose? You can either pick some… right, we can either 13
have somebody off the list in which case you won’t have this delay, or you could pick your own 14
person and they might… there might be a delay. And if that’s what you want then that’s what 15
you want. Is there a… do we have to decide for them? 16
17
Mr. Sauls: Yeah, so that’s what was highlighted in the Staff report as the options available. To 18
either direct Alta Housing and Staff to establish what would be a pre-qualified list of tenants, or 19
to simply say we’re not going to require pre… or we’re not going to require homeowners to 20
choose from a pre-qualified tenant list. And instead, they can provide individuals that they have 21
vetted themselves for say criminal background history and then provide that documentation to 22
Alta Housing. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: I think that to Commissioner Chang, your question though, I don’t know that they 25
would… we would need to make a decision that it has to be either way. I mean I think we could 26
decide to have homeowners choose what path they want to go. I think we’d want to work with 27
Alta if they were to administer the program to understand if they have any prohibition against 28
it. You know, we obviously heard from their representative that for I think certain reasons they 29
prefer to have the list that have to do with equitable provisions of the housing and kind of in 30
more sequential I guess fashion. But there’s no reason that I could see that would require us to 31
choose one way or the other. Certain it could be simpler or having one way is clearer but I don’t 32
know why we couldn’t have both options. 33
34
Commissioner Chang: Ok, thank you. I mean I guess my thought is that because having 35
somebody live on your property and as your neighbor is such an intensely personal thing. That 36
allowing the choice might make it seem less scary for somebody to have a deed restriction, but 37
that’s just my initial thought. I’m not sure I’ve really thought through all the implications and 38
certainly, I think that it would be great if we could ask people, or if Alta Housing had input on 39
Page 60
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
sort of the feasibility of allowing owner choice. I don’t know that… I feel like I’m the most 1
equipped to make this decision. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Summa. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. So, and maybe this is a question for Ms. Mascarenhas if 6
she’s still with us but so I understand that people wait on the housing list for years and years 7
and years to be assigned. Are we not going to use people… are we not going to prioritize the 8
next person on the list? I mean what’s the thinking there? 9
10
Ms. Tanner: I think part of it would depend on what the Letter B on this list, what income 11
categories are served, and how those categories align with the list that Alta has maintained. She 12
did state that for the deed for sale project I believe that was where she was saying the list is 13
closed. I thought she said every year that something happens with the rental but maybe both 14
lists are closed. And so, I don’t know that they couldn’t use a list they’re already maintaining to 15
of income-qualified persons as the list they would supply to potential ADUs owners to rent 16
from. 17
18
Commissioner Summa: Yeah and the income level for the rental units is 30 to 60 I think. So, not 19
sure (interrupted) 20
21
Ms. Tanner: So, I think that would be the difference would be if we had a… if 50 to 80 for 22
example was our low-income AMI that was targeted through these units and they didn’t have 23
that list prepared. Then that would be a new list that Alta would create and I know she’s not 24
able to be with us anymore. So, I can’t say if they do or don’t have that list, but to me, that 25
would be the real question is just whether that aligned with an existing list that they’re 26
maintaining. 27
28
Commissioner Summa: Ok and then I don’t know. It seems… I agree with Commissioner Chang 29
that a homeowner might like to select themselves and it also occurs to me that a homeowner 30
might have someone in mind that’s not a family member who already works. A caretaker for 31
children or adults who already works with their family that they might want to make this 32
arrangement for. And so, I think it would be good to have flexibility for the homeowner in this 33
situation. So, are we just talking… I’m sorry Chair, are we just talking about C and D right now? 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 36
37
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 38
39
Chair Hechtman: We’ve lumped those together. 40
Page 61
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Summa: Ok, so yeah, those are my main… those are my comments for now. 2
Thank you. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I think the critical piece here as I get a feel of this is to have sort of 7
third-party verification of the income because that’s a way a City could be comfortable, 8
particularly, for financing affordable housing. That we know what’s really happening there and 9
then we also know if there’s some violation and we can take appropriate action in that regard. 10
That violation being obviously either the person jumps in income or the landlord says I don’t 11
want to do this anymore. I’m going to go back to market-rate. Well, you know, there are 12
consequences for that so we have to be able to document that. 13
14
So, that said, whether they want to come up with some tenants and put them in the mix with 15
the City’s list or that part I think is… I think that’s fine. And I’m very convinced that Alta’s the 16
right organization to do this and they’ve already pre-agreed to the cost parameters which I 17
think are modest frankly, for even for the person who’s putting up the ADU. So, that’s what I 18
think is critical is that we have a third-party documentation. Thanks. 19
20
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? So, I agree with what I think I’m hearing the other 21
Commissioners saying on these items. I do like… I do agree that we need a third-party income 22
verification and Alta seems perfectly positioned to provide that. I do like the flexibility of giving 23
a homeowner, who again is voluntarily agreeing to deed restrict, to find their own tenant that 24
Alta can income verify. Or if they don’t have anybody in mind, they can go to Alta and get the 25
next name on the list. So, I like that flexibility. Commissioner Chang. 26
27
Commissioner Chang: As Chair Hechtman was talking about this, this thought crossed my mind. 28
Is there any… a question of Staff, is there any downside to the ADU or any consequence I would 29
say of a constructed ADU just not being rented? In other words, I could see somebody saying 30
well I want to take advantage of some of… let’s say we come up with some good incentives. I 31
want to take advantage of these good incentives, but I don’t actually want a tenant there. So, 32
I’m just going to stall. So, are we going to have consequences in place for this being actually 33
occupied? 34
35
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, so that’s a great question. The deed-restricted unit would be required to be 36
occupied and certainly, there may be penalties or some type of a fine associated with no 37
following through on that. And there may be, for example, a time period by which it needs to 38
be tenanted after the final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. And certainly, as a very 39
minimum, the time period for the affordable restriction could possibly increase, but that’s 40
Page 62
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
something that definitely we would want to have as part of a policy. And that would be 1
important to have not only the verification of the affordability of the tenant. But that… because 2
you can imagine that part of this too is that the engagement from Alta is not just… could not… 3
could be more than just verifying that the tenant is there, but when again that unit becomes 4
vacant. What Alto does for us right now as our administrator is works with and monitors the 5
affordable units inclusionary and in affordable housing to make sure that they’re complying 6
with the agreements that are in place. 7
8
And so similarly, if the unit were to become vacant or things like that because for example, 9
tenants have to annually recertify. Well, if the annual certification for income comes up and 10
there’s no tenant there. Hopefully, before that, there would be a note that Alta would be aware 11
of that, but let’s say a homeowner was trying to skirt around it by not reporting that it became 12
vacant or something. That would be another trigger or time for Alta to know oh, this units not 13
rented. You know we need to get that unit tenanted again. 14
15
Commissioner Chang: Ok, thank you. It sounds like there’s… there could be some enforcement 16
headaches with all of this but it’s thankful… thank you for explaining that Alta would be 17
involved in that process. 18
19
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissions comments on C or D? If not let's move to Item E. Mr. 20
Sauls? 21
22
Mr. Sauls: Item E primarily just addresses what would be the cost associated to this process for 23
certification. So, when we spoke with Alta Housing, they’re number that they had provided to 24
us was that for initial income certification of an individual. That it would cost about $700 and 25
that $500 would be required for that annual recertification and that requirement would be put 26
off onto the property owner who would be wanting to do that. There may be some potential 27
for us to use state funding to support that program. But it may result in a similar kind of cap, 28
which depending on the volume of projects that we get, may be reached sooner rather than 29
later and may result in Staff having to say well we don’t have enough money. So, you’re going 30
to have to pay this fee. So, I can cause some of that headache down the line as to when that 31
needs to be paid by the homeowner versus something that maybe the City might be able to 32
support. 33
34
Chair Hechtman: Mr. Sauls, I have a question on that. The Staff report says it’s the grant could 35
be $231,000 per year. Is that right? 36
37
Mr. Sauls: So, that’s based on Mr. Wong who attended the meeting last month. He had reached 38
out to HCD or a representative at HCD to try to get a ballpark idea of what that might be like. 39
And that was the number that he had heard from them preliminarily was that it could be 40
Page 63
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
something like that. And this is funding that is basically provided through, if I remember 1
correctly what the Staff report identifies, it’s through kind of like a Parcel Tax almost. And so, 2
this money ideally is going to be available for as long as this program is in place and if there are 3
years going backward which we have not claimed that funding from. You know we can recoup 4
that as well. It’s a matter of where or how much of that is associated to other housing priorities 5
rather than specifically just this program. So, if the City chose to utilize that funding for other 6
housing priorities. Say as an example we got $400,000 and we chose to provide $300,000 to 7
other programs and $100,000 specifically for this. That might be able to support that program. I 8
think we need to really hone in on a lot of the details to confirm that that is truly able to be 9
used for that specific purpose because the language which we’re able to see at the moment for 10
this program single-family really very broad. To say it could be used for the creation of 11
affordable programs, including affordable programs that target ADUs. So, we would want to 12
triple verify that there’s no conflict that comes up basically with providing what is kind of an 13
additional subsidy almost. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Commissioner Chang. 16
17
Commissioner Chang: So, my initial thought on this is that compared to the Development 18
Impact Fees that we were talking about earlier. The $500 sounds like almost nothing and that it 19
can be treated very much the same way. So, if these funds, if these state funds can’t be used for 20
it, then the City can budget for it. I mean it seems to be really reasonable to say thank you to 21
the homeowners that are doing this. I mean if we’re… like we said before, if we’re serious about 22
affordable housing, let’s help them out a little bit. 23
24
And I guess a follow-on question would be, can this $231,000 be used to offset some of those 25
Development Fees that we were talking about? They wouldn’t go nearly as far, but I mean I 26
wonder. It's kind of… if it’s all for affordable housing and it's kind of all the same pot of money 27
regarding of what the source is. It’s a little bit fungible. 28
29
Mr. Sauls: I think again it just comes down to the nitty-gritty language used within that and if it 30
says that it can’t be allocated towards or put in towards a General Fund. You know then 31
obviously we can’t really kind of plop it in there and say oh, we’re going to use it; which that 32
kind of adds a lot of concerning variables for people who want this to be very targeted 33
assistance. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: I like this one too. All the same, reasons that Commissioner Chang 38
mentioned. I think these are a really good way to show that we prioritize affordable housing. 39
So, if we don’t do that, the other side of this coin is if we don’t do that then the rent will be $50 40
Page 64
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
higher a month. So, I think this is kind of a win all around, especially if we can find external 1
funding for it. Thanks. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Summa. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. I agree with what others have said already. If we can find 6
external funding for this, I think it’d be excellent. Always better when someone else pays and I 7
do think that the homeowner is likely to… if that doesn’t happen. The homeowner will likely 8
pass it on maybe to the tenant, but so any efforts that Staff can make to chase down those 9
funds I think would be very helpful. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: I agree that these fees should be paid by the City to the extent that they can 12
be paid by grants, but my understanding was on these deed-restricted they’re going to be a set 13
rent base. And so, they won’t be able to… so the property owner would absorb that $700 and 14
then $500 cost and that’s just a minor annual irritant to them. You know, one more reason to 15
not dive into this. 16
17
Other Commissioner comments or shall we move to financing ADU development? Let’s do that. 18
Mr. Sauls? 19
20
Mr. Sauls: This last item is a little bit tied to what we had just talked about with this kind of 21
PLHA Funds. There may be the potential also to utilize this funding mechanism to support 22
directly development potential for homeowners in terms of supporting financially what might 23
be a low or other sort of rent that they receive in order to basically finance this project. 24
25
And so there have been organizations in other Cities like Santa Cruz that I’ve found which 26
partner with a local credit union to provide additional information and consistency about the 27
process of what’s going to occur when you submit your permit. But to try partnering with them 28
to support loans that these organizations, these local organizations, or credit union, might be 29
able to provide to homeowners. 30
31
So, again, we’ll need to really dig down deep into this specific aspect to make sure that there’s 32
no conflict with maybe providing pass-through funding to a designated organization that might 33
be able to directly then support homeowners with a loan. Or maybe provide say the City got 34
$400,000 again and we submitted $10,000 for each unit… affordable unit that was provided to 35
us at that cap. You know that could be a consideration. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner questions or lightning round comments? I’ll lead off. I guess my 38
comment is sure, why not? Anyone else? Commissioner Summa. 39
40
Page 65
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: That’s my comment too. Sure, why not? 1
2
Chair Hechtman: Anyone else? Ok, so it’s 10 till 10:00 and I want to pause here now that we 3
have… I think we’ve completed all of… all 14 items. Our discussion of each and so I think this is 4
an appropriate time to stop and I’d like to get a sense of the Commission’s pleasure tonight. We 5
could stop at this point and come back and vote on all of these in one meeting because that’s 6
what is required, 14 votes. We could start… well, we could power through however long it takes 7
or the intermediate ground would be we could start and see how far we get by some particular 8
time. Like for example we could take the first one and see if we’re done with that by 10:00 and 9
within that context if we are going to go forward with less than all tonight. I’d be interested in 10
hearing from the Commission about a possible ordering of the first couple of items maybe that 11
we should take up. Maybe it’s the same as we started this process with length of time and 12
income category, or maybe it’s something different. So, Commissioners, tell me what you’re 13
thinking. Commissioner Chang, thank you. 14
15
Commissioner Chang: Well, I’m struggling with this one a little bit, which I think everybody is 16
struggling with it a little bit. I am loathed to not try and get more done tonight because 17
there’s… right, we’re going to… it took me a lot of time to actually to kind of refresh and 18
remember what we already covered. So, if we wait till the next meeting, I’m going to have to do 19
that again, but now for all 14 items which is going to be even more time-consuming. And at the 20
same time, it’s really… it will get late I think if we go through all these. 21
22
I do get the sense that we had consensus on a lot of the items and so I would like to kind of try 23
and power through. Maybe we set a time at which we check in again and decide what we do. 24
But I’m really loathed to say oh, let’s push this all off to the next meeting because then I feel 25
like I’m going to be investing another hour and a half in refreshing myself. I mean refreshing my 26
memory so that’s where I stand. 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, what do you think? 29
30
Commissioner Lauing: I don’t think it’s going to be short, but I’m not ready to hang it up right 31
now. So, taking the first one as you suggested might be good. I think a couple of these policies 32
issues could be testy to get through and get to a vote. I think on the actual items of the eight, it 33
seems to me that three of them were… I think we had generally… I don’t want to speak for 34
everybody but it seemed to me like we said that that doesn’t just apply to an affordable ADU. It 35
probably applies to all ADUs so I don’t know if that’s going to come back. And we may still want 36
to vote on them but there is that consideration that might make them easier. I don’t know but 37
I’d be game to stay at it for a while but not till midnight. Let me put it that way and if we get 38
really late and we’re not quite done then I think we have to regroup. Thanks. 39
40
Page 66
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I think that Commissioner Chang captured my sentiments 3
very effectively. Although I sympathize with Commissioner Lauing’s hope that we don’t go till 4
midnight. So, I would wonder if we would be able to do a straw poll to figure out where we 5
have consensus and maybe we could pass that as or we could have that as a resolution. I mean, 6
so tired, a motion and then we could vote on that, and then that would be the bulk of it. And 7
then we can focus on them kind of in reverse complicated order so that if we do find that we 8
have something that’s pretty complex. We avail ourselves of the maximum amount of time 9
remaining. That’s a process suggestion. Thanks. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: I was thinking along the same lines but wouldn’t have articulated it nearly as 12
well. Commissioner Lauing, your hand is… ok, still up. Alright. So, the idea is I think along those 13
lines so let's see if we can identify sort of the low-hanging fruit. The things that we seem to 14
have consensus on. Is that the next step Commissioner Templeton? Yes. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton: So, where we either want to go… on the numbered items where we 17
want to recommend Staff recommendation or don’t recommend. We might agree on both of 18
those. There’s some that we all were like no, not that one and some we were all yeah that one. 19
We could probably do that together so I don’t know. We don’t have a document. I could pull 20
together a document but (interrupted) 21
22
Chair Hechtman: So, may I actually (interrupted) 23
24
Ms. Tanner: I’ve tried to capture it in a table. 25
26
Commissioner Templeton: Look at you, I love that. 27
28
Ms. Tanner: I have to admit, I did not have very thorough notes for everyone. So, if you have a 29
blank, please don’t take it as I wasn’t listening, but I may not have recorded your thought on it. I 30
can share that if that might be helpful and if it’s not helpful. Then I can just take it down and 31
(interrupted) 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: Let’s take a look. I think that’s a great idea. What do you think, 34
Chair? 35
36
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing? 37
38
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, are you intending to go to the policies first or the suggestions 39
because a number of people in going through the eight said it’s going to depend on if it’s, for 40
Page 67
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
example, 15- or 30-years for the affordable housing to stay in place. So, which are we going to 1
do first? I mean it seems to me that we need to talk about the income categories and the length 2
of time. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: So, what we’re going to do is we’re going to talk about the things that those 5
kind of issues don’t even matter. For example, do we want Alto… do we want income 6
verification by Alta Housing? That doesn’t matter the duration, doesn’t matter the income, 7
right? Are we going to try… and so we’re going to try to collet those things that maybe are not 8
contingent on those big items, and approve them… identify them first, which ones we all kind of 9
have consensus on and get those through. I think that’s the concept. 10
11
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 12
13
Ms. Tanner: So, this page shows the policy items and the left hand is the item and then I tried 14
to capture what I believe were the notes. I think some of them we had consensus but everyone 15
didn’t necessarily say that so that maybe like income verification. I think everyone kind of 16
agreed with Commissioner Lauing so didn’t feel the need to repeat their support and then this 17
next page is the concepts in the order that they were presented and the roman numerals. And 18
then tried to capture it but as you can see from the last meeting, I didn’t have this thorough 19
notes to capture everyone’s thoughts. So, I do apologize for that. 20
21
Do we want to start with first table to take a look at for consensus items? 22
23
Chair Hechtman: Yeah, I think so. Let’s start with the table that you have up. Alright, so I think 24
we’re going to hold on duration and income. Income verification, verification needed by a third-25
party, it was my impression that we all had consensus on that. Commissioner Templeton, your 26
hands up. 27
28
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, I wanted to say I… this is fine with me. I support this. I think we 29
do have consensus here. Sorry, I wasn’t sure if we were supposed to fill in the chart or yes, I like 30
that. Just do the green. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: Ok, so we just… is that the thought? Is just quickly go through everybody can 33
say yes or if it's no then we know we’ll skip that one I guess? Ok, so I’m a yes on this one, 34
income verification. Commissioner… other Commissioners? 35
36
Commissioner Chang: I think we’re all yes. Maybe we should ask if anybody would say no to 37
that one? 38
39
Page 68
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Ok, that’s a [unintelligible – audio cut out]. Hold on, I got to get [unintelligible 1
– audio cut out]. Alright, any Commissioner that would say… that says no to income verification 2
raise your hand, please. 3
4
Ok, let’s move to tenant selection, so I think in the two choices they gave us but this short hand 5
for here ok for homeowner to select is more the flexible first of the two options. That the 6
homeowner can select or rely on Alta rather than Alta is the only choice. So, anyone a no on 7
that, please raise your hand? Ok, I don’t see anything so I think we’re agreeing there. 8
9
So, program administrative cost, so I think what the language here isn’t capturing that I heard 10
and I thought I heard everyone… almost everyone say it is yes to the amount, yes use grant 11
fund if they’re available, but if they’re not available have the City budget for it. So, does… is 12
anyone a no for that version of this? Raise your hand, please. Ok, so that’s a green. 13
14
Let’s see, partner with lenders to finance ADU development. If you’re a no on that, please raise 15
your hand. I don’t see any so that’s a green. 16
17
Any reason to vote on these four before moving to the other list or should we move to the 18
other list and do one vote? What do you think Commissioner Templeton? 19
20
Commissioner Templeton: I would think it would be easier to vote on this because it’s hard to 21
get it all on one screen. 22
23
Chair Hechtman: Ok. 24
25
Commissioner Templeton: But if other Commissioners feel strongly differently. 26
27
Commissioner Chang: I think that’s a great idea. That’s extremely practical and I love it. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton: Ok. Shall I move (interrupted) 30
31
Chair Hechtman: Please. 32
33
MOTION #1 34
35
Commissioner Templeton: To… ok. I move the Staff recommendation with annotations as 36
depicted in Assistant Director Tanner’s chart for Items C through F. 37
38
SECOND 39
40
Page 69
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang: I second. 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Any Commission discussion? 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: I think it’s wonderful that we had a good thorough discussion on this 7
and have found ways to come to consensus on these items. I am excited about this. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang, do you want to speak to your second? 10
11
Commissioner Chang: I think we already all spoke about this. 12
13
VOTE 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Alright, Mr. Nguyen, will you conduct a roll call vote, please? 16
17
Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Commissioner Chang? 18
19
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 20
21
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 22
23
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 24
25
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 26
27
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 28
29
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 30
31
Commissioner Summa: Sorry, yes. 32
33
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 34
35
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 36
37
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 38
39
Page 70
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
MOTION #1 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Alcheck and 1
Roohparvar absent) 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Terrific. Ms.… 4
5
Commissioner Templeton: If possible to… may I make a suggestion to Staff, Chair? 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Yes, please. 8
9
Commissioner Templeton: Staff, if you could… I think Assistant Director Tanner is driving here. If 10
you could add the numbers to this one like you did to the other. That may help some of us that 11
took notes that way. 12
13
Chair Hechtman: Roman numerals? 14
15
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. They’re numbers. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Yes, they are, but the last ones were letters but I had them as numbers and so 18
that’s what was confusing me. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton: Yes, former class assist here. I have to stand up for my Roman 21
numerals. And this one I don’t know how others think about this but I see that Ms. Tanner has 22
yeses and no in here. I think that’s toward Staff recommendation. If you want to do a quick 23
round where we update that chart, we could do that, and then we could organically see which 24
ones. I didn’t take notes on any other people. Just on my own yes and noes so that’s a 25
suggestion. 26
27
Chair Hechtman: So, would we accomplish that just running through these items? 28
29
Commissioner Templeton: Yes, you can do it horizontally if you prefer. 30
31
Ms. Tanner: I will say for the Item Number, I think is it Three… Four. I think at most folks were a 32
no accept I think Commissioner Summa said maybe if it was a lower income level then she 33
might support exempting the basement floor area. But if I didn’t put noes next to every person 34
but I think on this item I think most of you were not supportive of that strategy. If that sounds 35
wrong, please let me know. 36
37
Commissioner Chang: On the basement one I was in line with Commissioner Summa on it. 38
39
Ms. Tanner: Ok. 40
Page 71
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Templeton: Ms. Tanner, would it be helpful for me to fill in your blanks there? 2
3
Ms. Tanner: Sure, I do welcome that for Commissioners if you… and if it especially helps all of 4
you to remember what you’re fellow Commissioners had said. 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: So, for two I was a yes, for three I was no, you have that. For four I 7
was a no. Five no, six no, seven yes, and yeah you have that one. Thank you. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: That’s eight. 10
11
Ms. Tanner: Oh whoops, sorry. Got too carried away. 12
13
Chair Hechtman: Did you say seven was yes, Commissioner Templeton? 14
15
Commissioner Templeton: I did. Thank you for catching that. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Alright, another Commissioner would like to run through their list vertically? 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Alright, Commissioner Lauing, please. 22
23
Commissioner Lauing: I’m… I still want a clarification here from the Chair. For example, one and 24
two, there was a lot of discussion as it says in Templeton and Alcheck here that allow for all 25
ADUs. And since our assignment is to make recommendation on stuff that’s for affordable, do 26
we really want to vote on this? I guess that’s a way of putting the question. 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Well so let’s… we’re one step before that. We may not vote on this as part of 29
the group, right? So, reconstruction, my notes three of the Commissioners present, I guess 30
including Alcheck, had this idea to allow for all ADUs, and then the other three didn’t voice that 31
idea. And so maybe that’s not one that we will approve as part of a group, but for now, I think 32
all we’re trying to do is get our positions on paper. So, we can have the discussion about which 33
of these to go green and vote on as part of a group. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. So, I’ll go ahead then. On four which is exempt basement, I’ll just go 36
no there. And then 1,200-square foot ADU I’m going to go no there and reduced setback no. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Alright, so what about one and two Commissioner Lauing? 39
40
Page 72
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing: I’m… I don’t understand why we’re voting against that. 1
2
Chair Hechtman: We’re not voting. Oh, you’re not wanting to (interrupted) 3
4
Commissioner Templeton: Chair? 5
6
Chair Hechtman: To state your tentative position? 7
8
Commissioner Lauing: I’m (interrupted) 9
10
Commissioner Templeton: Hold on, hold on, guys I have a suggestion. I think that we should 11
have three options. Not ready to vote. It’s totally acceptable for Commissioner Lauing to be not 12
ready to vote until we have more discussion. 13
14
Chair Hechtman: And I didn’t think we were voting. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton: Well, it looks like right now the way it’s in the chart like we’re kind of 17
forcing a binary and I don’t think we are. So, Commissioner Lauing, you have I think the 18
(interrupted) 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: I’m happy… I appreciate your suggestion, Commissioner Templeton. I’m 21
happy to say allow for all ADUs in there, but I don’t think it's topic able to our agenda. That’s my 22
point. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: Well, I think that overall, if I may? These will be part of the overall ADU package 25
that we would bring back. So, some items were put into this category but could be for all ADUs. 26
27
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 28
29
Ms. Tanner: So, I think if that’s the will of the Commission, that could be appropriate to vote on 30
today. 31
32
Commissioner Lauing: And the same for existing garage. 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Ok, thank you. 35
36
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang or hold on, let me… sorry, I’ve got to see who’s hand is 37
up over here. Commissioner Summa. 38
39
Page 73
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: Ok, I’m going to try to go through starting with Three, additional ADU, 1
I’m a no. Four I’m going to say… well, you already have me there but I’m basically a no there 2
but I could be persuaded depending on our conversation about duration of deed restriction and 3
AMI. I’m a no on Five, a no on Six, and a yes on seven as long as the funding is… as long as the 4
City Council can find the funding to make up the difference. Eight and eight, which is the 5
expediting, I think that’s kind of a Staff issue like we’ve said but I’m ok with that. And Two was 6
the two-step process which I’m ok with eliminating and I think I’m a no on One. 7
8
Commissioner Chang: Ok, I think it’s my turn. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Yep. 11
12
Commissioner Chang: So, for One there’s like more detail on that one so I would say allow for 13
all ADUs if there’s room… I have caveats like if there’s room for maintaining it. And also, when I 14
reread the minutes, I thought Commissioner Alcheck had made a really good point about if 15
you’re completely demolishing it then I would say no, but if you’re editing the building. Then I 16
would say yes for all ADUs. So, I don’t know… I just have a lot of caveats on that one. For 17
existing garage, yes for all ADUs and I’m trying to read. I think the only one that’s blank… oh, so 18
for Number Seven, I’m a yes but only if it is explicitly budgeted for. I don’t want to any blank 19
check written and Eight, yeah, this is for Staff implement. 20
21
Ms. Tanner: I would just have one note on the reconstruction. Non-conforming structures are 22
allowed and Mr. Yang can correct, to be demolished and reconstructed. But they would just 23
need to be exactly the same dimensions as they are. So, isn’t that correct Albert? 24
25
Mr. Yang: That’s right. I think what we were talking about here was whether you could add 26
some de minimis (interrupted) 27
28
Ms. Tanner: Foot and 6-inches on the sides and things. 29
30
Mr. Yang: Yeah, exactly. 31
32
Ms. Tanner: So, if you’re concern… not that… not to try to change your perspective Ms.… 33
Commissioner Chang, but just to make sure that you understand that a non-conforming 34
building could already be demolished completely and reconstructed. And so, this would be 35
slightly larger dimensions on that reconstruction. 36
37
Commissioner Chang: I understand. I just think that if it’s being completely demolished, you can 38
move it 6-inches so. 39
40
Page 74
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Ok, it looks like I’m up. So, reconstruction I was a yes. The existing garage, this 1
is the collapsing the two-step to a one-step, I was a yes. Three is correct, I was a no. Exempt 2
basement, yes that was a no. 1,200-square foot ADU, I was a yes. A reduced setback I was a yes 3
to 3-feet. Exempt Impact Fees I was yes plus Plan Review Fees and expedite review I was no 4
because I wanted to stay with the 14 and 7. 5
6
Ms. Tanner: So, if I may Commissioner or Chair Hechtman? 7
8
Chair Hechtman: Yeah. 9
10
Ms. Tanner: I think one thing, first of all, thank you all for suppling your information to my 11
table. You know, one thing the Commission might consider is that we’re trying to be at a cutting 12
edge of policy which is why we don’t have a lot of Cities to draw on in terms of trying to do 13
something that is not really being done right now which is deed restrict affordable ADUs. And 14
so, I think looking at this list of where you and your colleagues are, just trying to think and 15
we’re all thinking to the best of our abilities. Is this the package that we think will lead to the 16
affordable ADUs that we are hoping to see? So, I don’t have an answer to that question but it 17
may be something that you all are considering in your deliberations. 18
19
Chair Hechtman: Right. Ok, so I think the next step is for the Commission to decide sort of 20
which of these to vote on as part of a cluster. And so, I would say to you Commissioners that 21
what we’re going to do is we’re going to… I would like to go One through Eight and anyone who 22
does not want to vote on that as part of the cluster. Just raise your hand. You don’t have to 23
state the reason why you don’t want to. We don’t need that detail. What we’re looking for is 24
the items where everybody says yeah, let’s go ahead and vote for that. And then we’ll clear 25
those out of the way, however many there are, and then we’ll deal with what’s left. So, does 26
that sound like a reasonable approach? 27
28
Commissioner Templeton: Chair? 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Yes? 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: Would it be helpful if we highlighted in colors as well. So, the ones 33
where we’re green or red? 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Well, I thought it… we’d just go One through Eight and if everybody wants to 36
vote on is at part of the cluster it goes green like we did on the other page. 37
38
Commissioner Templeton: But some of them are no. That’s all I was getting at is (interrupted) 39
40
Page 75
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: It's like a reverse [unintelligible] (interrupted) 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: So, we know what color we’re agreeing to. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Oh, I see. Well, first… 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: I like your approach of going through one at a time. 7
8
Chair Hechtman: I see, ok. Alright, so yeah, since it’s already identified here whether it’s a yes 9
or a no. If on an item like let me just pick Item Two, since that is almost all yeses, if nobody 10
objects to that one being part of the cluster, I guess that would be green for yes and then the 11
next one. If nobody objects to that one being part of the cluster, that would be red for no. Is 12
that the idea? Ok. 13
14
Commissioner Templeton: Right and then the ones that remain black we’ll have a discussion on 15
later or whatever. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Ok, alright, so let’s start with Number One and again, we don’t need… you 18
don’t need a reason, you don’t need to voice a reason to not want something voted on as part 19
of the cluster. So, anybody who does not want Number One, reconstruction, to be voted on as 20
part of the cluster, raise your hand, please. Alright, we see a hand so moving to Number Two, 21
go ahead and clear your hands. Anybody not wanting existing garage to be voted on as part of 22
the cluster, raise hand, please. Alright, Number Three, the additional ADU. 23
24
Ms. Tanner: Commissioner Lauing, where you raising your hand for this one, for existing 25
garage? 26
27
Commissioner Lauing: I was saying I don’t want to vote no on the garage. 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Yeah. 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 32
33
Ms. Tanner: Wait so is it green? I’m sorry to be (interrupted) 34
35
Chair Hechtman: No, it stays black because we’re not going to vote on it yet. 36
37
Ms. Tanner: Got it, ok got it. 38
39
Page 76
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Alright, Item Three, additional ADU, anybody not want that voted on as part of 1
the cluster? 2
3
Commissioner Summa: Well… 4
5
Chair Hechtman: Yes? So, in other words, if we (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner Summa: I mean… 8
9
Chair Hechtman: If we vote it at part of the cluster, the vote will be no, we don’t want that 10
because it says here everybody is voting no. So, unless somebody raises their hand, that’s going 11
to be colored in red and that’s going to be a recommendation that we don’t do that. 12
13
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Alright? 16
17
Ms. Tanner: Does that help folks? 18
19
Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Yeah, so right. Alright, let’s move to exempt basement. Does anyone not want 22
to include that in the cluster, if so raise your hand? Alright, no hands so that’s going to be a red. 23
1,200-square foot ADU, I guess I’ll raise my hand on that one. So, let's move to reduced setback, 24
anybody not want that to be a part of the cluster? So, even though I was a yes, I’m willing to 25
support the group there so let’s make that a red no. I’ll vote on that as part of the cluster. I’m 26
fine with that. Alright, exempt Impact Fees, anybody… I’m going to (interrupted) 27
28
Commissioner Chang: [unintelligible] 29
30
Chair Hechtman: I’m going to raise my hand on that because there are enough variations on 31
this that I think we need to take that one individually. I would like to. Alright and expedite 32
review, so I’m not seeing any hands but let me ask Staff. What color would you code this? 33
34
Commissioner Templeton: Raise his hand. 35
36
Ms. Tanner: I would interpret this would that the PTC would be supportive of expediting 37
affordable ADUs to the extent feasible and so that would be the policy direction that ultimately 38
Staff would take from this if Council concurs. 39
40
Page 77
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, is your hand up to (interrupted) 1
2
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Not include this in the cluster? 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, just for the reasons that we discussed before is that I don’t think 7
that we need to take action on it. So, why would we eventually vote on it so? 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Ok, so let’s pull it from the cluster for now and so what I’m seeing is Items 10
Three, Four, and Six would be voted to not recommend those things. In other words, to thumbs 11
down them, not carry them forward. Can I have a motion? 12
13
MOTION #2 14
15
Commissioner Chang: I will make a motion that we do not recommend Items Three, Four, and 16
Six. 17
18
SECOND 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: Second. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton: I’ll second. 23
24
Chair Hechtman: Seconded by Commissioner Lauing, thank you. Commissioner Chang, you want 25
to speak to your motion? 26
27
Commissioner Chang: Even though I disagreed with one of the items, I just don’t… I think it’s 28
fine. You know I’m willing to go with the rest of the Commission here because mine was fairly 29
conditional as it was and I think that we just have consensus on many of these. We spoke about 30
these reasons earlier. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, anything to add on your second? 33
34
Commissioner Lauing: No, thank you. 35
36
VOTE 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Mr. Nguyen, please conduct a roll call vote. 39
40
Page 78
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 1
2
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 3
4
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 5
6
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 7
8
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 11
12
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 15
16
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 17
18
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 19
20
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 21
22
MOTION #2 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) – 0 -2 (Alcheck and 23
Roohparvar absent) 24
25
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton, I see your hand is up. 26
27
Commissioner Templeton: Yes, following up on Commissioner and Staff questions about how to 28
code Number Eight. Maybe you can mark it gray. You already have the notes from our 29
conversation, so we don’t need a vote, but then we no action or you know, that it’s no longer 30
under consideration. That’s a suggestion. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: To clarify, we’re not looking specifically at the 7/3 concept. It’s just a more 33
general idea of prioritizing these affordable ADU applications? I’m asking. I’m not clear what 34
we’re doing with Item Eight. 35
36
Ms. Tanner: I think what I’ve heard from Commissioners is that you’ll leave it to Staff to 37
implement as we can versus having a policy that is shall be with these number of days that is 38
maybe that explicit. 39
40
Page 79
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Ok, yeah, I’m fine with that, good. 1
2
Ms. Tanner: Ok. 3
4
Chair Hechtman: So, it’s 10:25, I’d like to check in with the Commission again and see what 5
your pleasure is? We made some good progress. I think we got four out of eight on this list and 6
I think it was four out of six on the other list. So, that leaves four here and two on the other list. 7
Do we want to keep going is the first question and if so, anybody have a suggestion for which 8
items they’d like… which of these six items they’d like to take up next? Commissioner Lauing 9
first. 10
11
Commissioner Lauing: I’m still… I don’t want to get tied up in process but I think it would 12
simplify it. We’re not recommending One or Two relative to affordable housing and Ms. Tanner 13
has already said that she understands that we think it should be applied to all ADUs. So, I’m just 14
not sure why we would be voting on this in the context of affordable housing. So, a suggestion 15
process-wise is just not to vote on those two and we’re done with those two the same as 16
Number Eight. But I’m not adamant about it, I’m just suggesting. 17
18
Ms. Tanner: I think the only difference would be to… for the other items that we would bring 19
back in an ordinance. The Commission did give direction to Staff through a vote to include 20
those in the ordinance, but I think that Mr. Yang is suggesting recommend the others for 21
affordable and recommend the rest… these items just as recommendations for the ADU policy. 22
Is that right Mr. Yang? I’m sorry if I’m not expressing your sentiment exactly. 23
24
Mr. Yang: Sorry, I was just thinking it would be fine for a vote to occur for One and Two to be 25
commended as strategies for affordable ADUs with the additional direction that Staff includes it 26
in the discussion of policies for all ADUs. But (interrupted) 27
28
Ms. Tanner: [unintelligible] because it applies to all, all would include the affordable ones as 29
well (interrupted) 30
31
Mr. Yang: Yeah, exactly. 32
33
Ms. Tanner: Is what you’re saying. 34
35
Mr. Yang: But it would be fine also to not vote on those items tonight so. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing, did you have something more to add? No, ok. 38
Commissioner Chang. 39
40
Page 80
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang: I would just like to suggest that we… I think we’re really close on the 1
exemption of Impact Fees. So, I think we could just make a motion on that, maybe with the 2
additional edits to include people’s… I mean we can have discussion if we need to but I think if 3
we just… I think we can solve that one tonight before we adjourn. For sure, yeah. 4
5
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton: I agree with Commissioner Lauing and Commissioner Chang. I think 8
we’re really close on these and I think that if those of you who pulled the item want to make 9
the motion. Especially on One and Two Commissioner Lauing, I’m really comfortable with the 10
advice we got from Mr. Yang. If you made that motion, I’d be happy to second it, likewise with 11
Commissioner Chang so just throwing that out there. 12
13
Chair Hechtman: Alright, so I’m not seeing that it is the will the group to stop for the evening so 14
let's move forward. Any Commissioner want to pick an item to start talking about? 15
Commissioner Lauing, you want to start… you want to discuss Item One? 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: I’m happy to put Item One and Two together if that’s acceptable? 18
19
Chair Hechtman: Ok. 20
21
MOTION #3 22
23
Commissioner Lauing: And just say that because these are not applicable to our agenda item of 24
affordable housing, we recommend they be considered separately for all ADUs. 25
26
Commissioner Chang: Is that a motion? 27
28
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 29
30
SECOND 31
32
Commissioner Chang: Oh, I’ll second that. 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Sorry was it for Item One and Two or just One? 35
36
Commissioner Chang: One and Two. 37
38
Commissioner Lauing: Right. 39
40
Page 81
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: Thank you. 1
2
Commissioner Lauing: Try to keep it brief. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: I have a question. Does that mean we’re not going to vote on One and 5
Two tonight? 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Well, I think we would vote on it now in the context of sending along 8
allowing it for all ADUs or not depending on the vote. 9
10
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: Motion and a second to vote on it tonight. 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 15
16
Mr. Yang: Can I interject one comment here? So, one consequence of putting this off for 17
consideration only in the context of all ADUs is it’s possible, in the context of all ADUs, that 18
there’s not majority Commission support. And so, I think the question tonight is do you want 19
this for affordable ADUs, even if it doesn’t get adopted for all ADUs. And then but if you vote on 20
it tonight and you say yes, we do want this for affordable ADUs. You can still have another vote 21
later for all… for the rest of the ADUs. 22
23
Ms. Tanner: And by later you mean when the ordinance comes back Albert? Is that what you’re 24
saying? 25
26
Mr. Yang: Yes, yes, so I just wanted to highlight that possibility because we don’t know how 27
future votes are going to go. 28
29
Commissioner Lauing: I just… the reason I’m making the motion like this and spending maybe 30
to much time on it is it just seems like completely out of context for the agenda item of what do 31
we want to do to make affordable ADUs so. 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: I have a suggestion, Commissioner Lauing. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: Go. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: What if you recommend it now so we can recommend or the Staff 38
recommendation for One and Two and ask Staff to come back with a policy for all ADUs. So, 39
that we can vote on it in the future? 40
Page 82
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Lauing: I didn’t… I don’t think I understood that. I mean other words, just 2
recommend this now for ADU… for affordable ADUs? 3
4
Commissioner Templeton: And ask if Staff can come back for all ADUs because I think… wasn’t 5
your concern and Mr. Yang’s concern about making sure that it's properly agendized. And that 6
we get a chance to vote on it for all ADUs and have that full discussion? 7
8
Commissioner Lauing: Well, I’m not sure that this actually has to come back to PTC because our 9
comments over two meetings have said that this seems like a worthwhile change but it should 10
apply to just affordable. So, I see this as going on with our sentiment in that regard that Council 11
wants to change it. They change it in the general ordinance, not change it in the Affordable ADU 12
Ordinance. So, that’s another issue that if we only change it in the Affordable ADU Ordinance, 13
that would be kind of odd to just change it there and leave it out of the regular one. That would 14
be very, I don’t know, disingenuous for architects and developers and so on. So, I think we’re on 15
record, depending on how this vote goes, that we think that this should be incorporated more 16
broadly than just affordable, but our assignment here is to talk about affordable. So, that’s why 17
I’m suggesting we separate it. 18
19
Chair Hechtman: So, let me just chime in that we do not have unanimity on the idea that these 20
are… should be allowed for all ADUs. I haven’t voice support for that concept. I think that both 21
of these items should be used as incentives to attract people to affordable units and whether 22
we take that incentive away essentially by making it broadly applicable to all ADUs. Not on the 23
agenda tonight so I’m willing to vote no on the motion as presented. I like better the idea of a 24
motion that is focused on affordable, making these incentives for affordable, and then giving 25
Staff… asking Staff too, as Commissioner Templeton suggested, to bring back to us in the right 26
format this idea of consideration for non-affordable ADUs that these things apply. 27
Commissioner Chang? 28
29
Commissioner Chang: Yeah so based on that, I actually agree. If we want it for all, let's get it 30
done at least partially, right? Let's get it done for some of them. It's better to get some of them 31
done than none and just because we get some of them. Doesn’t mean that we won’t not get all 32
of them. So, I think… can I take back a second? How does that work? 33
34
Chair Hechtman: You withdraw it. 35
36
SECOND WITHDRAWN 37
38
Commissioner Chang: Ok, I withdraw it. 39
40
Page 83
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Templeton: Or you can ask the maker to amend. 1
2
Commissioner Chang: Well, I think we just… I’m going to let him… we just did already. I’m going 3
to let him… 4
5
MOTION #3 WITHDRAWN 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Well, I’m going to withdraw the motion. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: So, then Commissioner Templeton, you had suggested a variant on the 10
motion. 11
12
MOTION #4 13
14
Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I’m happy to make that variation because I support the 15
conversation that Commissioner Lauing and Commissioner Chang we will to forward. And I 16
think we can find a way, maybe a slightly slower way, but that we can get support for it now 17
and have a chance… another bite at the apple. 18
19
So, I move that we recommend the Staff recommendation for One and Two and ask Staff to 20
consider allowing this for all ADUs. And if our input is necessary, to bring it back at that time. 21
22
SECOND 23
24
Chair Hechtman: Second to that motion? I will second the motion. 25
26
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. 27
28
Chair Hechtman Before… Commissioner Summa, I see your hand. Commissioner Templeton, 29
any comments you want to make on as the maker? 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: Sure, I’ll be brief. I think that my intention here is to move forward 32
on the item that’s in front of us where we have consensus. And to have an opportunity to 33
investigate further and build consensus in the future if, for all ADUs, should that be the 34
direction that we go. So, if this is not perfectly worded, I’m open to improvement suggestions. 35
Thank you. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: I don’t have anything to add as the seconder. Commissioner Summa, your 38
hand is up. 39
40
Page 84
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: So, I have some troubles with some of Item One and but I totally 1
support Item Two. So, I’m wondering if we could split them? 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: That’s cool with me. Yeah, so to restate the motion then it would to 4
move the… well, let’s do Number Two first and then Commissioner Summa, you can state your 5
concerns with Number One. Maybe we can incorporate that, is that ok? 6
7
Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 8
9
MOTION #4 WITHDRAWN 10
MOTION #5 11
12
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, so I move Staff recommendation for Number Two, the existing 13
garage conversion with the request that Staff bring it back to us to consider it potentially for all 14
ADUs. 15
16
Chair Hechtman: So, before there’s a second, Commissioner Templeton you’re withdrawing the 17
motion that was on the floor on both One and Two, correct? 18
19
Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I’m sorry. I did that very quickly, I’m so sorry, yes. 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Otherwise you’d be doing a substitute motion to your own motion I think. 22
23
Commissioner Templeton: I mean we could, it’d be a party but I don’t know. 24
25
SECOND 26
27
Commissioner Summa: I will second. 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you, Commissioner Summa. Commissioner Templeton? 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: Nothing further. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa? 34
35
Commissioner Summa: No. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: No. Commissioner Lauing, comments on this motion regarding Number Two? 38
39
Page 85
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing: Is Staff want this definitely to come back? As I commented earlier 1
(interrupted) 2
3
Ms. Tanner: Well, I think part of it is what you expect to come back. Our come back would be 4
come back with it in the ordinance. I mean our next step with this whole entire process is to 5
return to you all with an ordinance. So, if it’s to come back to talk about it further, I don’t really 6
know what additional discussion we would have. 7
8
Commissioner Lauing: I agree. That’s why I’m asking the question, thank you. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: Ok, any (interrupted) 11
12
Ms. Tanner: I think Mr. Yang’s point was that when it comes back if all Commissioners are not 13
supportive of it being applied to all ADUs. Then the motion would be made at that time to 14
clarify where it applies, either broadly or narrowly. 15
16
VOTE 17
18
Chair Hechtman: Alright, any further Commission discussion? I don’t see any hands other than 19
Commissioner Lauing’s ghost hand. So, Mr. Nguyen, please conduct a roll call vote on the 20
motion on Item Roman II. 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 23
24
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 25
26
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 29
30
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 31
32
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 33
34
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 35
36
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 37
38
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 39
40
Page 86
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 1
2
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 3
4
MOTION #5 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Alcheck and 5
Roohparvar absent) 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Alright, would we like to take up Item Number One now? Commissioner 8
Summa, did you want to talk about Item One? You know we broke it out or do you want to go 9
to a different item and hold on to that for a while? 10
11
Commissioner Summa: No, we can talk about Item One because I suspect Chair Templeton 12
[note – Commissioner Templeton] might like to make a motion on it. I’m just uncomfortable 13
that there are certain situations where this would result in a lack of privacy. I just don’t think 14
that you would always want to approve this without considering the impacts and also the 15
impacts to trees. And so, I’m slightly uncomfortable with it without any caveats, so that’s my 16
concern. 17
18
Chair Hechtman: Alright so does anyone want to make a motion on Item One, reconstruction? 19
Commissioner Templeton. 20
21
MOTION #6 22
Commissioner Templeton: Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Summa, for clarifying that. I’m not 23
exactly sure how to incorporate that into the motion. So, if you have suggestions, please bring 24
them up, but I’ll make the motion to… I’ll move Staff recommendation for Number One and 25
request that it be considered for all ADUs as well when it comes back before the Commission. 26
When the policy comes back before the Commission. 27
28
SECOND 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Do we have a second for that motion? Alright, I will second that 31
motion. Commissioner Templeton, any remarks on your motion? 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: Nope. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: I have no comments on the second. Anyone want to discuss this motion 36
before we vote? Commissioner Chang, I see your hand. 37
38
Commissioner Chang: Is there a way to make an amendment so that it’s only allowed when 39
there’s room to maintain the building? I’m just trying to capture some of our discussion that we 40
Page 87
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
had at the last meeting. So, that was one of the issues as well as the second issue and I 1
remember… I clearly remember Commissioner Alcheck saying this also which is not the second 2
part of this item. Meaning, if it's for remodeling ok, but if it’s for reconstruction we should just 3
have them move out of the undesirable area. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Yep, I (interrupted) 6
7
Ms. Tanner: It's for reconstruction and they want to change the building envelope. They already 8
need to move it to 4-feet. So, the (interrupted) 9
10
Commissioner Chang: So, that’s already in there? 11
12
Ms. Tanner: That’s already the law today it that if you have a non-conforming building and you 13
tear it down and rebuild it in exactly the same dimensions. You can do that in the same location 14
but if you want to increase it by a foot or what have you because you need to add changes to it. 15
Then again, this I just allowing 6-inches I think was what we said or maybe a foot and maybe 6-16
inches vertically. So, this is to give that non-conforming structure a little bit more room versus 17
having to move the 4-feet setback. 18
19
Commissioner Chang: So, I’m all for it if it's… if we’re keeping the same wall. If we’re tearing it 20
down, I would say let’s just do it correctly. That’s where I stand on it, so I don’t know if there’s a 21
way… if that’s where everybody else feels. If it is as is I think I would just vote no. 22
23
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, that’s precisely my concern and I think at the last meeting we 24
discussed this a bit because it’s already problematic that garages are allowed to be on the 25
property line in corners. It becomes a maintenance issue where to maintain the property you 26
have to be on your neighbor’s land and so I just think if it’s that close. There’s no point in 27
rebuilding it in that same undesirable location. 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang, your hand is still up. Commissioner Templeton. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: So, I believe that the inches of adjustment are not necessarily a 32
threat to the neighbor’s property. I don’t believe we’d be able to move into the neighbor’s 33
property or across the property line. So, that would never be approved and the inches here are 34
primarily being used for better insulation which is good for the environment and reduced the 35
load on our utilities. So, I think these are really good, very small changes that work within the 36
very, very edge case of revising an existing structure. And then if it will be redeveloped like 37
Assistant Director Tanner said, it would go under a different set of rules which would require it 38
to move. So, I think that we’re all in agreement here and that cases that you are thinking about 39
may be covered under other policies. So, I think we’re good and covered. This is just an edge 40
Page 88
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
case to make sure people can insulate and have that couple of extra inches that they need for 1
that. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 4
5
Commissioner Chang: So, if I look at the actual recommendation here, there’s a statement that 6
says including complete demolition. So, we’re essentially asking that in the case of complete 7
demolition, we would also allow the additional 6-inches. I’m ok letting the additional… leaving 8
the… allowing the 6-inches if we’re not completely demolishing it. But according… so if we just 9
struck the including complete… the line that says including complete demolition and 10
reconstruction of the structure in place. I’d be fine with it. 11
12
Commissioner Templeton: Was that… wasn’t that though only if it’s being rebuilt in the exact 13
same dimensions? 14
15
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Yeah. 18
19
Commissioner Templeton: Staff, can you help clarify this discrepancy because it is a little 20
confusing to follow. 21
22
Mr. Sauls: I can speak to that, so the policy at hand that we had been discussing was you can 23
follow what the normal policy is, which is that if you are expanding the size or envelope of a 24
non-conforming structure. Then you develop them as a conforming structure. That’s the 25
standard policy that we have in place right now. The incentive that had been suggested by Staff 26
was we can allow the same provision for demolition and reconstruction to the non-conforming 27
degree. We can allow that and then provide an additional expansion… and additional minor 28
expansion of that structure as an incentive. 29
30
So, you can… if you have a garage at a rear property line, rear back left or back right property 31
line, you can demolish that and rebuild it. And then provide maybe 6-inches in terms of added 32
width and I think we said a foot in terms of added height to that non-conforming structure to 33
provide for insulation needs. That… and keep it in that same location, not be required to shift it 34
because if we were to say shift the structure or require them to shift the structure. At that 35
point, there’s no need for them to only get a small allowance to increase. They could simply 36
build a 16-foot tall structure at a 4-foot setback. 37
38
So, that’s the difference is either keep the envelope, the shrink wrap envelop of the existing 39
structure and allow that policy to be maintained; or we say in addition to being able to tear it 40
Page 89
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
down and rebuild it in the same location. You can expand it slightly. Does that help to clarify the 1
issue? 2
3
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 4
5
Commissioner Chang: So, can I make a friendly amendment then? My friendly amendment 6
would just say that to allow the expansion in the case of conversion only. That’s still 7
(interrupted) 8
9
Commissioner Templeton: So, you would want to keep a dilapidated wall or a wall that 10
(interrupted) 11
12
Commissioner Chang: No, no that’s conversion. That’s conversation, that’s not complete 13
demolition. In my view, if they are choosing to completely demolish something, then they can 14
move it 6-inches with easy. Its if you’re converting an existing structure, you’re not demolishing 15
it, that it’s hard. So, that’s where (interrupted) 16
17
18
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT BY THE MAKER 19
20
Commissioner Templeton: Well the thing is about the foundation I think is the issue 21
Commissioner Chang because then you’d have to repour the foundation, and then that changes 22
a lot of costs. 23
24
Commissioner Chang: Oh, maybe I’m misunderstanding then but I thought that (interrupted) 25
26
Commissioner Templeton: It’s not super clear so I… does any other Commissioner want to 27
weigh in on this about… I mean it’s a good discussion to have and we want to make sure that 28
we have clear boundaries about where this could be applied and not. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: I guess my comment in support of my second is that again what we’re… we’re 31
trying to get people to build affordable ADUs. What can we give you that will make you build an 32
affordable ADU instead of an ADU and this 6-inch give, even close to the property line, maybe 33
that won’t make the difference for them. But if it does, then that’s a win for Palo Alto so that’s 34
why I’m ok with it in seconding the motion. Commissioner Chang. 35
36
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 37
Commissioner Chang: Then what I would say is I’m ok with it if we’re not then saying we can do 38
this for all ADUs if that makes any sense. So, we… right so for an affordable one, if you want to 39
completely demolish it and expand it by 6-inches. Ok, if it’s going to be affordable, but I’m… I 40
Page 90
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
just don’t… I don’t like the idea if somebody is willing to spend the money to completely 1
demolish it. That we don’t do it correctly on the return but if it’s going to be affordable. Alright, 2
I can go with that. 3
4
Commissioner Templeton: Then should we strike the come back for all ADUs portion of this 5
motion as your friendly amendment? Commissioner Chang (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner Chang: Yeah, go for it. Sure, sure, we’ll start with that. I mean I see… and then to 8
add to that I would be supportive of it for all ADUs if we struck the other part about complete 9
demolition. Do you understand what I’m saying? But we’ll… I am ok with it if we strike that last 10
part. 11
12
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND 13
14
Commissioner Templeton: But it’s already the law, we don’t have to say that again. 15
16
Commissioner Chang: No, not the 6-inches. The 6-inches isn’t the law. 17
18
Commissioner Templeton: The other part. 19
20
Commissioner Chang: I would like to give people (interrupted) 21
22
Commissioner Templeton: The other part. 23
24
Chair Hechtman: No, I think that… I thought what she was… Commissioner Chang, I thought 25
what you were just saying was if we take out the instruction to bring this back to us so that we 26
can make it applicable to all ADUs,then she’s comfortable with the motion. In other words, it’s 27
basically Staff recommendation only as to affordable ADUs period. 28
29
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: Alright, what about ask Staff to come back with how it might be 32
applicable to all ADUs with the specific caveats that you are highlighting? 33
34
Commissioner Chang: Yes, that would also be fine. I like that, thank you. 35
36
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, sure, sure and Chair Hechtman, do you accept that friendly 37
amendment? 38
39
MOTION #6 RESTATED 40
Page 91
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Hechtman: Yeah, if I understand the motion would be Staff recommendation as to 2
affordable ADUs. Staff to bring it back as applicable to all ADUs on conversions only, not on new 3
construction of non-affordable ADUs? 4
5
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Yes, I’m (interrupted) 8
9
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, alright. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: I accept that friendly amendment. Any further discussion by Commissioners 12
on the motion? I’m not seeing any hands. May we have a roll call vote? 13
14
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 15
16
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 17
18
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 19
20
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 23
24
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 25
26
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 27
28
Commissioner Summa: No. 29
30
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 33
34
Mr. Nguyen: Great, the motion carries 4-1 with two Commissioner absent. 35
36
MOTION #6 PASSED 4(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton) -1 (Summa against) -2 (Alcheck 37
and Roohparvar absent) 38
39
Page 92
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Alright, let's go to… I’d like to go next to Item… I’m sorry. Well, let’s go to next 1
Item Seven. Sorry, Commissioner Templeton, I see your hand. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: Sorry, I was just going to ask if Staff wants to update our score card 4
but that can be done while we have our discussion. I think Number One was yes and Number 5
Two was yes, right? Ok, Number Seven, go for it. 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 8
9
Commissioner Chang: I’m… so my sticking point on this was just I’m all for supporting this and I 10
think our City Council would be too. So, I just wanted to add a sentence to say that we would 11
recommend that City Council would budget for it. So, that would be my sticking point and I’d be 12
happy to make the motion if we’re ready for it. 13
14
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. My… I agree with it in concept. I think my concern is if 17
we’re suppose to even talk about budget stuff as PTC. So, that’s typically outside of our scope 18
and so I mean imagine that City Council probably always budget for things in the budget. So, I’m 19
not sure that it's helpful to tell them that. That’s really just my concern is just a courtesy kind of 20
thing. I don’t know if they need that from us. 21
22
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 23
24
Commissioner Summa: I appreciate that addition and I think the thing is that we’re not 25
recommending it as a policy that says we don’t… we need to collect Impact Fees. So, that we 26
can serve the people that live in this community, and the impacts from people at lower-income 27
levels are the same. So, I think we’re saying at a policy level we say give these… in this situation 28
go ahead and give a break to make it easier to get someone started down the path of an 29
affordable ADU. But that the City, as a policy, should contemplate how they’re going to restore 30
those funds. So, I don’t think it’s telling them what to do with a budget. I think it’s opining on 31
the policy which I think is in our purview. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I essentially agree with what Commissioner Summa said in 36
completely. It's in some ways it’s redundant because they have to have a budget in order to do 37
this, but we’re just trying to point out here I think that we recognize that. There’s not money 38
sitting there and we think it’s that important to do so I’m comfortable with the way it is. 39
40
Page 93
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: What if we ask Staff to recommend possible ways to include it in the 3
budget or something? I don’t know. It’s fine, I mean I’ll support this either way but I think it’s 4
like Commissioner Lauing said, a bit redundant. 5
6
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 7
8
Commissioner Chang: My reason for thinking that it’s not redundant is that when we asked 9
about the… what’s it called? The application… the Plan Review Fee, Staff very explicitly said that 10
they didn’t feel comfortable including that because their Staff budget would be hit and they 11
would lose Staff. So, I actually… the additional thought that I had regarding this item is that I 12
would include Plan Review Fees in the same bucket and if what we need to do in order for 13
everyone to feel comfortable with it. Is for it to be explicitly budgeted for because there is a 14
difference. Right, we don’t… I don’t know, in my experience with non-profit management, often 15
you’re looking at the expenses of a program and explicitly budgeting for those. But not 16
explicitly budgeting for lack of revenue and the time that’s spent on something when there’s 17
lack of revenue. And so, I think it’s worth saying and I don’t think we can… you can separate the 18
income that something has on a budget from the policy because you can’t craft policy without 19
understanding kind of the potential budget implications. And so, my reason for wanting to 20
make some sort of statement about it and maybe there’s a more diplomatic way of saying it is 21
two-fold. One because I don’t want it to slip through the cracks and I think that how it actually 22
ultimately gets implemented can be made in a budgetary decision. It could be a cap, it could be 23
something else but it just… but the second piece is because there’s an explicit reason why Staff 24
didn’t want to include the Plan Review Fees. Because they didn’t know where the money was 25
going to come from and so we need to address that too. And if we’re talking about Impact Fees, 26
here we are making a policy decision that’s going to impact libraries and parks. So, that’s why I 27
want to be cognizant and respectful of those other things that we’ll be impacting. 28
29
Commissioner Templeton: Well, do we know… sorry Chair, may I? 30
31
Chair Hechtman: Please. 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: Do we know if we do require it to go into the budget, that this will 34
delay it by a year because the budget just passed? 35
36
Ms. Tanner: What we know about the delay, I mean I think what will happen is Council will have 37
to decide if they can identify a source to fill this and if they can’t then they would have to make 38
a decision to either not implement the waiver of the fees or modify it in some way. Or decide to 39
Page 94
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
just waive them without filling the source which has the repercussions we talked about for both 1
Impact Fees and/or Plan Review Fees. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. 4
5
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 6
7
Commissioner Chang: I would just add that everything that we’re suggesting… everything is a 8
recommendation. It’s a suggestion and so I think it’s worth making it explicit because of all the 9
reasons I just discussed, but City Council could easily decide well we like this idea so much. That 10
even though this year we can’t do this. It is a little bit redundant but I think it’s important to 11
make an explicit just not… especially if we want to include Plan Review Fees because I don’t… I 12
want to be respectful also of Staff. I don’t want to assign something to them and then have 13
them do all this work that won’t be budgeted for and have them crunched because of it. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: So, if the motion took more of the form of we’re recommending to the Council 16
exemption of fees, recognizing that the City has to budget for it. Does that capture the 17
concept? Rather than making it a pre-requisite, just acknowledging it. Because when this gets 18
to Council with that recommendation because they breathe budget, we don’t. That’s why I 19
think we’re having a little awkwardness right now because it’s unfamiliar territory, but for 20
them, it’s very familiar. And when this recommendation comes to them, if the recommendation 21
is made, they’re immediately going to see this is a budget issue for us. And so, I think if we just 22
put that tail on it recognizing that the City would need to budget for it, that will tell them that 23
we saw that it was a budget issue too. 24
25
Commissioner Lauing: Second. 26
27
Commissioner Chang: Yeah, can you make that motion, please? 28
29
Commissioner Lauing: I take that as the motion and I second it. 30
31
Chair Hechtman: Ok. 32
33
Commissioner Chang: Ok, great. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: So, that is the (interrupted) 36
37
Ms. Tanner: If you can repeat the motion? 38
39
Page 95
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Alright, so it… well, hold on a minute. I haven’t made the motion because the 1
issue that I’m not sure that I have at least a third vote for is the Plan Review Fees. Because 2
personally, I want those included and I’m willing to break that into a separate motion if 3
necessary. And we’ll just go with the Impact Fees and then I’ll make a separate motion. We’ll 4
see if that but if I have enough support to include Plan Review Fees. Then I’d… I would want to. 5
Commissioner Lauing. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I think that fits in the same category as what you just discussed 8
which is that we’re going to be asking for all this stuff. And they’re going to decide, as I said in 9
our previous comment, no or all you do is half or we’re going to do this but we’re not going to 10
do that. I don’t think we have to parse it that much. You know, I think you can put the whole 11
thing in there and see what happens on the vote, but then we’ll see what happens. 12
13
Chair Hechtman: I’m prepared to make a motion but Commissioner Templeton, let me hear 14
from you first. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton: I agree with Commissioner Lauing. I think we’re overthinking this 17
from a policy perspective of what is going to get people excited about building an ADU for 18
affordable units. Yeah, these are the ideas. The question is really to Council of how they may be 19
able to work with Staff and fit it in the budget. So, I like that framing that you suggested. 20
21
MOTION #7 22
23
Chair Hechtman: Alright, so let me make a motion that the PTC recommend to the City Council 24
that affordable ADUs be exempt from Impact Fees and Plan Review Fees, recognizing that the 25
City would need to budget for that. 26
27
SECOND 28
29
Commissioner Lauing: Second stands. 30
31
Chair Hechtman: Thank you, Commissioner Lauing. Commissioner Summa, your hand is up. 32
33
Commissioner Summa: I think… did Commissioner Lauing just second? 34
35
Chair Hechtman: He did. 36
37
Commissioner Summa: So, my concern about this is that we have no idea what the permitting 38
fees are, but I do know that… because I was on the Development Center Customer Advisory 39
Group, CCCAG as we called it for 8-years. I do know that the Development Center has to break 40
Page 96
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
even and they depend on those fees. I also think those fees… but we didn’t get this information 1
tonight. When I’ve looked at permits in the past, those fees are really insignificant I think. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: That would make it easy for the City Council… for the City to backfill if they 4
wanted to budget for it. 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: They could always change fees for people who aren’t building 7
affordable housing. 8
9
Commissioner Summa: Ok. 10
11
Chair Hechtman: Ok. 12
13
Commissioner Summa: That’s a good point. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Alright any further discussion on this motion? I’m not… Commissioner Summa, 16
your hand is still up. Do you… ok. Nope, still up. 17
18
Commissioner Summa: I know, I can’t put it down. There. 19
20
VOTE 21
22
Chair Hechtman: Ok, then I’ll move forward with a roll call vote. Mr. Nguyen? 23
24
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 25
26
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 27
28
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 31
32
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 33
34
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 35
36
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 37
38
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 39
40
Page 97
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 3
4
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 5
6
MOTION 7 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0- 2(Alcheck and 7
Roohparvar absent) 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Alright so that can go green. Let’s go now to Item Five and what I’m seeing on 10
that is… I’m… what I saw on that when I raised my hand to pull it from the cluster is its three 11
noes, a no generally, and my yes. So, I just wanted to vote on that separately and so that I could 12
vote in opposed to the… you know, what I thought rather than having to vote with the majority 13
to carry a group of items. So, if somebody would like to make a motion on that we can… 14
Commissioner Templeton. 15
16
MOTION #8 17
18
Commissioner Templeton: I move that we do not recommend 1,200-square foot ADUs for 19
affordable housing units specifically. That’s it. 20
21
SECOND 22
23
Commissioner Summa: Second. 24
25
Chair Hechtman: Second Commissioner Summa. 26
27
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. May I speak to it? 28
29
Chair Hechtman: Please. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: I think that this is something that we really struggle and grapple 32
within our City and I’m concerned about how this will affect some of our lower-income 33
neighborhoods. And it may be implemented unequally throughout the City and might really 34
affect that neighborhood negatively. So… those neighborhoods negatively so I just want to 35
make sure that we have thought this through and understand the implications and I don’t think 36
we have that yet. So, I just think it's too risky to recommend at this time. Thank you. 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa, do you want to speak to your second? 39
40
Page 98
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: Just similar reasons and also concerns about generally filling permeable 1
an area up with building because we haven’t really even thought about the fact that there still 2
could be other accessory buildings. And the loss of the backyard habitat are some of the other 3
reasons and potential loss of trees. 4
5
VOTE 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Other Commissioner discussion on the motion? Mr. Nguyen, please conduct a 8
roll call vote. 9
10
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 11
12
Commissioner Chang: No. 13
14
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 15
16
Chair Hechtman: The motion is to not recommend, correct? 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: Correct. 19
20
Chair Hechtman: Then I’m going to vote no. 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 23
24
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 25
26
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 27
28
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 29
30
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 33
34
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 3-2 with two Commissioners absent. 35
36
MOTION #8 PASSED 3(Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -2(Hechtman, Chang) -0(Alcheck and 37
Roohparvar absent) 38
39
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Commissioner Chang, would you like to speak to your no vote? 40
Page 99
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Chang: Sure, I mean I think if it were not so late we might be able to work this 2
problem a little bit more and if we had a little bit of data we might be able to work this problem 3
a little bit more. Because I think for certain lots, like larger lots and in certain… we might be able 4
to protect the neighborhood that we’re concerned about because I understand Commissioner 5
Templeton’s concern. And also address the lot coverage issue because I also understand 6
Commissioner Summa’s concern but yet I think that this is a carrot that we could offer if we 7
really want to see affordable ADUs. And so that’s… I think there might be a way to thread the 8
needle and that’s why I voted no. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: I will speak briefly to my no vote. I think this is a missed opportunity. What 11
we’re talking about here was 200-square feet. That 1,000-square foot ADU can be built today in 12
every neighborhood of every type throughout the City. So, I thought it was one of the better 13
incentives that… one of the better carrots we had and that’s why I was hoping that it would get 14
support. 15
16
Alright, so that one is red and I think… I can’t see the whole of the screen here. I think we’ve 17
finished with this page. Alright, so we have two items here, its 11:12, so let me just ask the 18
question. Commissioners, do you want to continue to move forward on these items tonight? 19
Well, let me ask it in the negative. Does anyone feel like it’s time to call it an evening? If so, 20
raise your hand. We can talk about it. Alright, I’m not seeing any hands so let’s move forward. 21
22
What is the Commission’s pleasure between in terms of order of discussing duration and 23
income? Anybody have a suggestion on that? 24
25
Commissioner Templeton: Well, it looks like we got more data for income so maybe we can 26
start there. 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang? Ok, let’s start with income. Commissioner Chang. 29
30
Commissioner Chang: Can I ask that when we’re looking at income that we actually toggle to 31
the other screen with the Roman numeral items because the income that we’re talking about 32
affects those items. And maybe it’s not that big of a deal because we’re not giving away very 33
much. 34
35
Commissioner Summa: I have (interrupted) 36
37
Commissioner Lauing: Can we get back to the other screen? Good. So, I’m the only one that’s 38
not on record on the sheet so I’m happy to speak if that’s ok Chair? 39
40
Page 100
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Hechtman: Yes, please. 1
2
Commissioner Lauing: So, my… you know where I think the biggest problem is for all reasons is 3
in the below 80 percent. I could be persuaded to go to the 100 but I’m not in favor of 120. I 4
think that sends a bad message so I would be 100 percent and below. So, I guess that’s 50 to 5
100. 6
7
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you for filling in the blank. Commissioner Summa, your hand is 8
up. 9
10
Commissioner Summa: So, I had a question. Sorry, this… I have a question for Staff. I don’t… 11
and this was probably answered in our last meeting but I don’t recall. What is it not 30 to 80 12
percent AMI? 13
14
Ms. Tanner: Well, that’s certainly something that the Commission could choose, but again 15
we’re talking about one unit. A private home that is going to be made available affordable. So, I 16
think there’s typically 30 percent and below is provided by 100 percent affordable housing 17
service providers who are able to often provide additional services. If it’s a pretty deep level of 18
affordability so one might consider are the incentives sufficient to provide that level of 19
discounted rent from the property owner. 20
21
Commissioner Summa: And how… if we go to the 50 to 80 range, does that mean that a 22
property owner can choose somebody at the higher end of the range? 23
24
Ms. Tanner: If they’re within the range, they could choose someone within that range, yes. 25
26
Commissioner Summa: So, our greatest need I think is in the lower ranges; 30 to 60 so I don’t 27
know. I’m a little disappointed since that’s our greatest need in housing and do you think that 28
people wouldn’t… I mean I think very few people are going to do this period. But I think the 29
people that are going to do this are really going to do it too… because they have a strong 30
philosophical belief in affordable housing. And I don’t know why if it… I don’t know why we 31
wouldn’t go 30 to 80? I can understand why we’re going to 80 instead of stopping at 60 but why 32
not go lower also? 33
34
Ms. Tanner: I think that’s a question for the Commission to consider in terms of what policies 35
do you think will be lead to this being actualized. So, if the Commission feels that a lower 36
income level and the incentives provided will lead to an affordable ADU being constructed. 37
Then that would be a position the Commission could take. 38
39
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thank you for that. 40
Page 101
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang followed by Commissioner Templeton. 2
3
Commissioner Chang: So, I think I had a follow-on question. I’m trying to understand how this 4
would actually be implemented because in my… so this is directed at Staff. Am I to understand 5
correctly that if we were to say it's 30 to 80, then the landlord would be allowed to charge any 6
rents based on the number of tenants between 30 to 80? So, it would be a range that they 7
could choose from. Like how does this… I think what I’m trying to understand is how does this 8
work in actuality if we’re saying that this studio can be rented to anybody who’s 30 to 80 9
percent? 10
11
Ms. Tanner: So, basically yeah, so essentially what is created is a table of single of studios, 1-12
bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, and then all the income groups and what is the appropriate 13
or allowable rent to be charged to that household in that income group? And then their income 14
group on another table is determined by the size of the household in relation to the income of 15
that household. So, we could have a large family that has a high income but still could be a low-16
income group because of the number of people in that household that has to use that income. 17
So, there’s the table to understand what AMI category that family falls into or the household. 18
Then there’s the table that says ok if it’s a studio and it’s being rented to a family in the 80 19
percent to 120 percent of AMI. How much rent can they pay? And then that is the rent that 20
would be charged and that’s the rent the landlord would be accepting for renting that unit. 21
22
Commissioner Chang: So, for example, let’s take a studio. A studio can house, at most, two 23
people. Let’s say a landlord’s goal was to generate as much income as possible. Then could a 24
landlord… when the first person in line on Alta’s list is just an individual person. Could the 25
landlord say no, I don’t want to take that person? I want to take a couple because then I can 26
charge more rent. Is that how this works or? 27
28
Ms. Tanner: So, if we’re… we already decided that the landlord could… the PTC decided to 29
recommend that the owner can select the tenant. So, theoretically, they wouldn’t even have to 30
go to the list in the first place but no, you cannot discriminate against somebody based on their 31
household size so or their household compensation. So, I don’t know that they could say I want 32
to have a two-person household here if they were to work with Alta Housing’s list. 33
34
Mr. Yang: So, I guess I’ll just say in addition, the allowable rents are based on the unit size for 35
the most part. We have assumed household size based on the type of unit. So, a studio has an 36
assumed household size of one, and then the allowable… the maximum allowable rent would 37
be based on that assumed household size regardless if it's one or two people who actually end 38
up living there. There’s also (interrupted) 39
40
Page 102
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang: So, then… 1
2
Mr. Yang: Some nuance to what is the actual rent that is sent and this is an area where I’m not 3
as familiar with the details, but I know if you have a range of 80 to 100 AMI for example. The 4
actual rents might be set at 90 percent of AMI because otherwise if you’re setting it at 100 5
percent AMI. Really, you’re just being afford to people at the top of that range. So, again, this is 6
an area where either a housing planner or someone from Alta Housing would be able to tell you 7
more about exactly how it was worked out but I know that’s one of the nuances when you’re 8
setting up a program like this. That needs to get figured out. 9
10
Commissioner Chang: My follow-on question to that is so I’m trying to understand what the 11
downside to having a larger range. So, let’s say I want to do 30 to 80 versus 50 to 80. Does the 12
landlord, if they can’t discriminate based on somebody’s income and they were to go to Alta 13
Housing’s list. They wouldn’t be able to cherry-pick and say I want to pick… like sure, this is 30 14
to 80 is the range for the program and obviously, I would prefer to take the person who’s at 80. 15
They would just… if the landlord went to Alta Housing’s list, they would just get whoever’s 16
there at the top of the list. Even if it happens to be somebody who’s 30 percent. 17
18
Mr. Yang: So, again, I guess there could be a variety of ways that the program is set up but for 19
the most part. The rent is going to be set… the maximum rent is going to be set regardless of 20
the characteristics of the tenant. So, it’s not going to matter what the income is of the tenant or 21
the size of their household. It’s going to be based on the income ranges that we identify and the 22
size of the unit. 23
24
[Note – Commissioner Chang and Ms. Tanner started talking at once] 25
26
Commissioner Chang: Ok but if we determine a larger range then it’s probably going to be a 27
lower rent? 28
29
Mr. Yang: Yeah, you know if we’re targeting the middle of a range. The larger the range, the 30
lower that amount is going to be and then the impacts will be about attractiveness of the 31
program overall. 32
33
Commissioner Chang: Thank you. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: I was wondering if Staff might be able to bring up that chart they 38
sent around last meeting with the 2020 BMR rents. I think that would aid this discussion to put 39
some sample rents up there. So, I’m looking at the chart right now and for studio, 1-bedroom, 40
Page 103
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
2-bedroom, the prices are… there’s a pretty stark difference. So, I don’t know if that would help 1
us define a range but it sounded like some of the questions were trying to visualize that. So, for 2
example, a studio at 50 percent is $1,383, 80 percent is $1,964. In that chart, you may be able 3
to find it by searching your email from Rachael. 4
5
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, I need to bring it up in a minute. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton: So, anyway, looking at this, I feel comfortable… somebody else had 8
up there 50 to 100. I’d be comfortable with that. You know, I recognize the hour is getting late 9
so I just want to cut to the chance and let you guys know that I still think that in Palo Alto, 120 10
maybe where we have to go to get to incentive people. But right now, we’re trying to 11
recommend a policy that will not just be good for those that are developing the ADUs but for 12
those who might be living in them. So, I think I’d be comfortable with 50 to 100. Thanks. 13
14
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I think the… in terms of this range and this whole discussion. I think 17
the point that Assistant Director Tanner made was very important in material here which is it’s 18
one unit from one homeowner for one tenant. It’s not that they’re going to put a mix of various 19
people into 24-units and I think that the whole issue here in the last two long meetings is to 20
figure out how to get some affordable units in there. So, forcing some percentage that’s at 30 21
percent instead of 80 percent seems kind of contrary to that. So, overall in the City, I think we 22
need a lower range than what I suggested but I think we have to be realistic about this one 23
person. 24
25
And the other reason I’m comfortable at 100 is that as some point when they are able to get 26
beyond that. Then they’ll move on to something that’s a little bit nicer perhaps and then 27
somebody else can come in. So, there could be some very positive turnover at that. 28
29
And then while I have the floor, just a process point, we could consider Chair having a short 30
discussion on this since we are heading towards midnight. And then we could just put the five 31
ranges that are on the table from five Commissioners as where we’ve ended up. So, that they 32
realize that it’s not unanimous which is fine and we may even want to do that on the next item 33
so just an idea. That’s all thanks. 34
35
Chair Hechtman: Alright, so Ms. Tanner, can you… when we last discussed this you had pulled 36
up a table… actually, maybe it was Tim Wong who was here. Pulled up a table that showed our 37
progress toward our current RHNA numbers. Do you remember that table? 38
39
Ms. Tanner: Mr. Sauls has that table I believe. Garrett, do you want to show that? Thank you. 40
Page 104
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Mr. Sauls: So, let me just start by pointing out that statistically the area of greatest need in this 2
City is measured by our pursuit of these RHNA numbers is moderate. It's moderate housing. 3
That has a little bit more than half of the low and very-low housing that Palo Alto has been able 4
to produce since 2014. And part of the reason is that those low and very-low categories are 5
pursued by affordable housing… 100 percent affordable housing builders and I thought the Staff 6
report did a pretty good job of explaining that. And so, my concept is we should be targeting 7
the area of greatest need which is the moderate housing. That’s the… that’s where we can… we 8
should focus this and that does two things. One, it serves our area of greatest need, and two, it 9
creates the best incentive for somebody to actually pull the trigger and do this. 10
11
Now if we can go back to that schedule of rents. So, if I’m going to build an affordable… if I’m 12
considering building an affordable unit and you tell me I might have to accept rent of $1,383 for 13
my studio. I might get $2,478 but I might only get $1,383 depending upon who’s next in line. 14
I’m not going to bite. That’s just… that’s the reality. Again, if I’m a… if I’m altruistic, I don’t need 15
this program that we’re talking about tonight. I’m just going to do it out of the goodness of my 16
heart. But everyone else, they’re bottom-line oriented and its… the question for them is how 17
much pain can in endure before it’s just not worth it. And I’m going to go build a BMR that’s no 18
deed-restricted and I’m going to charge more than $2,974 for that studio because I can. 19
Because the market will pay me $3,500 or whatever. So, my question for Staff and I’m sorry to 20
have to re-ask it from the last meeting, but that moderate category on the last table that was 9 21
percent. My memory was that that equated to 80 percent to 120 percent AMI. Am I miss 22
remembering? 23
24
Mr. Sauls: That’s correct. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: So that was why when you see the table of where each of us is. That’s why I’m 27
at 80 to 120 percent AMI. That’s where I think we should fall because it serves the so-called 28
missing middle, it will provide housing that’s not there now, and it gives the greatest incentive 29
financial incentive for somebody to actually do this. Commissioner Templeton? 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I just did some non-scientific surveying of what current 32
rents are in Palo Alto and they’re hitting around that 120 level. And I understand we’re in the 33
somewhat unusual timeframe where rents are depressed but just to throw that out there. That 34
is currently market-rate-ish through like I said a non-scientific survey. Just looking at what’s out 35
there so that’s one reason I’m a little bit more comfortable coming down to 100. You know, I 36
am concerned that if we include the 50 level, it will be too low for mom and pop folks who 37
might want to put… sorry, might want to put ADUs in their own property so I’m sympathetic to 38
that. Ultimately, we do have… I like Commissioner Lauing’s suggestion of showing that there’s a 39
bit of a diversity in our range, but I think we should also come up with a range of where we 40
Page 105
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
overlap at least and show that some Commissioners were hoping for to include a little bit lower 1
and somewhere hoping to include a little bit higher. But it is important that the difference 2
between nine and 15 is not that material to me. We need all of those housing, the below-3
market-rate housing so it doesn’t push me to just laser target the middle for this. And there 4
may be a case where we do have… you know I’m thinking about grant… the traditional granny 5
unit or the student unit as it’s not been reversed. More and more students are coming home 6
but we may have people that want to rent to their loved one who is a very low-income category 7
and it might be ok. We don’t know but I don’t think it’s so outrageous to think that we could fill 8
those, but whether it pencils out, you know that’s an excellent point Commissioner Hechtman 9
[note – Chair Hechtman]. So, it's complicated, that’s what we’re here to work through and 10
come up with recommendations for. So, I don’t think I would go above 100 based on what I’m 11
seeing out there right now. I think 100… in order to get these incentives, I mean not that people 12
shouldn’t build but if you want these incentives. We want to push that number towards the 13
lower incomes. Thank you. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 16
17
Commissioner Chang: I think that was really well said, Commissioner Templeton. My own 18
unscientific data also points to the rent being out there right now very much at around 120 19
percent. I was a few years ago remodeling pre-pandemic and looking for a 2-bedroom 20
apartment to temporarily house my family and it’s… the numbers I was coming up with, 2-21
bedroom 3-bedroom where around that 120. And so, because of the incentive that we have on 22
the books, which is pretty significant. The one incentive that is a significant dollar amount that 23
we have on the books right now that we already voted on earlier tonight was to waive the 24
Development Fees and waive the Plan Review Fees. That has a value of I’m going to say on 25
average $15,000 or something like that. So, that helps people get up a little higher, and then if 26
you take the additional data that we had about the area median rent being charged for an ADU 27
of $2,200. Then I think it seems to make sense that like I think 100 percent AMI is a good top 28
level. 29
30
I am concerned that when I look at the differential down to 50 percent, that’s quite a lot and 31
we’re not giving them that much. It’s not going to make up for that. That’s a big difference so 32
I’m concerned that going down to 50 might be too low. 33
34
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 35
36
Commissioner Summa: Oh, I was just going to mention that in looking at on Craig’s List and I 37
know this is not scientific but we don’t… I don’t have another way to do it. I feel like the 120 38
AMI really is almost, on this chart, more than what you can get. I mean you can get a studio for 39
a lot less than $2,974 in Palo Alto so and even $2,478. 40
Page 106
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
I mean that’s my concern and I think Commissioner Templeton did state it well. Is… and I 2
don’t… I mean I don’t know why anybody is going to do this except out of the goodness of their 3
heart. I think people that really believe in having below-market-rate housing or people that 4
really like I said want to choose somebody that they know to help out. 5
6
And then I just think… I even think 80 is more appropriate at a top just because then you’re 7
really getting to where you are helping people at lower-income levels. And I’m just more 8
comfortable with that because that’s what we’re calling this. 9
10
Chair Hechtman: So, I would… based on what I’ve heard I would support a motion for a range of 11
80 to 100 percent and we may have a majority of the Commission that is comfortable with that 12
range. Commissioner Lauing. 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: I would take your suggestion and put it into a motion if you’re ready to 15
go there. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Do you want to make that motion? 18
19
MOTION #9 20
21
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, that we stay with a range of 80 to 100 percent for the ADU 22
affordable housing units. 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Commissioner Templeton: Second. 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton, was that you seconding? Thank you. Commissioner 29
Lauing, do you want to speak to your motion? 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: No, I think it’s all on the table and everybody said really good comments 32
on this. Thanks. 33
34
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton, your second? 35
36
Commissioner Templeton: Sorry, Chair I can’t hear you but I assumed you asked. I don’t have 37
any comments. Thank you. 38
39
VOTE 40
Page 107
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Hechtman: Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no hands, may we have a roll call vote? 2
3
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 4
5
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 6
7
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 10
11
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 14
15
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 16
17
Commissioner Summa: No. 18
19
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 20
21
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 22
23
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 4-1 with two Commissioners absent. 24
25
MOTION #9 PASSED 4(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton) -1 (Summa) -0 (Alcheck and 26
Roohparvar absent) 27
28
Chair Hechtman: Alright we are down to our last item which is duration. Length of time for the 29
deed restriction. Staff recommendation is 15-years minimum I think is what my notes say. Who 30
would like to lead off the discussion? Alright… Commissioner Templeton, thank you. 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: In the absence, I’m just going to throw out some thoughts I have. I 33
haven’t really come to a conclusion but hopefully, this will get the juices flowing as we do want 34
to come to our conclusion. So, what I’m thinking about is by the time you have the funds to 35
create an ADU like this. What’s your timeline for being able to remain on the property or 36
remain owning a property and so I started thinking about it in terms of mortgages and things 37
like that. I probably… I think some of these commitments are not necessarily the rest of your 38
life for that so I don’t know. I feel like 15… I wouldn’t go less than 15 but I probably wouldn’t go 39
up to 30. So, I was thinking maybe 15 or 20 is kind of where I’m coming to. Just thinking about 40
Page 108
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
the commitment and the lifeline horizon and things like that. So, that’s where I’m kind of at, 1
and looking forward to your thoughts as well. Thank you. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Lauing. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: I’m really concerned about this one because as I mentioned in the last 6
time that we took up this item. You know we don’t want to be creating temporary affordable 7
housing here. This is a problem that’s going to be with us and getting worse and worse by the 8
decade. So, I don’t see what we would want to reverse the longer durations of this. Particularly 9
with the incentives that we’re starting to give the folks. So, I’m not particularly persuaded by 10
the comments from at least one or two people on the architectural group who say that other 11
residents want a 15-year. I mean I get that but the idea here isn’t to sort of just grit out for a 12
few years until you can start charging really obscene market rates. So, I’d really rather stay at 13
the high end while recognizing that we want to do something here to get these units up. So, I’d 14
come off a 30 but I’d be like 25 is where I am at this point. 15
16
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Summa. 17
18
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. Given that earlier tonight, I don’t know if it was Mr. Yang or 19
Ms. Mascarenhas, reminded us that regular deed restrictions are 55- to 99-years. So, I’m pretty 20
comfortable with 30 and I think it’s reasonable. I agree with Commissioner Lauing that we don’t 21
want a temporary situation. I mean and you know I was kind of thinking about it in terms of 22
mortgages too and many people have a 30-year mortgage. That feels right to me but I’m 23
interested in what everyone else… I’m interested in all of the thoughts around this issue. 24
25
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang. 26
27
Commissioner Chang: I go back to what we’ve actually approved and in terms of the benefits 28
that we’ve approved. So, if whoever is driving the chart can scroll back up to the roman 29
numerals. Really the only thing that we’ve approved is the exemption from Impact Fees and 30
Plan Review Fees. And I think that had we been talking about things like basements and 1,200-31
square foot ADUs. I would have been more interested in a longer-term, like a longer duration, 32
but now I mean it’s just not going to pencil out. I just don’t see how this is… let’s even say that 33
the value of the exempt Impact Fees that we’re giving is $30,000, but you’re taking a $500 a 34
month haircut on the rent that you can charge. Over the course of a year, that’s over $5,000. 35
So, then let’s say you get a $30,000 benefit. You after 6-years your benefit is gone and I’m not 36
doing MPV analysis and all that discounting but just the rough back of the envelope there. 37
38
So, at the same time, I really hear what Commissioner Summa and Lauing have said about this 39
kind of you don’t want to create temporary affordable housing because there’s also real people 40
Page 109
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
living in these places. And I know so many people who find affordable housing and stay there 1
for a long time. It’s not… I think we heard earlier from the Alta Housing representative that it 2
doesn’t typically change year to year and so I’m sensitive to that also. So, I don’t know what the 3
right answer is on this. I don’t think I would go shorter than 15 but I also don’t think that we’re 4
going to see much creation because of the benefits that we’re offering are not significant 5
enough. It may be that affordable housing… I mean that ADUs are not the answer. 6
7
Chair Hechtman: So, my analysis is similar to Commissioner Chang’s, although my conclusion is 8
a little different. Today I can build a 1,000-square foot ADU and I can charge what 9
Commissioner Lauing has just described as obscene rents. I can do that. I can do that 10
completely consistent with the laws of Palo Alto. So, what we’re discussing tonight is what 11
would it take for me to lower my expectations for rent for some period of years and now we 12
can look at the menu of things that we have decided that we’re going to give. And we’re going 13
to give one step instead of a two-step garage, although maybe if I wait a little bit longer I can 14
get that on my non-affordable ADU. And I can… this reconstruction issue in my hypothetical 15
doesn’t apply to me because I’m building new. I get exempted Impact Fees and maybe that’s 16
$30,000, maybe it’s more; $40,000. And I don’t get much more than that and so for me, the 17
duration is critical and why… it doesn’t take long to not pencil out. And so, I’m… given the list of 18
recommendations that we have come up with as incentives, I’m… I don’t believe anything more 19
than 10-years will get anyone to bite and I have no fear or concern about transition because if 20
we could get 20 affordable ADUs for just 1-year, that’s better than not having 20 affordable 21
ADUs for that year. Every ADU we get for even year that’s affordable is a win and again, I think 22
the way this will work is if we get five of these a year, I don’t know what’s realistic, if we get five 23
of these a year and that just keeps happening every year, yes, after my 10-years, the first five 24
will drop out, but five new ones will be added and so we’ll always have this 50-units throughout 25
the City that we don’t otherwise have. 26
27
So, I’m going to encourage my fellow Commissioners to think small on this particular item 28
because I think it’s the only way… I think this… a big number here can just wipe out all the rest 29
of the recommendations because no one will do it. Commissioner Lauing? 30
31
Commissioner Lauing: Sorry, it’s a ghost hand. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: Oh, ghost hand. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: Sorry. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: Ok. So, Commissioner Templeton? 38
39
Page 110
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Templeton: Are we ready to make a motion or should we go another round? I… 1
because I can’t see the other Commissioners so if you can see them Chair? 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Yeah so if… it sounds like Commissioner Templeton would be ready to make a 4
motion. If somebody wants to say something first, raise your hand. I’m not seeing any hands. 5
Commissioner Templeton, go for it. 6
7
MOTION #10 8
9
Commissioner Templeton: I move that we set the length of time the unit must be affordable to 10
15-years, Staff recommendation. 11
12
Chair Hechtman: There’s a motion for 15-years. Is there a second? 13
14
Commissioner Chang: Can I make… can I just… I would second it if I can make a small 15
amendment to it. 16
17
Commissioner Templeton: Let’s hear it. I’m open to that. 18
19
Commissioner Chang: So, it would be 15-years for these specific exemptions that we’ve 20
outlined tonight, and the reason I say that is because I don’t know how the ordinance is going 21
to be drafted. If we then later on subsequently add all sort of other exemptions. I’m not sure 22
that 15-years would be appropriate for something that’s really big. If that makes any sense, like 23
if later on we’re… so for (interrupted) 24
25
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah, yeah. 26
27
Commissioner Chang: So, for… I would be ok with 15-years for the current list of exemptions 28
that we have. 29
30
MOTION #10 AMENDMENT AND RESTATED 31
32
Commissioner Templeton: Move Staff recommendation of affordability for ADUs for 15… for a 33
minimum of 15-years based on the above recommended or the existing recommended perks. 34
Should have said better way to say perks. 35
36
Chair Hechtman: Incentives. 37
38
SECOND 39
40
Page 111
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Chang: Second. 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: Incentives, thank you and Staff can annotate this to say that if those 3
change than the duration… then Council should also consider changing the duration. 4
5
Chair Hechtman: Alright we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Templeton, do you 6
want to speak to your motion? 7
8
Commissioner Templeton: It seems to be kind of the center of mass for the discussion that 9
we’ve been having and I think is that the median, median number? I can’t remember. It's one of 10
those but it's in the middle so I thought we’d go for it and Staff recommended it and they do a 11
lot of research so thanks. 12
13
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Chang, your second? 14
15
Commissioner Chang: Sure. I am of the mind for many of the other incentives to have a much 16
longer duration required but for this one because it’s a purely… I mean for the items that we’ve 17
discussed. It’s pretty much a purely financial benefit that people are getting and also based on 18
the rental income numbers we’ve seen. I just don’t see that it’s a benefit possibly even at 15. 19
So, I think that that’s a very conservative duration to choose for these incentives. 20
21
Chair Hechtman: Other comments on the motion? I will say that I’m going to vote no for really 22
the reasons I explained. I think 10-years is the right number. I might have been tempted to vote 23
at 15 if a majority of the Commission had supported the 1,200-square foot ADU, the initial 200-24
square feet as an incentive. Then I would feel more comfortable that some builders of ADU 25
might go for it, but with the incentives that we have listed, I think 15-years is going to be too 26
long and we won’t see anybody joining the program. Commissioner Summa. 27
28
Commissioner Summa: Yes, I’m also not going to be supporting this but for a different reason 29
than Chair Hechtman and that is that I don’t think… I don’t have a lot of faith this is going to 30
get… be a very successful program because I think that the people that want to… I think the 31
only people that want to get less money on a rental are people that truly believe in the 32
philosophy behind it. And I don’t think they will want to use this program to deed restrict their 33
houses. I think they’ll just do it in an informal way. I don’t think the incentives… I don’t think 34
any of them really were huge incentives. I mean exempting the fees is probably the biggest one 35
and I just think I don’t have any way of knowing whether there’ll be this constant 50-units just 36
cycling in and out. That seems very uncertain to me so I would have… if we’re doing this I would 37
have preferred having it be a meaningful effort and not just pretending that we’re providing 38
some affordable housing. So, I would have preferred a longer-term. 39
40
Page 112
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
VOTE 1
2
Chair Hechtman: Any other Commissioner comments on the motion on the floor? Seeing no 3
hands Mr. Nguyen, will you conduct a roll call vote? 4
5
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 6
7
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 8
9
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 10
11
Chair Hechtman: No. 12
13
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: No. 16
17
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 18
19
Commissioner Summa: No. 20
21
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 22
23
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 24
25
Mr. Nguyen: Ok, the motion does not carry. 26
27
MOTION FAILED 2(Chang, Templeton) -3(Lauing, Hechtman, Summa) -2(Alcheck and 28
Roohparvar absent) 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Commissioners Lauing or Commissioner Lauing, do you want to… well, since 31
the motion didn’t carry. I don’t know that we need people to speak to their no votes. I think we 32
can move forward to see if there’s another motion. Commissioner Lauing or Commissioner 33
Summa, would one of you want to make a motion? 34
35
Commissioner Summa: Commissioner Lauing has his hand up. 36
37
Chair Hechtman: He does, Commissioner Lauing? 38
39
Page 113
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing: I was just going to say that we seem to be at opposite poles and you had 1
a reason for voting no that was tied to a piece of business that we already said no to. And the 2
difference between where this motion was and where a couple of other of us were are pretty 3
wide. So, I guess I’m back to where I was before of just kind of leaving it as it is and just sending 4
it along to Council that way because we’re all recorded in the minutes. They’re going to… this is 5
one of those things that’s going to be very controversial at Council and with the public I think. 6
And so, it will get a lot of discussion and I’m not sure that it’s very productive for us at almost 7
midnight to try to recreate the motion since we’re so split. 8
9
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner Templeton. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: I agree with Commissioner Lauing. We did attempt the middle 12
ground there and now I think we should… I would I think. I can’t tell if that was a motion. 13
Commissioner Lauing, if you wanted to recommend or to make no recommendation on this but 14
to extend along our preferred ranges to the Council to inform them. If that was your motion I’d 15
happily second it. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: I wasn’t intending it that but however you… everyone thinks the process 18
should work. I’m ok with it. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton: Sure, me too. I have noted that we don’t have our duration 21
suggestions in the chart. Maybe that’s a good place to start if we want Council to have that 22
information. 23
24
Commissioner Lauing: Yep. 25
26
Chair Hechtman: I do think that’s a good idea so. 27
28
Ms. Tanner: Commissioner Lauing, would you put yours at 25-years? 29
30
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, we’re just checking how well you took notes. 31
32
Ms. Tanner: And Commissioner Summa, would you say 30? 33
34
Commissioner Summa: Yeah 25, 30, something along those lines. 35
36
Commissioner Chang: It’s a memory test. 37
38
Ms. Tanner: Commissioner Chang, I will put you at 15 since you supported the motion. Would 39
that be appropriate? 40
Page 114
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Chang: That’s fine. 2
3
Ms. Tanner: I don’t remember what Commissioner Alcheck said long ago so he’ll have to be 4
blank for now. 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: Alright, do we need to move? Do we need to make any motion to 7
close out this item Chair? 8
9
MOTION #11 10
11
Chair Hechtman: That’s a question I actually have for our Staff. Do we need a motion that we 12
have no majority making a recommendation? 13
14
Mr. Yang: Yeah, I suppose technically that would be ok but given… that would be preferable but 15
given that’s its midnight I think we’re fine. 16
17
Chair Hechtman: Well let’s go the extra mile if it’s preferable frankly. I just stated a motion. 18
19
SECOND 20
21
Commissioner Chang: I second. 22
23
Commissioner Lauing: What was it? 24
25
MOTION #11 RESTATED 26
27
Chair Hechtman: That the Commissioner was unable to reach a majority on a recommendation 28
for a term and are numbers are reflected in this document that they will see. 29
30
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, yeah, I think it needs the second part. 31
32
Chair Hechtman: And I heard multiple seconds but I didn’t see (interrupted) 33
34
Commissioner Chang: I seconded, yeah. 35
36
Ms. Tanner: Recorded and just read it back the second part. So, Commission unable to reach a 37
majority regarding the duration of the affordable term, and Council to consider the ranges that 38
PTC discussed which would be what I captured in the chart. 39
40
Page 115
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Lauing: Perfect. 1
2
VOTE 3
4
Chair Hechtman: Alright, any discussion on that? No. Mr. Nguyen, another roll call vote. 5
6
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Chang? 7
8
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 9
10
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Hechtman? 11
12
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 13
14
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 17
18
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 19
20
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 23
24
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 25
26
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 27
28
MOTION #11 PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa, Templeton) -0 -2(Alcheck and 29
Roohparvar absent) 30
31
Chair Hechtman: Alright, thank you, everyone. Let’s move to approval of minutes. 32
33
34
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Chang. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 35
Roohparvar absent) 36
Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Lauing. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, Roohparvar 37
absent) 38
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Summa. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 39
Roohparvar absent) 40
Page 116
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Hechtman. Carries 4-1 1
(Summa against) (Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 2
Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lauing. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 3
Roohparvar absent) 4
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Summa. Carries 3-2 (Chang, Hechtman 5
against) (Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 6
Commission Action: Motion by Lauing, seconded by Templeton. Carries 4-1 (Summa against) 7
(Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 8
Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Chang. Fails 2-3 (Hechtman, Lauing, 9
Summa against) (Alcheck, Roohparvar absent) 10
Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Chang. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck, 11
Roohparvar absent) 12
Approval of Minutes 13
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 14
3. May 26, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes 15
Chair Hechtman: We have May 26 draft minutes as revised by the Chair. Can I have a motion to 16
approve? 17
18
MOTION 19
20
Commissioner Summa: So, moved. 21
22
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. May I have a second? 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Chair Hechtman: Is everyone too tired to second? 27
28
Commissioner Chang: I’ll second. 29
30
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. Roll call vote, please. 31
32
Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Commissioner Chang? 33
34
Commissioner Chang: Yes. 35
36
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Hechtman? I mean Chair Hechtman? 37
38
Chair Hechtman: Yes. 39
Page 117
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 4
5
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? 6
7
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 8
9
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Templeton? 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 12
13
Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 5-0 with two Commissioners absent. 14
15
Chair Hechtman: Thank you. 16
17
Commission Action: Motion by Summa, seconded by Chang. Carries 5-0 (Alcheck and 18
Roohparvar absent) 19
Committee Items 20
Chair Hechtman: Are there any Committee items, Commissioners? I see no hands. 21
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 22
Chair Hechtman: Commissioner questions, comments, announcements or future agenda items? 23
Commissioner Templeton. 24
25
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I wanted to ask Staff if there are agenda items for the 26
14th or if that meeting is being canceled? 27
28
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: There is an agenda item for the 14th. It will be a study 29
session regarding the Palo Alto Bikeways Project from the Office of Transportation. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: Ok, thanks. 32
33
Chair Hechtman: I guess my related announcement is right here above my head. It’s the 34
connected Palo Alto bikeway which from what I understand, last I heard grand opening is July 35
26th. Yea. Anything further from Staff? No. Commissioners? 36
37
Page 118
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: Just a reminder of our canceled meetings at the end of July and August and then 1
we’ll be back on the I think it’s August 25th. Whatever the last third Wednesday in August is. 2
3
Chair Hechtman: Alright, well thank you everyone for a really great discussion on some very 4
detail-oriented topics tonight. We are adjourned. 5
Adjournment 6
12:03 am 7