Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-08 Planning & transportation commission Summary Minutes_______________________ 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 8, 2022 2 Virtual Meeting 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 Approximately 6:02 pm 7 8 Chair Lauing called to order the Planning & Transportation Commission meeting for June 8th, 9 2022 and requested Roll Call. 10 11 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant gave roll call and established there is a quorum. 12 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Planning and 13 Transportation Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency 14 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, provided directions on how members of the public 15 can join the hybrid meeting as well as how to provide written and/or spoken public comments 16 and conducted the roll call vote and announce all Commissioners were present. 17 18 MOTION 19 Commissioner Hechtman moved adoption of the resolution. 20 21 SECOND 22 Vice-Chair Summa seconded. 23 24 VOTE 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. 1 Ms. Klicheva conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion passed 7-0. 2 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Summa, Roohparvar, Templeton) 7-0-0 3 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Summa. Passed 7-0 4 5 Oral Communications 6 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 7 Chair Lauing invited members of the public to provide comments on any matters not on the 8 agenda. 9 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, reported there were no public speakers. 10 11 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 12 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 13 Chair Lauing asked if there are any agenda changes, additions or deletions. 14 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, stated there are no proposed changes from Staff. 15 16 City Official Reports 17 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 18 Jonathan Lait, Director, provided the Director’s Report to the Commission. On Monday City 19 Council made a resolution on the Castilleja project, the second reading of the ordinance with 20 City Council is scheduled for the 20th of June. Staff is working on changes to the record of land-21 use action at the request of City Council. In addition, City Council approved the Working Plans 22 for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board (ARB) and 23 the Historic Review Board (HRB). The City Council adopted the Objective Standards Ordinance. 24 They will be adopting the budget for next fiscal year on June 20th, and they will recess beginning 25 the end of June. Director Lait requested PTC members be sure to let staff know of their vacation 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. dates when known so staff can track any lack of quorum for future meetings during the 1 summer. 2 Chair Lauing gave a brief summary of his explanation of the Work Plan to City Council. Most of 3 PTC’s work is sourced by Law and City Council and explained the new additions to PTC’s Work 4 Plan which includes the importance of robust community engagement in a forum, the traffic 5 study sessions for public response on areas of high concern, and how PTC created a structured 6 framework for planning the future of Palo Alto established and new neighborhoods as the 7 Housing Element goes into effect. Chair mentioned to City Council there is a lot of reference to 8 staffing in the work plan and that falls under City Council’s control. Chair Lauing was pleased 9 with the feedback and comments from Councilmembers, and they overall were very pleased 10 about how PTC spelled out the importance of PTC for a public forum. Council comments about 11 the traffic study leaned on the side of they wanted to see it get done, not just talked about. 12 Council would like to see PTC do what they can to get the shuttle started and work on the Bike 13 Plan. The Mayor mentioned PTC could look at helping restaurants and parking relative to the 14 adjustment that is taking place with restaurants. Councilmember Filseth urged that the city 15 needs a quantitative analysis on demand for parking. 16 Commissioner Hechtman inquired when the Parcel Map Lot Split with the four cottages will be 17 heard at City Council. 18 Director Lait responded he believed it would be in August. 19 Seeing no questions, Chair Lauing moved to Item Three. 20 21 Action Items 22 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 23 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 24 3. 2023-31 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 25 26 Tim Wong, Senior Planner gave a presentation outlining the Housing Element Goals, Policies 27 and Programs for 2023-31. Mr. Wong explained staff has prepared a 2-meeting session for PTC 28 to review, discuss and provide feedback on Housing Element Program requirements so staff can 29 receive PTC direction for the Housing Element draft programs. The hierarchy of the relationship 30 between goals policies and programs is a goal is an end condition statement. The Housing 31 Element requires goals, policies and programs and the policies are some of those position 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. statements of how the city will move towards implementing or enacting those goal. The actual 1 implementing items that will be used to achieve that goal are the programs, which go to 2 Housing and Community Development (HCD) review from the state to then be certified. The 3 Housing Element goals are the required program categories that must be touched upon in the 4 Housing Element for preservation of existing housing stock. Affordable housing development 5 provides adequate sites for all types of housing, removal of constraints and/or how to increase 6 housing production, specifically housing for persons with special needs. Fair Housing is a new 7 State requirement. The first goal addresses the category of conservation and preservation of 8 existing housing stock, the second goal assists affordable housing development. The third goal 9 provides adequate sites for a variety of housing types which supports, holistic and strategic 10 Housing Development with a variety of housing prices, types, tenures to meet the diverse 11 needs of all current, and future residents. The comments from the Housing Element Working 12 Group were incorporated into these goals. The fourth goal addresses the removal of constraints 13 for increasing opportunities for housing, this is more to the goal of increasing housing 14 production in the city. The fifth goal matches the fifth category which is housing for persons 15 with special needs which includes seniors, female-headed households, persons with… both 16 intellectual or developmental disabilities, both physical and intellectual, large families. The sixth 17 goal for the city is to proactively affirmatively further fair housing, which is a proactive stance 18 required by the State to promote equal opportunity for all housing types and for all residents. 19 Housing Element programs is an actual government statute which mandates jurisdictions must 20 have programs in their Housing Element to incorporate or implement their stated goals and 21 must include specific actions needed to implement the goals, policies and objectives listed in 22 the Housing Element and each program must have a definitive time frame. All of our programs 23 must meet legislation, but also considers community input and feedback. Some of the programs 24 that will be discussed in this meeting are not complete with data, the document is a work in 25 progress, however staff is looking for PTC feedback for what staff has proposed up to this point. 26 While reviewing Attachment A, there are programs that identify adequate sites when 27 appropriate, with appropriate zoning that directly addresses a State requirement that we have 28 to have adequate sites to meet our RHNA for all income levels, under that specific State 29 requirement, staff included all those proposed programs which touch on that particular 30 requirement. The program number, language, implementing criteria in there, the time frame, 31 who's going to do the rezoning for adequate sites, and the funding source is listed below. The 32 target population and the implementing objective, rezone information to be able to provide 33 adequate sites to meet the City's to meet the City's RHNA and a reference to show what this 34 program is addressing is included. 35 Chair Lauing explained the format for reviewing the information would start with Commission 36 questions for staff, public comments, and a report from the ad-hoc committee. From that point 37 the Commission will decide what is reviewed and discussed at this meeting versus the 2nd 38 meeting and then shift into discussing the objectives and programs. 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 Reckdahl asked if the special needs category was defined by the City or State. 1 Mr. Wong answered the State. Each city can define beyond the state requirements but the core 2 category and requirements for the Special Needs category is State defined. 3 Commissioner Hechtman asked Mr. Wong to explain the penalty for not meeting the May 2023 4 deadline for HCD certification of the Housing Element, and inquired if Palo Alto is conferring 5 with other Cities in the area. 6 Mr. Wong explained the city could not apply for any state housing funds, not having a certified 7 Housing Element could leave the City open to potential lawsuits by the HCD, some low-income 8 housing groups, or the community at large. Additionally, the Housing Element is one of the 9 mandated parts of the Comp Plan so it could potentially invalidate the Comprehensive Plan 10 also. Jurisdictions in Santa Clara County meet on a regular basis to discuss Housing Element 11 strategy and staff are reviewing certified Housing Elements from Southern California, 12 understanding that those programs have been approved by the State and could potentially be 13 appropriate for Palo Alto. 14 15 Vice-Chair Summa asked the reason for the 90-day and the 60-day review, does anything 16 change between the 90-day review period and the HCD comments. 17 18 Mr. Wong explained the 90 and the 60 days are our statutory, and HCD has two review periods 19 as part of the entire Housing Element update. The 90-day is their initial review and will provide 20 a number of comments, typically on the Housing Element. The 60-day review is to make sure 21 the jurisdiction has addressed those comments provided during the 90-day, and any other 22 programs or discussions the City has with the State during that time to make sure those are 23 addressed during that 60-day review. 24 25 Chair Lauing stated there were no other Commission comments and moved on to public 26 comments. 27 28 Steve, resident, thanked staff and the Commission for their work on the Bay Shore project and 29 suggested staff begin conversations with Stanford for potential lots for the site inventory and 30 parking lots should be used for mixed use and not just affordable housing. Some of the projects 31 being heavily debated due to height requirements need to be considered due to the amount of 32 RHNA expectations have tripled and thus far the site inventory didn’t fulfill the fifth cycle, let 33 alone the new requirements as set by the State. 34 35 Gene Snyder, a Stanford University representative, requested the City adopt a more holistic 36 planning approach to the current housing sites proposed in the Stanford Research Park and 37 pause on stipulating very specific design standards and inclusionary housing levels until 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. feasibility studies can be completed. Stanford appreciated City staff consolidating the Stanford 1 housing sites in one aggregated program which made it easier to see all of those perspective 2 sites in one place. They request that in lieu of individualized, parcel by parcel development 3 standards, that the City staff consider an overlay with consistent parameters that can 4 collaborate on introducing housing in the research park in a much more holistic and connected 5 way. Stanford's interest is ensuring housing is not just planned, but built and realized, and 6 concerned about prematurely stipulating specific design requirements at this stage of the 7 Housing Element that unwittingly render housing unfeasible to build at the numbers that are 8 identified for these sites. Another area of concern is with the inclusionary housing percentages 9 stipulated for the Stanford sites. Prescribing affordability percentages now seems premature 10 when the City has identified a Housing Element program to study feasible, inclusionary housing 11 percentages for rental communities. A request was made to delay stipulating an inclusionary 12 housing on any Housing Element sites, including Stanford's, until after the city completes its 13 planned feasibility analysis and adopts a citywide inclusionary ordinance for rental housing. 14 15 Hamilton Hitchings, member of the Housing Element Working Group, recommended develop 16 affordable housing over the transit center, and public parking lots to address below market 17 shortfalls and tie more up-zoning and developer bonuses to affordable housing. In addition, 18 properties on 300 and 3128 El Camino should require a higher percentage of affordable housing 19 in exchange for the 75-foot height limit. For housing above City-owned parking lots, the City 20 should require 75% of those units to be affordable with a focus on very low- and low-income 21 categories. Because the city is providing the land and should do so in conjunction with State 22 grants, this is one of the few opportunities to provide very heavily subsidized housing, since 23 land is so expensive in the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Hitchings also recommended only exempting 24 development impact fees for BMR housing that is 80% of AMI and below. Due to time 25 constraints, some of the programs in the Housing Element packet were never shown or 26 discussed with an HEWG. This included the renaming of the R-1 designation to something more 27 permissive, increasing the height by an unspecified amount for mixed-use projects, and the 28 housing, the HIP removal of transition heights and removal of retail requirements for HIP. City 29 Mayor Pat Burke said he is concerned Stanford is getting off easy. Even proposed renegotiating 30 the development agreement that allows Stanford to build more office building in SRP. Instead, 31 it was suggested Palo Alto put some teeth into the program to guarantee Stanford commit to 32 build its fair share of housing for the next RHNA cycle on Stanford lands under CERT City 33 jurisdiction. 34 35 Chair Lauing closed public comments and requested a report out from the ad-hoc committee. 36 37 Commissioner Reckdahl stated the ad-hoc just scratched the surface and have had some good 38 discussions. They've learned a lot but haven't got any specifics about sites or programs and 39 there's a significant amount of additional material that they need to cover. 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. 1 Commissioner Chang commented the ad-hoc met twice, the first time was much more of a 2 process overview and the second time they began the review of programs through 2.2. The 3 Meeting Packet seen here is a little different from what the ad-hoc was shown and, there's 4 been additional work by staff that has been put in to the 1.X programs. The ad-hoc did not go 5 through the goals and policies in great detail and focused most of their time and effort on the 6 program specifically because that's likely where HCD is going to be having the most scrutiny. 7 8 Director Lait commented in the pre-meeting they reviewed through program 3 and staff has 9 made revisions since the ad-hoc meeting to include incorporating the ad-hoc comments 10 through program 1.6. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman provided comments on typo and format changes of the document 13 and stated the way Staff tied in the information together in the slide presentation would be 14 helpful in the document, make it more linear with the information from the policies, goals and 15 objectives listed as they pertain to each other. 16 17 Commissioner Chang stated she doesn’t believe it’s linear because some of the programs cross 18 over into multiple goals and objectives. 19 20 Vice-Chair Summa stated she agreed with Commissioner Hechtman suggestion because it is 21 consistent with the way the Comprehensive Plan reads. 22 23 Director Lait stated the headings for the programs we done to be consistent with the State 24 requirements to make it easier for HCD to go down the list for compliance compatibility during 25 their review. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman suggested if the headings can’t be added, possibly renumber the 28 programs to make it easer for HCD for cross-referencing the goals and policies. 29 30 Director Lait agreed, and commented staff will incorporate the renumbering for cross-31 referencing. 32 33 Commissioner Reckdahl inquired how Palo Alto balances giving firm commitments to the State 34 with actually being responsible and doing due diligence in investigating potential issues with 35 some of the programs. 36 37 Director Lait replied there are areas that will need feasibility studies in order to get all the 38 information needed to move forward with a program. 39 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. Mr. Wong stated they can craft the language and programs to study and explore options when 1 it comes to development standards, continue with the feasibility study, yet explore and develop 2 options to bring back to PTC and Council for consideration. 3 4 Commissioner Chang began a discussion of Commissioner Hechtman’s suggestion of using “in-5 kind” and “compact infill” and the liabilities with being that specific. 6 7 Albert Yang, City Attorney, suggested the use of compact without infill development would 8 likely be efficient. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman agreed the use of “in-kind” could possibly be misinterpreted and 11 suggested staff consider other ways of making that clearer without using “in-kind”. 12 13 Vice-Chair Summa commented there is a lot of crossovers in the first three goals. They state a 14 lot of the same things and it's good because staff is trying to cover lower-income housing, 15 however, the program suffers from redundancy as well. 16 17 Commissioner Chang and Commissioner Reckdahl both stated program 1.1 was not 18 particularly controversial. 19 20 Commissioner Reckdahl requested Director Lait explain the State penalties for not meeting 21 below market rates. 22 23 Director Lait explained that applies to State Bill 35 and there are penalties for missing your 24 affordable targets and we are subject to that today because the RHNA expectations are so high. 25 If Palo Alto doesn’t meet their target rates, the City will be in jeopardy of losing density bonus 26 inclusions which would ensure the City doesn’t meet their RHNA requirements. Staff has 27 worked into the inventory site a higher percentage required as a buffer in case a project that is 28 expected for example for lower-income housing falls through, which is brought up in Program 29 1.2 for no net loss. Program 1.2 deals with the City planning for more RHNA than was assigned. 30 This is the 10% increase beyond the regional housing needs. If a housing opportunity site gets 31 developed with something other than housing or with few housing units, over time, over the 32 planning horizon of the eight years, staff would make sure Palo Alto has a surplus planned for 33 that, so the City doesn’t fall below what is expected for RHNA. 34 35 Commissioner Chang explained Program 1.3 is modifying the code to be consistent with State 36 Law. 37 38 Mr. Wong added there are 16 carryover sites so the By Right provision will apply to 16 sites on 39 the housing inventory. 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. 1 Chair Lauing commented he didn’t believe the Housing Element Working Group (HEWG) or City 2 Council discussed transitional on parking lots. 3 4 Director Lait agreed and replied staff will revisit that and make the necessary corrections. 5 6 Vice-Chair Summa commented it would be more appropriate to use public property for lower 7 income housing. 8 9 Director Lait added The reason you might want to include private enterprise in that 10 development is so that you can actually build more structured parking to support downtown 11 too. 12 13 Commissioner Reckdahl commented using public property for 100% affordable could be 14 construed as segregational. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton commented that if it were written into the program that the City 17 retains the right to the property, they could develop the land how they would like. 18 19 Director Lait stated that Program 1.5 pertains to developing housing on church parking lots, 20 however the problem with that is there hasn’t been any resolution on how to replace the 21 parking spaces for the churches. 22 23 Commissioner Hechtman suggested sweetening the deal for developers that if they were to 24 retain the parking spaces they would get more bonuses from the City than what the State 25 requires. 26 27 Commissioner Chang and Commissioner Templeton provided ad-hoc comments regarding 28 Program 1.6. There was substantial discussion however, nothing was resolved. Commissioner 29 Chang pointed out differences in numbers and requested explanation from staff. 30 31 Director Lait explained staff did make some changes, on Item A there seems to be support 32 conceptionally for that, which is 3000 El Camino Real, this is Palo Alto Square, this is not a 33 housing opportunity site. With respect to B) and C) and the 20%, 20% is a big change from 15%, 34 and a significant impact… it doesn’t preclude that from being something that staff implements 35 as zoning is changed. The inclusionary standard may be 20%, but even at 15% Palo Alto is still 36 yielding a fair number of units. For item C), the McDonald’s site, staff did have 20% on that one 37 originally because it was modeled in part after a planned home zoning application that was filed 38 next door at the fish market and that application came in at about 50 or 55 feet, and 39 approximately 130 units, and that one would have necessarily needed to meet the 20% 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. inclusionary requirement to qualify for a PHC and so in the first draft presented to the ad-hoc, 1 staff include that 20%, however after the conversation with the ad-hoc, they weren’t confident. 2 That’s not the case for letter D) where staff does have the 20% and that’s because Item D does 3 reflect the planned home zoning application that was filed with the City and reviewed. After 4 having conversations with that lease holder, that project is still one that still has some potential, 5 but they are pursuing their office project at this time. The two projects are not exclusive of each 6 other. There was a change from what the working group had seen and what the ad-hoc had 7 seen which mostly reflects staff’s attempt to balance the issues that they are trying to balance. 8 9 Vice-Chair Summa commented it is difficult to differentiate between the requirements because 10 the descriptors are not consistent as they relate to height, densities and Floor Area (FAR) and 11 this section should be rewritten to be clearer. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman suggested keeping B, C and D and adding an item F which recognizes 14 the potential to be more flexible with zoning parameters. 15 16 Chair Lauing agreed with Commissioner Hechtman and commented he felt the discussion was 17 moving in a specific design direction which is was not the goal of the this review. 18 19 Director Lait stated the percentages used were based on the projects that are currently being 20 built and a feasibility study would definitely be necessary for property that has not yet been 21 considered for zoning changed for residential use. 22 23 Mr. Wong explained Program 2.1 is about affordable housing program, as opposed to the BMR 24 program, which is where the City collects fees for the housing trust fund to fund to provide 25 financial assistance to 100% affordable housing projects. 26 27 Chair Lauing inquired if this was for 100% affordable housing. 28 29 Director Lait stated it does not have to be. 30 31 Mr. Wong commented it should be 100% affordable. It’s very difficult to fund a project that 32 could be 75%, or primarily affordable housing, staff had some of those discussions with the 33 Working Group, and yes, it’s 100% and he can clarify that. 34 35 Commissioner Roohparvar commented this program could use more specificity regarding the 36 source funding and the Gap funding of 100% affordability. 37 38 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if staff could clarify where the funding comes from. 39 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. Mr. Wong commented no, with any commercial development, any net new commercial square 1 footage gets charged a commercial housing impact fee and the City takes those funds to 2 provide the gap financing, in addition currently, yes Palo Alto has a 15% inclusionary but that’s 3 only for ownership developments right now, if you propose a multifamily rental development, 4 you also pay a fee. 5 6 Chair Lauing questioned the clarity of item B under 2.2 and suggested whether that’s by 7 geographical area in town or by neighborhood, staff should be clearer to show what they mean. 8 9 Mr. Wong advised Program 3.1 speaks about fee waivers and adjustments, and staff are looking 10 at in support of affordable housing to waive certain fees for those directly related consultants 11 trying to reduce some of those carrying costs or construction costs, development costs for 12 affordable housing for implementing Objective A and to encourage ADU production to exempt 13 ADU’s from development impact fees if they have an affordable period for low income. 14 15 Commissioner Roohparvar commented State Law exempted all ADUs from development 16 impact fees, and questioned in what scenario would State Law not apply to the ADU. 17 18 Director Lait replied not all ADU’s were exempted from development impact fees, I think 19 there’s a square foot threshold. 20 21 Mr. Wong added only ADU’s that are only 750 square feet or below that are exempted from 22 impact fees. 23 24 Commissioner Chang expressed concern of funding sources and adding a sentence to 25 incorporate making up for lost revenue. 26 27 Vice-Chair Summa would like to see more clarity surrounding the 10-year limit for 80% AMI. 28 29 Commissioner Reckdahl is concerned that concerned that 10 years for the City looking for 30 affordable housing is really short. And possibly consider an exit fee. 31 32 Mr. Wong commented staff could look into that and possibly make that a requirement in the 33 deed restriction that it would need to be occupied. The City could guarantee that residence is a 34 low income and that it’s being rented at a 80% AMI rent level, those type of things. 35 36 Commissioner Chang reminded the Commission that prior conversation regarding who would 37 manage the ADU’s was a bit of a sticky conversation and suggest a feasibility study be done. 38 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. Mr. Wong explained Program 3.2 pledges to HCD that Palo Alto will look at their development 1 standards on a consistent basis to see how those new standards are working and adjust 2 accordingly if that development standard doesn’t produce the desired result. 3 4 Director Lait explained Program 3.3 the city has already met items A, B and C and D fine tunes 5 the requirements for A, B and C. 6 7 Programs 3.4 and 3.5 were skipped due to lack of data acquired. 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman requested clarity be provided under Program 3.4 on Packet page 32, 10 objective E. 11 12 Mr. Wong explained Program 3.6 looks at limiting certain number of Public Hearings, also 13 looking at what potential permit applications can be done at the administrative level, and in 14 addition to formalize a procedure to provide some free technical services prior to submittal of 15 the application. Director Lait answered questions about the current processes and how this 16 changes those processes. 17 18 Mr. Wong explained 4.1 just requires replacement of low-income units and also add 19 commercial development would have to replace housing in expansion of the SB330 20 requirements. Currently SB330 does not require replacing those units for commercial, future 21 commercial development. 22 23 Program 4.2 provides renters with more information that empowers them to take actions 24 against landlords who do not keep the building up to code. 25 26 In response to Commissioner Chang’s question about Program 4.3, Mr. Wong explained the City 27 only dedicate CDBG funds to the City’s rehab program, but this is something that staff could 28 supplement with, for example, the State has come out with a few additional sources through 29 the parcel tax programs. 30 31 Commissioner Chang requested the language be more concise regarding State Grants. 32 33 Director Lait explained Program 4.4 is a broader program requiring seismic upgrades of 34 vulnerable housing stock and staff has a budget request in this budget cycle for funding for that 35 program. If this is something that is supported by the City Council later this month, staff might 36 be able to advance starting next year. 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman requested the ad-hoc go through Program 6.10 regarding rent 39 stabilizations because that is something he will want to discuss at the meeting on the 29th. 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. 1 Approval of Minutes 2 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3 6. March 9, 2022 Draft Summary Meeting Minutes 4 MOTION 5 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the March 9, 2022 draft summary minutes as 6 revised. 7 SECOND 8 Vice-Chair Summa seconded. 9 VOTE 10 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 11 passed 6-0. 12 MOTION PASSED 6 (Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) – 0 - 1 13 (Roohparvar absent) 14 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Summa. Passed 6-0 (Roohparvar 15 absent) 16 7. March 30, 2022 Draft Verbatim Meeting Minutes 17 MOTION 18 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the March 30, 2022 draft verbatim meeting 19 minutes as revised. 20 SECOND 21 Commissioner Chang seconded. 22 VOTE 23 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 24 passed 5-0. 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. MOTION PASSED 5 (Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Templeton) – 1 - 1 (Roohparvar 1 Absent/Summa Abstained) 2 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Chang. Passed 6-0 (Roohparvar absent) 3 8. May 11, 2022 Draft Verbatim and Summary Meeting Minutes 4 MOTION 5 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the March 9, 2022 draft verbatim meeting 6 minutes as revised. 7 SECOND 8 Vice-Chair Summa seconded. 9 VOTE 10 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 11 passed 6-0. 12 MOTION PASSED 6 (Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) – 0 -1(Roohparvar 13 absent) 14 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Summa. Passed 6-0 (Roohparvar 15 absent) 16 Committee Items 17 None. 18 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 19 Chair Lauing announced there is only one meeting in July on the 13th and the ADU Ordinance 20 revisions will likely take place in August, if it still happens. 21 Chair Lauing adjourned the meeting. 22 Adjournment 23 10:13 pm 24