Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-31 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: May 31, 2023 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:02 pm 7 Chair Summa welcomed everyone to the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation 8 Commission (PTC). 9 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Assistant, conducted the roll call and announced all 10 Commissioners were present. 11 Oral Communications 12 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 13 Chair Summa invited members of the public to share their comments with the Commission on 14 any item not on the Agenda. 15 Ms. Liz Gardner referenced the joint meeting recently held between the City Council and the 16 PTC. She requested the Commission clarify what the PTC Commissioner’s point regarding the 17 City providing a subsidy on utilities for low-income folks meant. She believed providing a 18 subsidy for utilities was only subsidizing the cost of extraordinary energy costs, not housing 19 costs, and that providing that subsidy was not enough. She recommended the Commission 20 receive more education on fair housing. 21 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 22 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 23 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, stated there were no changes from Staff. 24 City Official Reports 25 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 26 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, noted City Council on Monday, June 5, 2023, would 27 continue their discussion on the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance, the Fire Arm 28 Ordinance as well as begin discussions on the Rental Housing Stabilization Ordinance. Coming 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. up for the Council’s June 19, 2023, were several items on their Consent Calendar that may be of 1 interest to the Commission, but did not require PTC representation. She requested 2 Commissioners to inform Staff of any meetings they miss during the summer months. 3 Mr. Rafael Rius, Senior Transportation Engineer, announced the Middlefield and Lincoln Road 4 Section Analysis was nearing completion of Staff’s review and would be published within the 5 next two to three business days. Staff would hold the community meeting for that analysis in 6 the third week of June. Upcoming Office of Transportation items to be discussed at PTC was the 7 Crescent Park Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned the left turn light at some stop lights was turning green 9 even with no cars. 10 Mr. Rius predicted the detection infrastructure was not working properly and invited folks to 11 report that to the City using the 311 services. 12 Commissioner Templeton appreciated the update that Caltran’s El Camino Real repaving 13 project will begin in Palo Alto after the sewer upgrades. She mentioned some asphalt patches 14 had been installed in South Palo Alto and that was very much appreciated. She requested Staff 15 inform the Commission of any way they can encourage further re-paving work to be done on El 16 Camino Real. 17 Study Session 18 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 19 2. Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 20 Commissioner Lu informed the Commission and the public that he would be recusing himself 21 from the item due to his home being within 500-feet of the North Ventura area. 22 Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, Planner, explained the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan in November 23 of 2017 which included a policy regarding establishing a Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) in the 24 North Ventura area. Goals and objectives were adopted in March of 2018, a working group was 25 established in April of 2018 and they forwarded alternatives for PTC consideration in March of 26 2021. In January 2022, the Council endorsed the preferred plan with further refinements made 27 to the plan in late 2022. Based on those refinements, Staff drafted a planning document which 28 the PTC was to consider and provide recommendations to City Council. During this timeline, 29 Staff continued to receive development proposals called pipeline projects, and pipeline projects 30 were not required to adhere to the NVCAP (North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan). Staff 31 conducted robust community engagement that included community workshops, working group 32 meetings, stakeholder meetings, and online surveys. Provided in an attachment to the Staff 33 Report was a summary of the components of the plan that are required by the Municipal Code 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. and how the plan is compliant with the Municipal Code. Also, attached in the Staff Report were 1 the six goals and six objectives of the NVCAP and how the plan is consistent with the goals and 2 objectives identified by the Council. 3 Ms. Marc Agnes, Perkins & Will, shared the NVCAP area including 60 acres that were bounded 4 by Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road to the north, El Camino Real to the west, Lambert 5 Avenue to the south, and the Caltrain rail to the east. The area was within a half-mile distance 6 from the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The Council endorsed plan included flexible 7 frameworks for land use, ecological, urban form, and a mobility network. One key component 8 of the plan was building heights and this allowed buildings to range in height between two and 9 five stories. The taller buildings were envisioned to be along El Camino Real and the east side of 10 Park Boulevard. A minimum 15-foot ceiling height is required for the ground floor in mixed-use 11 buildings and the building height was expected to transition down near the lower-density 12 residential areas. The plan envisioned 530 residential units to be built within the 20-year 13 lifespan of the plan. Parcels currently zoned commercial would become mixed-use zoning and 14 the plan included provisions that allowed limited new office space up to 5,000-square feet per 15 parcel. With respect to the adaptive reuse of the historic Cannery Building, any adaptive reuse 16 was to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and additional analysis may 17 be required to determine the feasibility of the proposed use. An implementation action was 18 included within the plan document that directed Staff to explore within the first year after the 19 adoption of the plan the nomination of the Cannery for the California and/or National Register 20 of Historic Places or Palo Alto’s historic inventory. With respect to ground floor edges, the 21 highest proposed concentration of retail was to be located along El Camino Real with smaller 22 concentrations along Park Boulevard, Lambert, Page Mill, and Ash. Ground floor spaces are to 23 be designed in a way to accommodate a wide variety of commercial spaces, cafes, maker 24 spaces, co-working spaces, and professional services. The plan also called for the naturalization 25 of Matadero Creek. This included new habitat areas, a channel that could mitigate a 100 year 26 floor event, and recreational trails within the 2.5-acre public park around the creek. 27 Mr. Ah Sing explained the NCVAP land use designation and Municipal Code zoning designation 28 crosswalk table. They showed the connection between the plan and how the plan would be 29 implemented in the Zoning Code. The maximum height in the NVCAP was 55-feet with a range 30 of Floor Area Ratios (FAR). Staff would return to PTC at a later time to discuss in depth the 31 proposed zoning permitted uses and Development Standards. With respect to environmental 32 review, Staff was preparing a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that tiered from 33 the Comprehensive Plan. Staff anticipated the release of the environmental document to be in 34 late summer of 2023. For the next steps, a study session was to be held with the Architectural 35 Review Board (ARB) and Historical Resources Board (HRB) in the coming weeks. Then 36 subsequent follow-up study sessions with the PTC and ARB. Afterward, Staff would return to 37 PTC for recommendations to be forwarded to Council later in the year. In conclusion, staff was 38 seeking confirmation that the project was substantially consistent with the Council’s endorsed 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. plan, substantially met the stated goals and objectives, and that the plan met the requirements 1 for CAPs stated in the Municipal Code. 2 Chair Summa invited Commissioners to ask clarifying questions of Staff. 3 Commissioner Templeton was excited to see the project moving forward. She noticed the 4 diagram of El Camino Real included bus lanes and asked if those were included in the plan, or 5 placed there as an oversight. 6 Mr. Ah Sing remarked no improvements were envisioned for El Camino Real. 7 Commissioner Templeton mentioned she’d love to discuss with Staff and Caltrans, a future 8 meeting, options for the parking lane along El Camino Real. If the parking lane is turned into bus 9 lanes, she asked where would the parking be for the proposed retail spaces. Also, discussion 10 must take place about sidewalk improvements if El Camino Real were to become a retail area. 11 Mr. Ah Sing suggested in the Implementation Chapter include a list of items that should be 12 explored. 13 Commissioner Templeton loved that idea. 14 Commissioner Reckdahl referenced Packet Page 161 and asked about the implementation of 15 the mobility hub. 16 Ms. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager, answered the mobility hubs concept 17 was new for Palo Alto. She envisioned a concept that co-located all the various mobility in one 18 area. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl liked the idea but was concerned about the amount of area that 20 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations take and the availability of space on the street. 21 Ms. Star-Lack restated the idea was still in the conceptual stage, but predicted the areas would 22 have various configurations. 23 Commissioner Hechtman requested Staff explain in more detail what they were seeking from 24 the Commission with respect to the Code requirements. He stated that the plan must be 25 consistent with the City’s General Plan. 26 Mr. Ah Sing referenced Packet Page 205 which was an attachment that detailed what the Code 27 requirements were. 28 Commissioner Hechtman understood Packet Page 205 showed consistency with the Municipal 29 Code but not the General Plan. 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. Mr. Ah Sing concurred there must be consistency between the NVCAP and the General Plan. 1 Also, a finding must be made about any Zoning Amendments in that they are consistent with 2 the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Mr. Albert Yang, City Attorney, confirmed the NVCAP must be consistent with the City’s General 4 Plan. 5 Vice-Chair Chang remarked the Sobrato proposal for the redevelopment of the Cannery 6 Building had indicated that with all the changes being proposed for that project. The Cannery 7 Building would no long be historically eligible or could be adaptively re-used. She asked why the 8 NVCAP recommended Staff continue to seek out historical designation and adaptive reuse. 9 Mr. Ah Sing answered there was uncertainty about whether the Sobrato project would 10 continue to move forward. The NVCAP had been a community-based plan from the beginning 11 and Staff continued on that path so as not to base the plan on a specific project. 12 Mr. Yang added the Sobrato project explored adaptive reuse for residential projects and found 13 that was infeasible. It was not explored whether other uses could result in adaptive reuse. The 14 Sobrato project was still going through the City process and had not been approved. 15 Chair Summa opened public comment. 16 Ms. Liz Gardner stated the City had suffered since the plan began in 2017 in terms of wildfires 17 and COVID. Folks were just now catching up to what was happening within the City again. She 18 wanted to know more about the residential units and if the plan considered the acreage to be a 19 cultural area of diverse and varying populations. Also, she wanted to know how the NVCAP 20 connected with the updated Housing Element. She found the project to be a once-in-a-lifetime 21 opportunity for the City to embrace housing in an equable way with high-quality units that 22 encompassed all ages, all abilities, and all incomes. She wanted to see the area be a place for 23 homes, businesses, and people, not just for profit. 24 Ms. Lauren Bigalow, Board President of Palo Alto Renters Association, believed NVCAP was a 25 plan that would bring Palo Alto back to an innovative and productive City in terms of affordable 26 housing. She supported the proposed plan and believed it was following the right direction the 27 City should be moving in. She emphasized that renters do care about the development of 28 housing and affordable housing. 29 Chair Summa closed public comment and returned to the Commission for discussion. 30 Chair Summa mentioned she was a member of the NVCAP Working Group and thanked the 31 Staff for the proposed plan. She appreciated the proposed bicycle and pedestrian plan for Park 32 Boulevard. With respect to the office, while she supported the proposal, she recommended the 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. office be specified for neighborhood-serving uses. With respect to PF zones, she found it 1 appropriate to have only 100 percent affordable housing projects be allowed on those sites. 2 She was hoping for a mix of unit sizes because the City was lacking in family-sized units and she 3 recommended that be emphasized in the NVCAP. Through personal research, the City had 461 4 housing units approved or pending in the NVCAP area and she found that interesting when 5 including that with the Housing Element sites. She wanted to see if the plan required, not 6 encouraged, active uses on the ground floor. She referenced Packet Page 136 and asked how 7 buildings heights would impact the existing low-density residential homes in the area. 8 Mr. Ah Sing explained all projects were required to adhere to the City’s existing Objective 9 Standards regarding transitions, step-downs, and step-backs for projects located near low-10 density residential. 11 Chair Summa recalled the Objective Standards retained the Daylight Plane, but no longer 12 included the transition zone that described a prescribed distance between the larger building 13 and low-density residential. 14 Mr. Ah Sing explained the properties along El Camino Real were 150-feet deep. Specifically, for 15 NVCAP, the buildings were allowed to go up to 45-feet in height. 16 Chair Summa restated that if there was a standard distance buildings must comply with it when 17 adjacent to low-density residential homes. 18 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, noted the Objective Standards were applicable in 19 specific zones. 20 Mr. Ah Sing added that projects that fall under State Law Density Bonus would be allowed an 21 additional 33-feet above the base zoning district. 22 Chair Summa summarized that buildings with a 45 to 55-foot height could have an additional 23 33-feet if they invoke the Density Bonus Law. 24 Mr. Ah Sing confirmed that was correct. 25 Vice-Chair Chang asked how affordability was defined in the State definition for 100 percent 26 affordable housing. The definition outlined in NVCAP defined it as 80 to 120 percent average 27 median income (AMI). 28 Mr. Yang answered up to 120 percent of AMI. 29 Vice-Chair Chang asked if the Daylight Plane Standard was required for Density Bonus Projects. 30 Mr. Yang answered no, the Daylight Plane provision would not apply. 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 Templeton summarized that the diagram on Page 107 was misleading. It did not 1 represent edge cases such as all the projects being 100 percent affordable housing and having 2 heights up to 88 feet. She requested multiple diagrams be drafted to show the community what 3 the build-out may look like in different scenarios. 4 Chair Summa wondered if Council understood they were approving a plan that could build up 5 to 88-foot buildings that had no truly affordable units. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl referenced Packet Pages 16 and 66 and asked what NV-PF stood for. 7 Mr. Ah Sing explained the new zone included a 1-acre portion that was for a 100 percent 8 affordable housing site located across from the Cannery. 9 Commissioner Reckdahl asked what the difference in zoning was between NV-PF and PF. 10 Mr. Ah Sing restated that the difference was the 100 percent affordable housing project. 11 Commissioner Reckdahl referenced Packet Page 199 and inquired why the preferred plan 12 allowed new ground for small professional offices but the draft plan had removed that 13 language. 14 Mr. Ah Sing explained Staff, at the time, was considering amortization of the space, but quickly 15 realized that would be too complicated. 16 Commissioner Reckdahl wanted the draft plan to limit office to neighborhood-serving office. 17 Mr. Ah Sing appreciated the feedback. 18 Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned three Commissioners were on the NVCAP Working Group 19 and the top three priorities for the Working Group were to prioritize housing over the office, 20 commit to building affordable housing and improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. The 21 Working Group was supportive of having cafés, dentists, and other neighborhood-serving 22 offices, but not tech offices. He mentioned the grid structure proposed in the plan and recalled 23 the neighborhood wanted that for pedestrians and bicycles, but not vehicular traffic. He 24 recommended that be highlighted in the document that the grid structure was for pedestrians 25 and bicycles only. He moved back to the table on Packet Page 16 and noticed the FAR limits 26 were listed but it did not specify what percentage of mixed-use was office and what percentage 27 was housing. 28 Mr. Ah Sing explained more specificity on that point would be discussed at the follow-up 29 meeting. 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. Commissioner Hechtman understood the State Density Bonus Law had been in existence for a 1 while. 2 Mr. Ah Sing confirmed that was correct. 3 Commissioner Hechtman asked how many qualified State Density Bonus Law projects did the 4 City approve. 5 Mr. Yang added the State Density Bonus Law provision that provided the extra 33-feet was 3 or 6 4 years old and the project located at 3001 El Camino Real was approved with the extra height. 7 Commissioner Hechtman inquired how tall that project would be. 8 Mr. Yang answered no. 9 Commissioner Hechtman remarked if the City wanted to avoid the risk of losing the Daylight 10 Plane due to the bonus 33 feet then allowed building heights along El Camino Real would have 11 to be 12-feet tall. The reality was it was not easy to build 100 percent affordable housing and he 12 predicted a full build-out of State Density Bonus Law projects was unrealistic. He requested 13 Staff to bring forward a more realistic scenario that identified the number of affordable housing 14 projects they predicted would be located along El Camino Real. He asked how many new 15 residential units were forecasted for the NVCAP in the new Housing Element. 16 Mr. Ah Sing understood there were opportunity sites located in the Housing Element in the 17 NVCAP area and the plan was consistent with the projected unit yield. 18 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to understand the relationship between the unit yield in the 19 Housing Element and the unit yield proposed in the NVCAP. 20 Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned on Packet Page 50 it said the Housing Element had 21 identified 15 properties in the NVCAP and the unit yield was 348. 22 Commission Hechtman stated that must be considered because you cannot overbuild the 23 Housing Element and he requested Staff return with more information. He referenced Packet 24 Page 62 and noticed the office square footage was proposed to be reduced by 278,000-square 25 feet and retail square footage was projected to be reduced by 7,500. He understood that while 26 office would be phased out of the area, new office could be allowed in various pockets of the 27 NVCAP area. 28 Mr. Ah Sing answered yes, the office was to be decreased to build more residential. 29 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned the retail square footage was being decreased because 30 the Fry’s site was no longer going to be retail. 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. Mr. Ah Sing confirmed that was correct. 1 Commissioner Templeton referenced Packet Page 63 and noted there was a lot of office space 2 on the block where Fry’s was located. She asked if the project at 3001 El Camino Real was 3 Mike’s Bikes. 4 Mr. Ah Sing believed that was correct. 5 Commissioner Templeton noted that the site was in the plan but was not reflected in the 6 diagram. 7 Chair Summa recalled 3001 El Camino Real was a truly affordable housing project with an AMI 8 range of 30 to 60 percent. That is a very different project that received a bonus and deviations 9 from the City’s code than any future proposed 120 percent AMI projects. 10 Commissioner Templeton agreed but did not believe that made a difference to the folks who 11 would lose light from high-rise buildings. She encouraged the Commission and Staff to consider 12 how much high-rise buildings will impact nearby low-density residential homes. 13 Vice-Chair Chang agreed with many of the comments made by Commissioner Reckdahl and 14 Chair Summa made, in particular about community-serving retail. With respect to how the 15 NVCAP and the Housing Element tied together, she understood the Housing Element was an 8-16 year plan and the NVCAP was a 20-year plan. With that said, it made sense that the Housing 17 Element unit yield would be lower than the NVCAP because one plan was longer than the 18 other. She also was concerned about the potential heights and the impacts on the existing low-19 density residential homes nearby. She predicted the current residents in the neighborhood 20 would not agree that the plan was consistent with the goals and objectives highlighted in the 21 NVCAP document with respect to proposed height limits. Especially if the 88-foot building was 22 at 120 percent AMI because housing that met the affordability guidelines was not affordable in 23 Palo Alto. The City must present all implications to the community and identify mitigations for 24 negative impacts. 25 Mr. Yang mentioned that 100 percent affordable projects almost always going to be utilizing 26 funding sources that require 60 percent affordability. He noted he was not aware of any 27 projects that could do a 100 percent affordable project at the 120 percent of AMI because 28 there was no funding available. 29 Vice-Chair Chang understood that any funding source would have its requirements for 30 affordability, but there were examples of 120 percent of AMI for studio units that equated to 31 the market rate in Santa Clara County. 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. Mr. Yang commented that the workforce housing project in the City had units at 140 percent to 1 150 percent of AMI. Typically, rental projects did not have 120 percent of AMI. 2 Commissioner Akin seconded Commissioner Reckdahl’s comments about the proposed grid 3 structure. The Comprehensive Plan EIR identified an increase in traffic congestion and the 4 Housing Element EIR indicated the Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVT) was not going to decrease 5 either. The City must understand it will have to plan for a substantial increase in traffic City-6 wide. With that said, a fully connected street grid for vehicular traffic was not a good idea. 7 Mr. Ah Sing clarified the plan was not proposing additional streets, but adding additional 8 pedestrian grid connections. 9 Commissioner Akin referenced the pipeline projects and their drastically different designs than 10 envisioned for the NVCAP area. He wondered if developers believed that the NVCAP plan was 11 economically attractive. That factor was not addressed in the NVCAP document before the 12 Commission and he asked if there was a plan to provide additional economic analysis. 13 Mr. Ah Sing remarked Staff would provide an economic feasibility update because there was a 14 significant change in State Law regarding the elimination of underground parking. 15 Commissioner Akin commented the Sobrato project proposed relatively low townhouse-type 16 construction in which the City preferred more density. He requested Staff provide more details 17 about economic feasibility at a future meeting. 18 Commissioner Hechtman appreciated Commissioner Akin’s comments regarding economic 19 feasibility. He mentioned the issue of economic feasibility was a concern of the Commission and 20 the Commission had asked Staff to provide a financial feasibility study for Alternative 2 and 21 Alternative 3 in 2020. The study identified Alternative 2 had a shortfall of $130 million, 22 Alternative 3 had a shortfall of $37 million, and Alternative 3B was supplied that was self-23 sufficient. Alternative 3B was the recommendation the PTC forwarded to Council, which later 24 chose Alternative 1 with modifications. The consultant highlighted at the PTC meeting that one 25 item that drove the cost was the required underground parking. Now, State Law has changed 26 and was no longer allowing City to require the underground parking which dramatically 27 affected the previous financial feasibility studies. He agreed with Commissioner Akin’s request 28 and suggested the economic analysis show the Commission what the shortfall will be to 29 develop the NVCAP with the current developer fees in place and how the City planned to pay 30 for that shortfall. 31 Chair Summa recalled reading that the City will have to significantly increase utility services and 32 if so, an evaluation of developer fees would be important. 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. Mr. Ah Sing agreed there was mentioned about a water main that may need to be upsized but 1 that depended upon development. 2 Commissioner Hechtman commented if the cost was increased for development, then the 3 developer was less likely to develop the sites, unless those costs could be passed on to the 4 consumer. 5 Chair Summa said the 33-foot additional height for Density Bonus Law did not only impact 6 single-family homes but also adjacent shorter buildings. The City must strongly consider not 7 creating areas in Palo Alto that are completely different in terms of quality of life. Also, the City 8 must understand that the NVCAP, as presented, did not connect North Ventura with the rest of 9 the neighborhood. When the Council reinstated the Planned Community (PC) Zone, the object 10 was to use the zone for housing projects and not to add to the jobs/housing imbalance. 11 Commissioner Templeton commented currently along Lambert Avenue was industrial light uses 12 and that was recommended to be retained. That section of Lambert Avenue was an indication 13 to folks living in the neighborhood that they were outside of the neighborhood and she asked if 14 that disconnect between the two neighborhoods should remain. 15 Mr. Ah Sing clarified the NVCAP envisioned that stretch to be a residential mixed-use 16 neighborhood along Lambert Avenue. 17 Commissioner Templeton stated the plan identified it as medium-density mixed-use. 18 Mr. Ah Sing reinforced that there will be very limited commercial on the mixed-use parcels and 19 it was not envisioned to have those sites be 100 percent commercial. 20 Commissioner Templeton asked if a residence could be built there. 21 Mr. Ah Sing answered yes. 22 Commissioner Templeton suggested the document encourage residential uses over light 23 industrial or medium-density mixed-use. 24 Mr. Ah Sing added that NVCAP anticipated that medium mixed-uses would have a density 25 between 31 and 70 dwelling units per acre with a 2.0 FAR. 26 Commissioner Templeton encouraged Staff to explore further ways to encourage housing. 27 Chair Summa asked if Staff had any more questions for the Commission. 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. Mr. Ah Sing summarized Staff will provide more clarification about the connected grid, provide 1 an update on economic feasibility, showing the transitions between different structures and 2 affordable housing. 3 Ms. French added Staff would bring back data about approved and pending projects. She noted 4 the 3001 El Camino Real project’s proposed height was 59-feet. 5 Mr. Ah Sing noted Staff would return at a future meeting to discuss zoning. 6 Commissioner Templeton stated the plan looked great. 7 Chair Summa appreciated that the plan proposed exploration of making the Cannery a historic 8 resource. She wished the plan discouraged very tall buildings from being constructed near the 9 low-density residential homes and that the plan kept the look consistent with the rest of Palo 10 Alto. 11 [The Commission took a short break] 12 Action Items 13 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minute rebuttal. All 14 others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 15 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to City Council on the Adoption of an Ordinance 16 Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Chapter 9.65, Rental Registry 17 Program, to Establish a Mandatory Registry Program of Rental Units and Provide 18 Feedback on the Rental Registry Program Unit Registration Form. CEQA Status - 19 Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 20 Chair Summa announced Commissioner Lu rejoined the meeting. 21 Ms. Rebecca Atkinson, Planner, introduced several Staff members who worked on the project, 22 including Sheldon Ah Sing, Jennifer Fine, and Minka van der Zwaag. She reported after 23 extensive discussion, on November 29, 2021, the City Council supported the creation of a 24 Rental Registry (Registry). The design and implementation of the Registry was referred to the 25 Policy and Services Committee (P&S) which considered the Registry on December 13, 2022. P&S 26 supported the registry and recommended initial registration of rental units within the City, 27 what information should be collected, and event-based reporting. The Registry will be 28 considered by the Housing Ad Hoc Committee before returning to the Council for 29 consideration. The purpose of the Registry was to learn about the Palo Alto landscape, to help 30 make data-informed policy decisions, to support community awareness of existing renter 31 protections, and support the implementation of the Housing Element’s goals. When 32 implemented, landlords would be required to provide contact information, rental unit 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. characteristics, rent information, and tenancy information and sign an affidavit. For the 1 implementation of the Registry, the City must have an enabling ordinance in the Municipal 2 Code as well as program administration. An ordinance would allow a new chapter for the 3 Municipal Code to be drafted, allow the City to collect rental information, allow the City to 4 collect a cost recovery fee, and other key points. With respect to program participation, P&S 5 recommended the Registry require all rental housing structures to register, including single-6 family homes, multi-family apartments, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)/Junior Accessory 7 Dwelling Units (JADU). P&S also supported that the Registry requires initial registration of rental 8 units, an annual renewal, an affidavit that ensured information was correct, and event-based 9 registration. With respect to penalties, the section created a way to reduce the overall cost of 10 the Registry and it created a penalty waiver process for good cause. 11 Ms. Jennifer Fine, Deputy City Attorney spoke about privacy and the Public Records Act. Privacy 12 was a large concern raised by the community during the community meetings. She explained 13 the City’s records were subject to the Public Records Act (PRA) which meant the records had to 14 be disclosed upon request. There were limited exceptions that allowed the City to withhold 15 records and that included trade secrets and proprietary information, but the City must disclose 16 those records if it was deemed within the interest of the public. PRA did not require constant 17 live sharing of records and records are released only upon request. The City had 10 days to 18 respond to a request and only applied to existing records. The privacy section of the draft 19 ordinance affirmed the City would abide by its obligations under the PRA, but that the City 20 would only publish the sensitive Registry information in the aggregate. 21 Ms. Atkinson presented the draft Rental Registration Form and mentioned the form would have 22 autofill and drop-down menus to make it easier to fill in and promote information consistency. 23 Staff anticipated that the software would be able to bulk upload information for multiple rental 24 units. Also, the great majority of the information would be readily accessible to landlords when 25 the unit is placed on the rental market. The form used the categories identified and approved 26 by P&S. For the next steps, Staff currently was reviewing the responses the City had received 27 for its Request for Proposals (RFP). In the summer of 2023, Staff would complete the RFP 28 evaluation and hold meetings with PTC and the Housing Ad Hoc Committee before returning to 29 City Council in the fall of 2023 for the adoption of the ordinance and approval of the consultant 30 contract. With respect to the Human Relations Commission's (HRC) recent feedback, HRC 31 accepted the basic framework of the Registry as presented by Staff, but they requested Staff 32 address several outstanding issues including the penalty structure, privacy mandates, and fees. 33 Staff was requesting a recommendation from PTC to the City Council on the adoption of the 34 draft Rental Registry Program and feedback on the Rental Registry Form. 35 Chair Summa invited Commissioners to ask clarifying questions of Staff. 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. Vice-Chair Chang asked, as currently drafted, was the Registry trying to capture every rental in 1 the city. 2 Ms. Atkinson confirmed all rental units would have to register. 3 Commissioner Akin inquired if it was intentional to exclude Airbnbs. 4 Ms. Atkinson answered the City currently did not have a policy that allowed short-term rentals. 5 Chair Summa opened public comment. 6 Ms. Leannah Hunt, a resident and practicing realtor in Palo Alto, mentioned as a realtor she was 7 very dismayed with the proposed Registry. During the HRC meeting, the motion was 8 unanimously approved even though four Commissioners expressed concerns about the 9 Registry. The unknown cost of implementing and maintaining the Registry was a big concern 10 and the Registry asked for very detailed personal questions. She predicted the Registry would 11 not reduce rents in Palo Alto but increase them as landlords passed the fees onto tenants. 12 While the City’s downtown Business License Tax had brought in new revenue to the City, it did 13 not entice new services to downtown. The Registry was first considered when the President 14 Hotel was in crisis and the proposed ordinance would not alleviate the City’s need for all types 15 of housing. Many private owners who rent out a small number of units would no longer want to 16 remain in the rental industry if the Registry were approved. She encouraged the Commission to 17 consider all of the ramifications the Registry will have and she reminded the Commission that 18 there were already many sources that could be used to obtain rental data. 19 Ms. Angie Evans commented for 20 years the City has had a Rent Registry and she strongly 20 supported a robust Registry that collected data on all housing types. She firmly believed that 21 tenant protections prevented displacement. Having up-to-date data was very important to have 22 to create the right policy solutions. The City had no verifiable data on rents or renters in Palo 23 Alto. With respect to the concern regarding the cost of the program, California instated 24 Proposition 13 which ensured that any cost from the program would not financially burden a 25 landlord or the tenants. She thanked the Commission for their hard work and encouraged them 26 to recommend approval. 27 Ms. Lauren Bigalow, Board President of the Palo Alto Renters Association (PARA), was delighted 28 to see the Registry moving forward and that the City was putting in so much effort to making 29 the Registry a balanced process. She echoed the previous speaker that the City currently had no 30 mechanism to track rent increases and no data on evictions. Having proper data would allow 31 the City to effectively and efficiently affirmatively further fair housing for almost half of Palo 32 Alto. She expressed strongly that the Registry should not be implemented in a phased process 33 and that the information collected was too detailed. She concluded by requesting that the City 34 quickly implement the Registry as quickly as possible. 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. Ms. Emily Anne Ramos, Silicon Valley At Home, provided a brief background of the fruition of 1 the Rental Registry so far. In November 2021, the City Council approved several rental 2 protections with the top priority being the Registry. The Council understood that to protect 3 tenants, the City needed data-backed information to make informed decisions. She urged the 4 Commission to recommend approval of the Registry to City Council. 5 Mr. Robert Reed understood the City had a problem, but believed the Registry was not the 6 solution. He stated for a small property owner to have to meet a bunch of requirements by the 7 City, that they already had to meet by the County, the State, and the Federal Government was 8 asking too much. He predicted the cost of the program would be passed to tenants because 9 that was the cost of doing business. He mentioned his family had been providing rental homes 10 in Palo Alto for over 60-years and the rents had never been as much as 50 percent of the value 11 of the property. He believed the Registry would become onerous and discourage folks from 12 wanting to provide rental units. He recommended that landlords with four units or less be 13 exempt from the Registry. If the City wanted any investment in rental housing on the lowest 14 level in Palo Alto, the City must protect the small investors. The only solution to the problem 15 was to build more housing, but cities in California continued to decrease in population and the 16 problem may be self-correcting in the long term. 17 Ms. Keri Wagner thanked the Commission for bringing the Rent Registry to the forefront. It was 18 very important to understand what type of inventory was in the city and to know the rental 19 trends. Along with other benefits the Registry would provide, it could also inform the City on 20 transportation planning. She suggested the fees remain low, especially for folks with a small 21 number of units. 22 Mr. Anil Babbar, California Apartment Association, was concerned about the confidentiality of 23 the data from the perspective of the property owner as well as tenants. With respect to cost, 24 the City of San Jose has had a Rent Registry for several years and the rents had stayed below 25 the cap. He echoed the comment that data was readily available and that having a Registry 26 would continue to label Palo Alto as a City that was anti-housing. 27 Ms. Liz Gardner, a renter in Palo Alto, supported the City in its pursuit of a Rent Registry and 28 encouraged the City to pursue rent stabilization. The City had a real problem with respect to 29 unhoused folks and current renters being unable to relocate because of the unattainable rents 30 and unattainable tenant requirements. 31 Mr. Ryan O’Connell, How to ADU, strongly supported the Rent Registry as proposed by Staff. 32 Now was the time to measure, manage and monitor the City’s regulation’s success with a Rent 33 Registry. He recommended the Commission consider the survey work and research provided by 34 Staff to make an informed recommendation to City Council. 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. Ms. Jess Hudson, United Way Bay Area, supported the Rent Registry which would provide 1 community data and prevent housing instability and displacement in Palo Alto. The Registry 2 should be inclusive of all rental units and it would protect the City’s most vulnerable 3 populations. 4 Ms. Anna Toledano, a renter in Palo Alto, thanked Staff for their efforts in drafting the Rent 5 Registry Program. The Registry would provide information not only to the City but to tenants 6 looking for a rental unit. She concurred with the previous comment that the Rental Registry 7 should be implemented as soon as possible. 8 Ms. Amie Ashton wanted to see more support for renters in the City and as a homeowner, she 9 wanted to do her part to protect renters in the City. 10 Ms. Sam Durston, a renter in Palo Alto, shared that very recently his rent was increased by $250 11 and the City needed a Rent Registry to be able to track increases and dispute them 12 appropriately. He shared the concerns about the cost of housing and encouraged the City to 13 provide more dense housing to increase the supply and reduce the price. A Rent Registry was 14 very important for the City to have in order to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 1482 and that the 15 Registry be inclusive of all types of rentals. 16 Chair Summa asked if the Commission was allowed to stop taking more speakers. 17 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, remarked the Commission could close the public 18 hearing. 19 Chair Summa closed the public hearing and noted that there had been no new raised hands in 20 the past 10 minutes. 21 Ms. R. Elysa Gurman shared she currently lived with her family because she could not afford to 22 rent or own a home in Palo Alto. She appreciated Staff’s work on the proposed Registry and she 23 encouraged the Commission to recommend approval to the City Council. She asked if Staff saw 24 in other cities’ Rent Registry’s demographics that were more impacted by evictions. 25 Mr. Ryan Carrigan, Silicon Valley Association of [audio cut out], spoke in opposition to the Rent 26 Registry. The Registry was going to be very costly for the City and a Google search could provide 27 plenty of data on rental units within the City. He concluded that using City resources on drafting 28 and implemented the Rent Registry would be better spent on building more housing in the City. 29 Ms. Edie Keating was proud that Palo Alto was moving forward with a Rent Registry. The City of 30 Mountain View implemented strong renter protections after following rent control in 2016. An 31 involuntary Rent Registry was later implemented in the City of Mountain View but no landlords 32 registered. The City of Mountain View then made the registration required but compliance did 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. not reach capacity until a late registration fee was implemented. A crucial part of a Rent 1 Registry was to have an enforcement mechanism. 2 Ms. Randy Mont-Raynaud [note – phonetics] agreed there would be a cost to have the Registry 3 but there was also a cost of not protecting the more vulnerable folks in the community. 4 Mr. Adam Schwartz strongly supported the Rent Registry and the proposed ordinance. While he 5 owned his home, his adult children were struggling to find a place to live. Now was the time for 6 the City to protect renters. 7 Chair Summa brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. 8 Commissioner Templeton appreciated all the comments made by the public. She began with 9 the form and suggested Staff remove the question asking how many folks were living in the 10 rental unit household. She believed the question may be harmful and suggested the question 11 be phrased such as max number of people intended for the unit. With respect to the burden of 12 filling out the form, rental applications were much longer and she did not believe the form 13 would cause a burden to landlords. She strongly supported the Rent Registry and believed 14 having the information would help the City make more informed data-driven decisions. 15 Commissioner Akin suggested Staff explain why a given item of data was necessary and 16 sufficient for a given goal. That would help Council and the community understand why specific 17 questions were being asked. With respect to privacy, he found the tenancy information a 18 particularly sensitive section of the form. He inquired if the City would have software that 19 automatically did incremental updates. If so, that presented a cybersecurity concern and he 20 recommended Staff consider what information could be aggregated rather than retaining the 21 original information. 22 Vice-Chair Chang supported the Registry and recalled when PTC discussed renter protections. It 23 was very hard to decide on many of the items because there was no data. She acknowledged 24 the burden the Registry may place on landlords as well as the cost being passed through to 25 tenants. Based on public comment, tenants were excited about the Registry and the fee spread 26 over the cost of a year was relatively low given the amount of rent charged in the City. With 27 respect to the form, she echoed the comments made by Commissioner Akin and Commissioner 28 Templeton but believed two sections could be combined as they appeared to be duplicative. 29 Those sections were the amenities and services under Rental Unit Characteristics and Rent 30 Information. She questioned why that information was pertinent, but understood that it may 31 help inform green space, design, and the size of unit decisions. She recommended it be clear 32 that the rental unit size was internal square footage and to clarify the year of the last model 33 question. She mentioned that dormitory-type housing and other types of rental units may not 34 fit precisely in the questions and she suggested Staff consider that with any revisions. With 35 respect to tenancy information and reasons for vacancy, she asked whether that was a for-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. cause vacancy or a without-cause vacancy, and suggested the question be asked in a broader 1 way that did not have a negative ramification. With respect to rental property contact 2 information, she reminded me that not all owners are individuals. Some were corporations and 3 she recommended the question be clarified that a contact person must be listed from the 4 corporation. With respect to rent information, she asked what monthly initial base rent amount 5 was referring to and asked what was the intent behind the question. She agreed it was an 6 important data point, but the City must be very clear on what it was asking. The same 7 clarification needed to be applied to additional non-optional charges and optional charges. 8 Commissioner Hechtman overall was supportive of the Rental Registry but was concerned with 9 several pieces as proposed. He asked Staff what was the number of rental units within the City. 10 Ms. Atkinson answered the running estimate was over 11,400. 11 Commissioner Hechtman recalled the Municipal Code required landlords to offer a 1-year lease. 12 He asked if the Municipal Code required landlords to offer a 1-year lease at renewal. 13 Ms. Fine remarked she needed some time to check the Municipal Code. 14 Commissioner Hechtman commented the City did not have rent control and so there was no 15 law prohibiting a landlord from passing on any costs to the tenant. 16 Ms. Atkinson said the ordinance did not have such a provision, but if added, it would be very 17 hard to enforce. 18 Commissioner Hechtman remarked he was glad such a provision was not in the ordinance 19 because it would be hard to enforce. With respect to the PRA, the form was asking for financial 20 information and he asked if that information was considered to be proprietary. 21 Ms. Fine answered if requested, the City would have to disclose that information to the 22 requester. A provision of withholding proprietary information was that it gained value from 23 secrecy, but that argument could not be made because much of the information was already 24 publicly available. She confirmed a 1-year lease must be offered at the time of renewal. 25 Commissioner Hechtman noted Commissioner Templeton, off mic, mentioned that a tenant 26 was not required to sign a 1-year contract at renewal. With respect to the process, he 27 understood the Registry would not be returning to the PTC and he asked the Commission if it 28 would be interested in having the ordinance and form come back for another review. He asked 29 in cities that had a Rental Registry, did Staff see any impacts on a reduction of rental stock or 30 increased costs. 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. Ms. Atkinson mentioned in the interviews Staff had with other jurisdictions, those questions 1 were not asked. 2 Commissioner Templeton noted there were two public speakers from other cities present and 3 suggested that questions be directed to them. 4 Chair Summa encouraged Commissioner Hechtman to ask his questions of the two experts in 5 the audience. 6 Commissioner Hechtman asked what the City of Mountain View’s experience was with respect 7 to rental stock. 8 Ms. Ramos concurred it took the City of Mountain View a long time to implement its Registry 9 and many scenarios took place that required the City of Mountain View to have a Registry. With 10 respect to trends and patterns, the City of Mountain View made its Registry mandatory in the 11 middle of the Covid-19 Pandemic but the City of Mountain View was able to connect what data 12 it had collected with the eviction data from the court system. That cross-connection indicated 13 that many evictions were happening outside the courts and that many folks were self-evicting. 14 With respect to rent increases, the City of Mountain View saw a decrease in rent but that was 15 mainly due to the Pandemic. 16 Commissioner Lu announced he generally supported the Registry. He wanted to understand 17 how the data would be used, how much of the data would be used for better implementation 18 versus policy development, and what existing policies would be better informed with the data 19 collected from the Registry. If Staff could not provide a comprehensive answer now, he 20 requested it be provided offline. 21 Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, Principle Planner, remarked P&S discussed those questions. Staff drafted a 22 matrix of what policy questions may arise and those were coupled into categories and then 23 placed on the Registry Form. 24 Commissioner suggested Staff investigate ways the City could delay reporting of PRA so it 25 happened at the 10-day mark instead of in real-time. Also, if there was a way to notify property 26 owners that a PRA was requested. 27 Ms. Fine answered there are strict deadlines for the PRA and the City was required to respond 28 promptly. One option was to collect data on a delay but that would result in the City working 29 with outdated data. Staff had not discussed anonymizing the data after the retention period 30 was completed, but predicted that would logistically be difficult to do. 31 Commissioner Lu stated anonymizing the data was not a top priority of his, but was curious to 32 know how it may evolve. With respect to ADUs, he understood why there was support to have 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. a separate policy, but he wanted to see ADUs included in the Registry to have complete rental 1 data. With respect to privacy and cost, he shared that the City of Santa Monica has a very 2 robust rental control and Rental Registry Program. It was not a problem having folks be able to 3 access the Registry and see what other renters were paying for rent. He agreed that passing the 4 costs onto tenants was not something that could be mitigated. The City of Santa Monica 5 allowed landlords to directly pass on 50 percent of the Registry and Rent Control Fees to the 6 tenant. In his personal experience, that was never a problem. He recommended collecting APNs 7 and that may help the City understand sale prices and unit size. With respect to vacancies, he 8 was interested in collecting more data on when the unit may go back onto the market or when 9 the last tenancy occurred. With respect to evictions, he suggested collecting data on what 10 portion of the security deposit was kept, what was the reason for the evictions, and other 11 similar questions. 12 Commissioner Reckdahl stated during the Housing Element update, the City had no data about 13 affordability, rental affordability, and had no idea about what rental folks were not being 14 served. With that said, he strongly supported the Rental Registry but agreed with several of the 15 points raised about privacy. With respect to cost, he reference Packet Page 27 and mentioned 16 having two full-time Staff persons dedicated to the Registry seemed excessive. 17 Ms. Atkinson answered that one neighboring jurisdiction had one Staff person as a percentage 18 and the consultant did all the work. Other cities had their Staff in a Program Manager role and 19 another in an administrative customer service role. 20 Commissioner Reckdahl inquired if the customer service person would help landlords fill out 21 the form. 22 Ms. Atkinson confirmed that was correct. 23 Mr. Ah Sing added the key to the Registry program was to have participation so there must be 24 ongoing outreach. 25 Commissioner Reckdahl agreed if 1 percent of landlords needed help, that added up. With 26 respect to fees, the Staff Report suggested a range of $40 to $200 per unit and he asked if Staff 27 knew where in that range the City was leaning towards. 28 Ms. Atkinson answered the City was actively reviewing proposals for the procurement of 29 software and Staff could not discuss cost information at this time. 30 Commissioner Reckdahl asked what the biggest cost would be. 31 Mr. Ah Sing predicted Staffing will be the biggest cost. 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. Ms. Atkinson added any cost recovery fee or participation fee was a process that would be set 1 by City Council. 2 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if below-market-rate (BMR) units would have to pay the fee. 3 Ms. Atkinson requested some time to review the draft ordinance. 4 Commissioner Reckdahl recommended that BMR and ADU units not pay the fee, but be 5 required to register for the Rental Registry. 6 Mr. Ah Sing mentioned the cost was administrative feedback, not a change in the ordinance. 7 Chair Summa echoed that this was data that was sorely needed in the City and was very 8 impressed by the other Commissioner’s comments regarding the form. She referenced Page 2 9 of the ordinance and asked if the definition of Residential Rental Unit was describing a JADU. 10 Commissioner Templeton explained a JADU was a separate dwelling with a separate kitchen. 11 Chair Summa confirmed they had separate kitchens but asked if that was not something the 12 City wanted to know about in the Registry. She mentioned there were situations in the City 13 where folks were renting out a bedroom and the tenants shared the kitchen with the owner. 14 Ms. Atkinson stated the last sentence in Definition E intended to not capture folks renting out a 15 bedroom within someone’s overall home. 16 Chair Summa asked why that was being excluded and not captured. 17 Ms. Atkinson answered P&S recommended retaining the existing participation requirements in 18 the existing Registry. 19 Commissioner Templeton explained the difference between a JADU and Definition E was if the 20 owner was in the room-sharing situation. With respect to privacy, she predicted the software 21 the City procures will be able to handle data separation and recommended information about 22 the tenant be on a separate account. She supported Vice-Chair Chang’s suggestion of combing 23 duplicative questions. With respect to fees, she recommended that ADUs be required to 24 register for the Rental Registry at the same time they pay their fees. 25 Vice-Chair Chang disagreed that landlords with four or fewer units should be exempt from the 26 Rental Registry, but if the fee presents a burden to those small landlords. She suggested 27 exempting landlords with a single unit from the fee but keeping the penalties as presented. She 28 asked how often would a landlord have to input the information into the system if the landlord 29 has the same tenant with an annual lease that is renewed. She hoped that a once-a-year 30 update was enough unless there was a substantial change in tenancy. With respect to the fee, 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. she asked if the fee would be collected annually or every time an update was made in the 1 system. 2 Mr. Ah Sing restated that the fee will be a one-time annual fee. 3 Commissioner Hechtman recommended the Rental Registry Form begin with a statement that 4 included language about the use of the information, privacy, confidentiality, and fees. With 5 respect to Packet Page 230, he asked why it was important to know if the property owner was a 6 Palo Alto resident, and if it was not important then it should be removed. He recommended for 7 the property manager that there be autofill if the information was not changing from the 8 previous questions. With respect to Rental Unit Characteristics, he recommended clarifying 9 what the total number of housing units at the property meant. He referenced Packet Page 232 10 and recommended removing the questions on the security deposit, initial rent, and additional 11 rent charges because they were too invasive. He suggested allowing the tenant to have the 12 option of supplying that information. 13 Commissioner Templeton asked if the questions about the security deposit, initial rent, and 14 additional rent charges were the City’s way of ensuring the landlords were in compliance with 15 existing laws. 16 Ms. Atkinson answered that was correct. 17 Commissioner Hechtman suggested the question ask if the security deposit, or rent increase, 18 was within the amount allowed by State Law. 19 Commissioner Templeton commented they could enter the information but that information 20 would not be stored. 21 Commissioner Hechtman noted if it is entered into the system then it becomes a public record. 22 Commissioner Templeton answered that it did not have to be delivered to the City. 23 Commissioner Hechtman confessed he was unsure how that would work but was open to 24 suggestions. He supported Vice-Chair Chang’s to combine duplicative questions and 25 recommended changing the question “number of people in a rental unit household” to 26 “maximum number of occupants allowed by lease”. With respect to the ordinance, he 27 suggested the Statement of Purpose be changed to “Residential Registry Program”. He 28 referenced Packet Page 220, Section 9.65.030 C(2), and was concerned that the City Manager 29 would have the authority to ask for additional information on select landlords. He wanted there 30 to be a public process when questions are proposed to be changed and that the City Manager 31 should not have the authority to ask additional questions. With respect to Event-Based 32 Registration Amendments, he seconded Vice-Chair Chang’s concern about having to re-enter 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. the information into the system when a subtle change is made. He agreed with Vice-Chair 1 Chang that landlords should have to enter the information once a year and suggested that the 2 landlord be obligated to provide information to the tenant on how the tenant can provide 3 information any time there was an increase in rent, evictions, etc. With respect to fees, the 4 Staff Report indicated that the fee would not exceed cost recovery but that was not in the 5 ordinance. If that was what was proposed then that language should be included in the 6 ordinance. Also, Staff must consider the potential fee amount not paid by exempt parties and 7 how that will be distributed and recovered from other folks participating in the Registry. 8 Ms. Fine noted the fee section in the ordinance had language that provided a tie to the cost of 9 the program. 10 Commissioner Hechtman found that language to be too loose when compared to what was 11 stated in the Staff Report. With respect to the penalties, he recommended those amounts be 12 limited to cost recovery too in the ordinance. He was concerned folks would not receive proper 13 notice that they are required to register their rental unit and then be penalized when they miss 14 the deadline. He recommended the first-time violation be waived if there was good cause for 15 lack of proper notice. 16 Mr. Ah Sing explained giving the City Manager authority would allow the City to make minor 17 additions or deletions to the program without having to go through an entire process. If that 18 was not supported, he suggested it be changed to P&S or the Housing Ad Hoc Committee. With 19 respect to penalties, a soft rollout of the program was going to take place which would require 20 a lot of outreach and there was no intention to begin penalizing folks at the get-go. 21 Commissioner Lu suggested collecting data on if there were children under the age of 18 living 22 in the rental unit, tenant disability, or whether the tenant is a senior. This would follow along 23 with what the City of Los Angeles collected. He acknowledged there may be privacy concerns 24 with collecting that type of data but suggested Staff consider it. He asked if tenant safety was a 25 concern and if so, he believed there may be data worth collecting there as well. He believed it 26 would be useful to collect data on the initial terms of the rent and any discounts that may have 27 been applied. He remarked he disagreed with the privacy concerns of collecting the rental 28 amounts and the security deposit. There was already public data on the purchase price of 29 homes, mortgage information, and monthly payments. He predicted a lot of valuable data 30 would be lost if the questions were rephrased to be broader. 31 Commissioner Templeton thanked Commissioner Hechtman and Commissioner Lu for their 32 comments. She suggested Staff considered compliance from folks who have built illegal rental 33 units. She explained to Commissioner Hechtman that folks coming back annually to renew their 34 information with the Rental Registry would not be filling out the form entirely again, only 35 updating the portions that had changed. She suggested providing a leaflet when renters come 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. to turn on their utilities about ways they can input information into the program. County and 1 utility data could provide data that was being asked on the form and she suggested Staff 2 consider removing questions that could easily be found by searching. She agreed with 3 Commissioner Lu that financial data was already available and believed it would not cause a 4 burden to landlords and tenants to disclose that information. 5 Commissioner Reckdahl agreed it was essential to know the security deposit and monthly rent 6 amount. 7 Chair Summa stated that rents are broadly advertised. 8 Commissioner Akin mentioned a product called Yield Star was a product folks used to trade 9 proprietary rental information to set rents to higher levels. So, making that information public 10 would eliminate that problem. 11 Chair Summa recommended having the form come back when revisions are made. 12 Commissioner Hechtman added to have the ordinance come back as well. 13 Mr. Ah Sing explained the intention was to have the program launched by the end of the year, 14 but believed having the form come back was feasible. 15 Chair Summa agreed the Commission may be able to provide clear direction on the ordinance 16 now and then have the form come back at a future meeting. 17 Commissioner Templeton recommended the form come back to the Commission for review 18 after the software was chosen and the draft version be shared at that time. 19 Mr. Ah Sing explained the Registry had two phases. Phase One was approving the ordinance 20 and Phase Two was procuring the software and implementation. 21 Commissioner Templeton recommended the Commission provide guidance on what should be 22 forwarded to Council for the ordinance and that the form come back after it is inputted into the 23 software. 24 Mr. Ah Sing agreed. 25 Commissioner Hechtman was concerned because some of his proposed changes to the 26 ordinance were concept changes. 27 Commissioner Templeton asked when was the item scheduled to go Council. 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 Summa suggested voting separately on the changes to the ordinance and then another 1 vote on the form. 2 Commissioner Templeton did not want to decouple them. 3 MOTION #1 4 Commissioner Templeton moved the Staff recommendation that PTC provide feedback and 5 that Staff bring the form back when Staff has the chance to mock it up in the software. 6 SECOND 7 Vice-Chair Chang seconded the motion but hoped Staff would bring any additional questions 8 back when the form returns to the Commission. 9 Commissioner Reckdahl encouraged Staff to make the questions very precise. 10 VOTE 11 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the 12 motion passed 7-0. 13 MOTION #1 PASSED 7(Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) -0 14 MOTION #2 15 Commissioner Hechtman moved move that the PTC recommend to City Council the adoption of 16 the Draft Rental Registry Program Ordinance, adding Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.65 in 17 the form of Attachment A with the following modifications. In the purpose, Section 9.65.010, 18 add the word “Residential” before “Rental Registry Program”. In 9.65.030 C(2) and D(2), 19 provide a process for requiring information that was not required through the registration form 20 to prevent unequal treatment of different landlords. In Section 9.65.030 D, event-based 21 registration amendments, give some consideration to whether some modification of this 22 potentially repetitious process can be designed, so that person doesn’t necessarily have to do 23 the annual registration if they have recently done one or more of the other updates. In Sections 24 9.65.030 F and 9.65.050 A, revise the language to provide greater clarity that the fee will be 25 limited to cost recovery, and in 9.65.050, the penalty section, consider adding to Subpart B 26 some reference to lack of receiving notice of the existence of the program being good cause for 27 waiving the first penalty fee. 28 SECOND 29 Commissioner Templeton seconded. 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. MOTION #2 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 and #2 1 Commissioner Lu was concerned that the proposed language regarding unequal treatment of 2 landlords would not allow the City to have lower fees for small landlords, BMR units, or ADUs. 3 Commissioner Templeton suggested the language be “to prevent abuse of power”. 4 Commissioner Lu was concerned having the fees entirely related to cost recovery would bind 5 the City to charge a small fee because the program was neutral. 6 MOTION #2 AMENDMENTS DECLINED 7 Commissioner Hechtman answered with respect to unequal treatment, the change he 8 suggested was specific to the provision that allowed the City Manager or designee 9 authorization to ask for additional information. His suggestion was to require everyone to 10 provide the same information. 11 Chair Summa suggested eliminating that provision. 12 Commissioner Hechtman believed the concept was to allow Staff to make small changes 13 without having to go to City Council and his recommendation in the motion was to have a 14 process for those small changes. With respect to cost recovery, he explained Staff clocks their 15 time when they have to handle Code Enforcement issues and that cost is passed to the violator. 16 With that said, he declined to accept the amendments. 17 Commissioner Lu wanted to see the language changed from “require” to “have Staff explore” 18 forwarding a notice to renters. 19 Commissioner Hechtman explained he was following Vice-Chair Chang’s suggestion to explore a 20 way to streamline Subpart D of 9.65.030. He asked if the motion was clear and sufficient for 21 Staff. 22 Mr. Ah Sing confirmed Staff was comfortable with the motion. 23 Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned he had the same reaction as Commissioner Lu regarding 24 cost recovery for the penalty. He believed Staff time would not be charged to the violator and 25 asked if that provision was necessary to have in the motion. 26 Commissioner Hechtman answered the City would pass those costs to the violators. 27 Commissioner Templeton asked if that was the cap or was the City required to charge a violator 28 the entire cost of the recovery. 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 Hechtman answered the proposal was a cap. 1 Chair Summa explained fees and penalties were different things. A fee was cost recovery and a 2 penalty was set in a penalty schedule and there was a minimum for misdemeanors. 3 Commissioner Hechtman explained his motion indicates that the penalty is cost recovery for 4 the cure of the violation. 5 Commissioner Templeton asked what was Commissioner Hechtman’s intention to tie the 6 penalty to cost recovery. 7 Commissioner Hechtman restated that the Staff Report indicated that the penalty would be 8 cost recovery. 9 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that a public commenter stated that a penalty was 10 required in order to receive a high level of compliance. It was not specified in the ordinance 11 how that would be done, what the schedule would be and Commissioner Hechtman’s 12 suggestion was giving it a boundary. That was why she supported the motion as presented. 13 Commissioner Hechtman restated the boundary he was suggesting was outlined in the Staff 14 Report. 15 Chair Summa invited Staff to provide some clarification on the issue. 16 Ms. French understood it was stated that way in the Staff Report to cover a $25 fee for 17 processing. The City had an Administrative Penalty Schedule that had flat rates and the City did 18 not cost recovery Staff’s time on a case-by-case basis. 19 Commissioner Hechtman asked what the fine was currently for violators not participating in the 20 Registry. 21 Ms. Atkinson restated that the penalty fee had not been set by Council at this time. She 22 mentioned that the software would have a mechanism that would automatically notify and set 23 a fee for folks that do not register. 24 Commissioner Lu recommended giving Staff the flexibility to set an appropriate fee. 25 Commissioner Templeton remarked the financial matter was not before the Commission. 26 Chair Summa recalled Staff has the ability to not charge a penalty for the first violation across 27 the penalty board. With that said, she did not want to see the penalty tied to the cost recovery 28 concept and the fee. 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 Templeton agreed. 1 MOTION #2 AMENDED 2 Commissioner Hechtman removed the cost recovery limitation from 9.65.050 A from the 3 motion. 4 Commissioner Templeton accepted the amendment. 5 Commissioner Hechtman agreed that setting a penalty fee was not PTC work, it was Council’s 6 work and that was stated in the ordinance. 7 VOTE 8 Ms. Dao conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion passed 7-0. 9 MOTION PASSED 7(Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) -0 10 Commission Action: Motion by Templeton, seconded by Chang. Passed 7-0 11 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Templeton. Passed 7-0 12 Approval of Minutes 13 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 14 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim and Summary 15 Minutes of April 26, 2023. 16 MOTION 17 Chair Summa moved to approve the draft verbatim and summary minutes of April 26, 2023. 18 SECOND 19 Commissioner Reckdahl seconded. 20 VOTE 21 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the 22 motion passed 6-0-1. 23 MOTION PASSED 6(Akin, Chang, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) -0 -1(Hechtman abstain) 24 Commission Action: Motion by Summa, seconded by Reckdahl. Pass 6-0-1 (Hechtman abstain) 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. Committee Items 1 None 2 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 3 Commission Templeton asked if the Commission would be taking a summer break. She 4 mentioned the first week of August was the beginning of school and she would most likely be 5 absent for the August 9, 2023 meeting. 6 Chair Summa was not in favor of the PTC taking a summer break but suggested a break should 7 be coordinated with Staff. 8 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, was not opposed to targeting a specific date and so far 9 there were no items scheduled for the August 9th meeting. 10 Commissioner Hechtman was comfortable taking a summer break and canceling the August 9th 11 meeting. 12 Vice-Chair Chang reported City Council passed the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance 13 with some modifications. They ruled to use the “where feasible” language with respect to the 14 entryway location for ADUs relative to the entryway of the main dwelling unit. Council also 15 ruled to send back to PTC the affordable ADU component of the ordinance. Lastly, the Council 16 unanimously approved the Firearms Ordinance. 17 Chair Summa adjourned the meeting. 18 Adjournment 19 10:45 pm 20 21