Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-13 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: September 13, 2023 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:03 pm 7 Chair Summa called to order the September 13th Planning and Transportation Commission 8 meeting. 9 10 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate, conducted the roll call and announced all 11 commissioners were present. 12 Oral Communications 13 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 14 Chair Summa invited members of the public to share their comments with the Commission on 15 items not on the Agenda. 16 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate, announced there were no speakers for oral 17 communications. 18 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 19 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 20 Chief Planning Official Amy French announced there were no changes from staff. 21 City Official Reports 22 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 23 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official reported that the PTC would likely not meet on 24 September 27th, barring any unforeseen circumstances, so give you back your night. The 25 October 11th Agenda has Safe Streets and a Study Session on Amendments as part two for 26 what is being discussed at this meeting. City Council approved the parklets, Permanent Parklets 27 Ordinance, on a 7-0 vote, and so that included changes to Title 17 that the Planning and 28 Transportation Commission recommended at their last meeting. In addition, the Sobrato 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. project was approved on a 7-0 vote. Next Monday they have two items, one is the priority 1 development area application that we’ve submitted. Staff is calling it BASA, which is for 2 Bayshore, Alma, and San Antonio. Staff had applied back in July and are now going to Council to 3 get a support resolution to move ahead with the PDA application. Elsworth Place and 2901 4 Middlefield are both PC’s going towards Council Action; on October 2nd City Council will hear 5 the Electrification Equipment Ordinance. 6 Mr. Rafael Rius, Senior Engineer with the Office of Transportation, stated he did not have 7 anything new to report. 8 Commissioner Hechtman asked when the decision would be made as to cancelling the 9 September 27th PTC meeting. 10 Ms. French responded that it would likely to be cancelled because staff was planning to 11 continue this Study Session to October 11th, to give time to staff and the consultant to prepare 12 for the next meeting. 13 Chair Summa commented that she thought staff would be returning with new information, not 14 that this meeting would need to be continued. 15 Ms. French answered that it’s Part II, at the next meeting with another report. 16 Chair Summa stated they would revisit cancelling the September 27th after the Study Session. 17 Study Session 18 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 19 20 2. Study session on Amendments to the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto 21 Comprehensive Plan and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement 22 Housing Element Programs 1.1A and 1.1B 23 Chair Summa introduced Item 2, the Study Session on amendments to the Land Use Element of 24 the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code and called for the staff 25 report. 26 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, introduced staff’s consultant Jean Eisberg from 27 Lexington Planning, who provided the staff presentation. 28 Consultant Jean Eisberg introduced herself and provided some background on the study 29 session. In May the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council approved and 30 adopted the Housing Element. The City sent that Housing Element to HCD in June, and then 31 received a comment letter requesting changes from HCD just a few weeks ago in August. There 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. are two parallel path efforts happening now. The top are revisions of the Housing Element. 1 Staff expects that to come back to the Commission, probably before the end of the year. 2 However, the current study session is regarding the implementation of the Housing Element. 3 Specifically, Program 1.1, which under State Housing Element Law, has a very specific timeline, 4 so staff is starting the implementation of that program now. The other are zoning amendments, 5 which the Planning Commission will see within the next six months, and over the next several 6 years, in addition to the implementation of other programs. State Housing Element Law says 7 that when rezoning sites to meet the RHNA, that rezoning needs to happen in the first year of 8 the Plan adoption, which technically was supposed to happen last January 2024. So those 9 rezonings must take place by January of next year, January 2024. That’s Program 1.1A and the 10 subject of tonight’s discussion. Staff have added Program 1.1B, which is rezoning in the GM 11 (general manufacturing) and ROLM area (research, office, light manufacturing) within a specific 12 area of the city. They are rezonings required beyond the RHNA and are additional rezonings 13 that were approved as part of the Housing Element, which carry the same timeline in the 14 Housing Element. Because they affect the same sections of the zoning ordinance, staff 15 proposed to do them all together. Chapter three of the Housing Element analyzed physical 16 feasibility of existing zoning standards. It took from proto-typical sites across zoning districts in 17 the city and tested the combination of development standards. From that key questions 18 included Do these current zoning standards allow development at planned densities; and that’s 19 the combination of heights, and setbacks, and floor area ratio (FAR) and residential densities. 20 The second question is Do any of these standards represent constraints for development? 21 Working with an architect and analyzing these sites, it was determined that yes, there are some 22 constraints. Specifically, in the landscape coverage requirements, which is similar to lot 23 coverage requirement, only requiring green space at the ground level represented a constraint. 24 In certain districts height, lot coverage and parking constraints in getting to that planned 25 density that was identified in the Housing Element. Program 1.1 calls for increasing residential 26 density and FAR where residential density is not regulated. Our step here is taking that 27 information and identifying the specific modifications to the zoning standards. Created with 28 the help of an architect, the chart in the Staff Report starts to reveal the relationships between 29 lot coverage, between FAR and height. Staff recommends specific FAR’s, which are a proxy for 30 density in zoning districts that don’t regulate density, or that regulate [19:43 TIMESTAMP : 31 inaudible] density and FAR. A few key changes that are proposed in the draft ordinance includes 32 Program 1.1A, first thing is the rezoning of sites that are inventory sites and currently do not 33 allow multi-family housing. This being the R1 District, which is generally a single family district. 34 The Housing Element identifies faith based institutions, typically parking lots on churches or 35 other religious institution sites, in that ROLM district and the RP district, which is research park, 36 GM and PF – which is public facility. Currently those zoning districts do not permit multi-family 37 housing and this draft ordinance would allow multi-family housing on these Sites Inventory 38 sites. The second program is to upzone to increase density as stated in the Housing Element, or 39 floor area ratio where it’s regulated. Third is to modify standards to reduce constraints like the 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. landscape coverage constraint previously mentioned, to ensure the development is feasible at 1 planned densities. When all those different land-use controls are combined, a project can still 2 meet the planned density. The rezoning includes other statutory requirement on sites that 3 accommodate lower income households; projects need to be allowed to build out at 100% 4 residential uses. Some specific changes include, depending on the district, current densities of 5 20-50 units an acre get bumped up to 30-50 units an acre. Zoning districts that currently don’t 6 regulate density, wouldn’t regulate density going forward. Floor area ratios (FAR) are between 7 0.5 and 1.25 and go up to between 1.25 and 2.5. Another key modification allows landscape 8 coverage requirements to be met above the ground level. Another key aspect of the program is 9 specific zoning standard changes for three of the Stanford University owned sites. The 10 development standards are still underway and are not included in the packet. Staff will include 11 that in the public hearing next month. The City is working on responses to the HCD comment 12 letter, and so there may be additional sites with site specific standards proposed over the next 13 month. Shifting to program 1.1B. There are three tiers of development standards for GM, and 14 ROLM zoning districts and those are intended for the highest FAR’s and densities, opportunity 15 sites, and the existing condition would still apply to areas outside of the opportunity zoned 16 areas where those base district regulations would still apply. So essentially, same zoning 17 districts, but three different tiers of intensity. There’s a more significant increase according to 18 Program 1.1B, density going from thirty units an acre to ninety units an acre, with a number of 19 these development standards changing. The FAR has to increase to accommodate that density, 20 the height goes from thirty-five to fifty feet, depending on the zoning district, to up to sixty 21 feet, giving modifications to the lot coverage, and then a parking reduction in that two-plus 22 bedroom category. Attachment A has changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive 23 Plan needs to be internally consistent, so the Housing Element needs to be consistent with the 24 Land Use Element, but also consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, as required by State Law. 25 There are some key amendments that are required to the land use designation definitions in 26 the Comprehensive Plan to make sure that multi-families already allowed in all of the land use 27 designations, while making sure that the densities and the FARs are consistent. In some cases 28 where the density or FAR expressed in the comp plan may be exceeded in the zoning ordinance. 29 This provides some breadcrumbs to introduce that concept. Comments are annotated in the 30 electronic version of the Packet online, however, they did not print in the hard copy. Some of 31 the effects of these zoning changes include: these zoning changes will help meet State Law 32 requirements and the timeline to complete by January, this completes some key programs of 33 the Housing Element, and these zoning changes will improve the physical feasibility to meet the 34 planned densities that are identified in the Housing Element, and can help increase unit yield, 35 which can also increase affordable housing production based on the City’s inclusionary 36 requirement, and/or generate more in-lieu fees. As a consequence of these changes, this will 37 reset the base density and the bonus density allowed under State Density Bonus Law, so there 38 could be State Density Bonus Law projects being larger than what we might see today. This 39 draft ordinance creates a new chapter in the Housing Element. Staff tried to make it as simple 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. as possible to identify the proposed changes, but it does add some complexity. Our Housing 1 Element opportunity sites now will need to look in two chapters to understand what 2 regulations apply to the zone, under proposed Chapter 18.14, as well as the base district 3 chapter. Staff’s recommendation is requesting the Commission hold a study session to provide 4 feedback on the draft ordinance, including the Comp Plan amendments and the zoning 5 amendments, and then related to the six year complexity. Right now, the draft ordinance is 6 proposed to be applicable only to the opportunity sites. With Commission approval, it could 7 instead apply to all sites in the city, not just the Housing Element opportunity sites. 8 Commissioner Hechtman inquired about Appendix D, the Housing Element list of opportunity 9 sites as he didn’t find it in the Agenda Packet and confessed it wasn’t clear to him that they 10 may be adding more opportunity sites to that list. 11 Ms. Eisberg explained Appendix D has not been included and based on the comments from 12 HCD, the City is exploring and revisiting some existing sites as they have been approached by 13 developers who are interested in adding sites to the opportunity sites list, so, yes, it’s possible 14 some additional sites could be added, and eventually Appendix D could change at the next 15 iteration of the Housing Element. 16 Commissioner Hechtman asked for clarification regarding one of the early slides which 17 indicated the deadline for rezoning, January 31 of next year, as to certain segment of the 18 rezoning and the GM ROLM which are intended to happen at the same time for efficiency 19 reasons. When he thinks of rezoning, traditionally it means changing the base district 20 designations. However, based on the information in the Staff Report, they are not. What they 21 are doing is providing a new chapter and some text amendments to change what’s allowed on 22 opportunity sites in the base district designations. 23 Ms. Eisberg responded that was correct. This new chapter essentially modifies the development 24 standards in the base district, but without changing the base district. 25 Commissioner Hechtman summarized that they’re looking at language… on four attachments 26 from the Housing Element, a new chapter, and some ordinance changes, which are based on 27 the Housing Element as it was approved by the Council but before revisions to address the 28 August letter of the HCD. So, it’s possible that the versions of these attachments that we’ve 29 seen tonight, and we’ll discuss in the study session, are actually going to need to be changed to 30 address comments from HCD in the last round. 31 Ms. Eisberg answered that was true to some extent. Based on her review of the HCD letter, 32 there are questions about the sites inventory, so that’s the Appendix D that she failed to 33 include in the packet, and there didn’t seem to be HCD concerns about Program 1.1A or B, so, 34 staff is moving forward based on the statutory timelines, but they feel confident about moving 35 forward with this program. 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. Commissioner Reckdahl requested clarification about the email that Commissioner Akin sent 1 out talking about how the state interprets both FAR and density. 2 Mr. Yang explained that under density bonus law, a property owner can come in and propose a 3 project that meets the density that is stated in the city’s code, or in the city’s General Plan; and 4 if they are meeting that density, they can request an unlimited number of waivers from the 5 City’s physical development standards. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl noted it’s not unconstrained, it’s just that the number of restraints is 7 reduced. 8 Mr. Yang Right stated that when a maximum density is specified, the constraint is that 9 maximum density, but the other constraints such as FAR, height, and setbacks may need to be 10 waived. If you don’t specify a maximum density, which is the case for Palo Alto in zones like the 11 CS zone and State Law uses FAR as a proxy. In those cases, a property owner is entitled to a 12 percentage increase in FAR in line with the amount of affordable housing they provide under 13 density bonus law, but the City retains some level of control over the physical development, 14 they wouldn’t be controlling a units per acre regulation in that situation. 15 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if Mr. Yang was also saying something about one can use the 16 highest density that’s used in the city. 17 Mr. Yang responded that it’s not the highest density that’s used in the city, unless there is an 18 inconsistency between the zoning code and the general plan. 19 PUBLIC COMMENT 20 Chair Summa opened the study session up for public comment and explained that the group 21 will get up to fifteen minutes, and then three minutes for each individual speaker. 22 Former Councilmember Greg Schmid (Speaking for Paul Machado, Ann Balin, Joyce Schmid, 23 Mary Gallagher, Jo Ann Mandinach) thanked the PTC and expressed concern that the state is 24 forcing Palo Alto to put up new buildings based on numbers that are outdated. The consultant’s 25 report recommends major changes in zoning throughout Palo Alto, that would foster 26 tremendous amounts of new dense housing. A rebuilding order to avoid builders remedy. 27 Based on that report the consultant suggests six thousand plus new housing units will be 28 needed in Palo Alto between 2023 and 2031. However, those housing numbers were based on 29 job growth projections made in 2019 and have since been shown to be completely and 30 dramatically wrong. The basic assumptions about business growth are wrong and therefor the 31 projected number of new dense housing is also wrong. The numbers in the current planned bay 32 area started with an overly aggressive jobs forecast by HCD to take place in the bay area 33 between 2023 and 2031 and the planners added a gag rule making it illegal to have any public 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. discussion of lowering the number of projected new jobs during the period 2023 to 2031. From 1 now until 2031, the planners have forbidden anyone to challenge those numbers of projected 2 new jobs. The world has changed dramatically since then. COVID has fostered remote working, 3 that has been widely accepted. The number of in-office workdays at many corporations has 4 been cut by up to forty percent, creating a forty percent decrease in the use of existing 5 workspaces. Workforce numbers and the number of workers has leveled off and are even 6 falling throughout the bay area. The Department of Finance (DOF) and the Department of 7 Housing and Community Development (HCD) have quietly responded to the changing 8 workplace environment by updating their numbers and actions. The DOF had ruled in 2019 that 9 the new jobs and housing numbers in the bay area generated by Planned Bay Area were 10 “reasonable”. In early 2020, they forecast a bay area population increase of 17% to occur 11 between 2020 and 2030. However, they quietly updated their 2020-2030 forecast. Instead of an 12 increase in population, they now predict a population decrease of 1.7% in the bay area. 13 Decrease of 1.2% for Santa Clara County. The DOF now says that population in the bay area will 14 not be growing over the next seven years, it will actually be getting smaller. HCD is also 15 reworking their base numbers. We can see this by the fact that when they rejected our Housing 16 Element in August 2023, they demanded that we build new housing in commercial areas. In just 17 one limited area, the GM ROLM. The consultants are asking us to eliminate up to 1,400 job sites 18 for new housing, but without adjusting the 2019 jobs number that justifies the housing need. 19 Both state agencies are now in accord that their aggressive new jobs forecast made four years 20 ago, and the subsequent need for new housing, were dramatically overstated. But they are 21 keeping this quiet and not changing any of the requirements based on the changed new 22 numbers. This is the first opportunity the public has to openly discuss the housing element in 23 the last ten months because of that gag rule passed. The city’s Comprehensive Plan requires us 24 to review the ratio of jobs to employed residence every four years. The last review was 2019 so 25 a review is due this year. The FTC needs to discuss this review before approving the housing 26 numbers projected to you. The PTC or the City needs to hold an open public meeting with 27 representatives from HCD and DOF to publicly discuss alternative jobs to housing ratio. The 28 California code mandates HCD to produce a guidebook for such discussions however, HCD has 29 never published a guidebook. The PTC should pay special attention to the longer term financial 30 impact of building dense housing. Most dense housing developments have their affordable 31 units subsidized by the market rate units through inclusionary zoning. This raises the market 32 rate costs substantially. This will not result in a lowering of the price of housing, as promised in 33 the original Planned Bay Area. Why are these two agencies that have critical roles proceeding 34 without a public review? Obviously because they will fiscally benefit both from any job growth 35 and the income in capital gains taxes paid by new workers. The community needs to 36 understand what the current data shows us. The jobs growth forecast made four years ago is 37 just not happening. HCD and DOF understand this but refuse to give up fiscal benefits that 38 floated them; benefits that are paid for by local governments and residents. By you and me. 39 Paid in dollars and loss of quality of life. Because we are being forced to build new housing 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. based on old and outdated numbers, we deserve to have a full and open public discussion. 1 Thank you for your attention. 2 Mr. Adam Schwartz, Palo Alto resident, commented that he has lived here for eight years, and 3 his kids attended the schools in Palo Alto. This community has much to offer including plentiful 4 jobs, great weather, and a tolerant culture. The severe shortage of housing is holding the city 5 back. This makes it extraordinarily expensive for people to live here and drives out adult 6 children and prevents aging parents from moving here to receive care from family. It forces 7 retail workers and teachers to drive super commutes every day burning greenhouse gases as 8 they go. It prevents lower income people from moving here. We need to allow taller buildings, 9 we need to eliminate parking minimums, we need to speed up the approval process. We need 10 to affirmatively further fair housing by building new homes by existing schools, parks, and 11 shops. Baseline, minimal step forward, are the proposals from the staff today. This ongoing 12 housing element process is a great opportunity to make strides forward. We need abundant 13 homes for all. Yes, new homes set aside for people with lower incomes who are going to pay 14 reduced rents, and yes to new homes at market prices, which is the only way to stop the 15 increase in housing rates. No to artificial scarcity. Please, allow new homes. Thank you. 16 Ms. Deborah Goldeen provided public comment and confessed being a bit confused about 17 what’s going on. City of Palo Alto made up a plan, which did not require that any density 18 housing be built but made it so that no density housing would be built in it’s primarily 19 residential areas. This plan was sent to the State and the State said no, instead they want 20 density housing in all of the city. Ms. Goldeen agreed. She was on the 400 block of Sherman 21 today and 80% of the office buildings on that block are vacant. It’s stunning. There’s no housing, 22 because nobody can live here, and we all know this, so that has to change. And then my next 23 stop was a dental office visit where the office manager was a planning commissioner like 24 yourself, of all things, for City permitting. People have been objecting for years. Ms. Goldeen 25 expressed concerns about the parking requirement being reduced, which is causing an issue 26 with street parking. Nobody cares. The State’s taking our rights away, it’s undemocratic. She 27 knows there’s a lot of people who are convinced that it’s going to work, and they are going to 28 push back on the State, and it’s just not. Not only is it not going to work, but it’s also wrong and 29 bad. 30 Ms. Jennifer DiBrienza, President of the Palo Alto School Board commented that she’s speaking 31 as a resident of Evergreen Park, and for the most part, in support of the zoning changes. As a 32 Board member, she’s very concerned about the long term health of the city’s schools. She 33 urged the city to broaden their consideration of where the housing can go and broaden the 34 applicability to all sites. With so much housing being built in certain concentrated areas, she 35 worries about some of the local schools that have already become very small and don’t have 36 any planned housing to be built and may have to close as a result. Kids will have to travel 37 farther, young kids, either walking and on bikes during high traffic times or in more cars, adding 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. to greenhouse gas emissions. With too much housing concentrated in some areas, those 1 schools will be overburdened and will have to overflow kids to other areas of the city, again, 2 adding to the traffic and to the emissions. For the sake of Palo Alto’s schools, she urged the PTC 3 to consider them when considering possible sites and to really consider the entire city, so that 4 the new housing is spread across the whole city. Ms. DiBrienza thanked the PTC for their work. 5 Ms. Annie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Ford, provided comment regarding the 6 housing crisis. She believed that the zoning changes proposed are insufficient to meet what the 7 community needs. They may be physically feasible, but they are not in any way economically 8 feasible. As evidence, none of the recently approved or submitted PHZ projects could be built 9 under these proposed standards. There could be a housing incentive program that would allow 10 for projects to go to even higher levels of FAR, and lot coverage zoning. She asked the PTC to 11 consider raising base zonings to a level that makes projects feasible, and also advise planning to 12 make sure that the housing incentive program is able to bring these projects to a level where 13 they are feasible because this is not enough. She additionally suggested the PTC extend these 14 changes throughout the city as it not only looks better for the housing element numbers, but 15 also for projects outside of the housing inventory. Project deals come and go, why not let all of 16 these sites participate in these zoning changes. Sufficient upzoning is good for the schools, it 17 helps the community reach their climate goals, and it’s good for local businesses. As described 18 most recently in the city’s adopted economic development strategy, number ten is building 19 housing near downtowns. The current baselines are completely ineffective. Please support a 20 housing incentive program that will raise them to something that is constructable, and support 21 extending these changes citywide. 22 Mr. David Hirsch, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Boardmember, thanked Chair Summa and 23 the Commissioners and provided public comment and suggested two ideas, first being the 24 downtown. Palo Alto has a great opportunity to offer long term leases on many downtown 25 parking lots, to developers with a direction to locate the parking below grade and provide for 26 housing above. They must fit comfortably in these denser core areas and provide a significant 27 percentage of the Housing Element requirements. By using the request for proposal process, 28 this important effort will provide the following significant benefits: One is the city can prioritize 29 offers that will maximize affordable housing and provide significantly larger than present 30 requirements because the developer doesn’t have to put up the purchase money for these 31 expensive projects; they would be leased. Leased terms can be negotiated to make each project 32 a success. The mix of affordable housing and market rate housing is a healthy concept and one 33 that is very common in most progressive European countries. Downtown shops and restaurants 34 would benefit from the increase in local population without any increase of vehicular 35 congestion. The housing density could be increased as it will relate to existing massive 36 commercial office and hotel buildings already in the downtown. And, because the downtowns 37 are discreet entities, there’s no impact on the separate residential neighborhoods. The City 38 would gain rental income which could escalate in time, and they will become the owners at the 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. end of the lease period, if they choose to. It seems that’s a very good opportunity to answer the 1 issues of affordable housing and market rate housing while self-supporting each other in a way. 2 The second idea is a Development Director and a staff. If it’s true that we’re going to build 3 6,000 plus units of housing, then the City will have to imagine how that is going to be 4 accomplished. Who’s going to build it, how will it be controlled. Over 6,000 new residential 5 units and a present family of about 2.3 people per unit is an assumed population increase in 6 Palo Alto by more than 20%. The actual scope of work to produce this in this next eight year 7 period, if achieved, will be a massive effort. It cries out for an experienced Development 8 Director. One who can coordinate all aspects of the urban design aspects of that new housing. 9 Presentations to Palo Alto City Council and community become one of the most necessary tasks 10 so this Director will need talented assistants who can translate the large scale concepts and do 11 images that clearly define the proposed elements and formal descriptions. Imagine this 12 transition from our history of being reactive, to finding ourselves as a proactive community 13 looking to the future with anticipation. 14 Mr. Albert Lustre with the Northern California Carpenter’s Union Local 405 provided public 15 comment and stated that it’s great to see changes on the Housing Element but he hasn’t seen 16 changes affecting labor. He asked who was going to build the projects, are they going to 17 implement a liberal wage, healthcare, apprenticeship, or local hire requirements. These are 18 things that Redwood City, Menlo Park, Foster City, the San Mateo County, Daly City and a 19 couple other cities in Santa Clara county they are working on. The reason why is because 20 earning a liberal wage ensures that the construction workers can live in those places. We’re 21 getting pushed everywhere. We can’t afford to live in Palo Alto. Commutes last for hours. It’s 22 time away from families, and our kids. There has been a lot of tax fraud in all of the 23 construction sites, and there’s no healthcare. Cities pay for healthcare, because eighty percent 24 of the construction workers depend on some type of government aid. They become a burden to 25 the system. Apprenticeship is the only opportunity we have to be successful. Local Hire needs 26 to be regulated. He urged the Planning Commission to implement some area labor standards to 27 include liberal wage, healthcare, apprenticeship, and local hire. 28 Ms. Leah Russin commented that this proposal demonstrates all the problems with Palo Alto. 29 Instead of simplifying and clarifying the process, it seems to add layers of complexity. There is a 30 need for local regulations to be clear and flexible and encourage new housing. This does not 31 seem to do enough of that. As a Baron Park homeowner, and parent of two young children, she 32 encouraged the PTC to look critically at the process being proposed for approval for new 33 housing. Look for all the ways to ease and hasten the process throughout our city. As a former 34 College Terrace homeowner, she watched opportunities go by as Stanford rebuilt adjacent 35 single family homes with more of the same, instead of having the flexibility of zoning to build 36 townhomes or duplexes. The city needs more housing at every income level in every 37 neighborhood, and not just on the fringes of town but in Baron Park, downtown, and more. 38 Palo Alto will be stronger as a city if they address the legacy of structural racism and welcome 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. new housing throughout it. Schools will be more robust with more families in the 1 neighborhoods. The air will be cleaner [TIMESTAMP 1:04 Audio interference]. She asked the 2 PTC to think critically about the message they are sending with this proposal. 3 Mr. Hamilton Hitchings commented that he supports the GM and ROLM upzoning, because 4 those buildings are old. When staff did the analysis, they showed they were most likely to be 5 developed with the first bridge that you can bike to google. He believed those up buildings are 6 particularly right for development. One of the reasons for the wrong GM zoning is because they 7 can go higher, however, he noticed they capped the limit at sixty feet, however, the other side 8 of San Antonio, he was hoping they might be able to go even higher, like seventy feet and asked 9 the PTC to consider a seventy foot height limit on the other side of San Antonio. He didn’t 10 remember reduced landscaping being discussed in the PTC or the City Council during the 11 Housing Element working group. As more housing is built, there still needs to be livable areas, 12 which means ground floor landscaping and setbacks from the street and sidewalk are needed 13 and strongly discouraged any proposal that allows a developer to move all landscaping to 14 courtyards and rooftops. It appeared to him that this proposal will remove twenty percent 15 landscaping from GM properties, and he did not recommend this for two reasons. First the City 16 is not trying to give special subsidies to GM right now, instead trying to encourage more 17 housing and they are making it harder for a developer to justify building residential. It’s very 18 counter productive to remove the landscaping. It only helps developers to not build 19 underground parking. And while it’s cheaper, this basically is designed so they can put all the 20 parking on the first floor. The problem is that actually reduces the total amount of housing 21 because it’s one less level of housing. He also believed it creates a much less livable area if at 22 ground level there are a bunch of cars and garage parking that should really be moved to 23 underground. He appreciated staff bringing this up as a study session so there could be public 24 comment. 25 Mr. Scott O’Neil provided public comment and stated that he has a letter in the packet which 26 noted HCD had said the City needs to be addressing constraints, not just RHNA, and looking at 27 past project proposals to determine what that might require. Outside of GM and ROLM, the 28 proposed development standards are around half of the average of Palo Alto’s recent history of 29 proposals. Which HCD has explicitly told the City it needs to try and loosen its constraints. He 30 respectfully disagreed with the consultant when she said those programs won’t be impacted by 31 future changes. HCD will review the zoning knowing full well that no one has proposed a 1.25 32 FAR project on El Camino. Moreover, adopting a rezoning that looks plausibly at production 33 only in GM and ROLM would confirm the fair housing concerns HCD has expressed in that area. 34 The City is in a fair housing hole and one way to stop digging that hole is to take these proposals 35 more broadly. He shared a tip for reviewing HCD rejection letters. At the beginning of each 36 rejection is a boiler place sentence – “If you satisfy some, many, or most of the legal 37 requirements”. Almost no one gets some. Barring some rank technical incompetence. Most 38 means the City is close, and it’s not. The second tip is that the rejection is an eight page mini 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. letter. That page count in a mini letter would qualify as a very bad first rejection. They haven’t 1 made much progress since November on the most important issues. The second draft remains 2 very far from compliance. He hoped his information was helpful for calibrating expectations 3 about what will be required to have any enforceable zoning code at all, in the foreseeable 4 future. 5 Ms. Liz Gardner requested she be moved down to the end of the list because she was driving 6 and trying to navigate around an accident. 7 Ms. Jenny Michel addressed the Chair, Commissioners, staff, leavers, and members of the 8 public and commented that she was born at Stanford, raised at Baron Park, and currently a long 9 time renting resident, a Menlo Park mom of IEP, Deaf/Hard of hearing student, a commercial 10 property manager by trade. She provided some background and explained that her family 11 helped to keep the zoning exclusive. Ironically, when she was a teacher in Menlo park, in the 12 early 2000’s, she became homeless and lived out of her car for two winters on the streets in 13 Palo Alto, near German. The jobs are already here. They’re not going anywhere. Stanford will 14 always produce high quality, in demand, talent. The mild climate and abundant resources 15 create an oasis for people. The PTC’s job is to remove barriers and help the city to grow. The 16 barriers are specifically baseline zoning. She suggested they open up the zoning for all R1 17 districts and agreed that the baseline assumptions with RHNA are off. They would probably 18 need about 6,000 housing units alone to serve the hospital and related call centers. The stats 19 for the support staff are more of a closer ratio 4:1 to the office tagged desk job people. She 20 would argue Palo Alto needs to zone for baseline assumption closer to 20-30 thousand housing 21 units. Housing has the physical land to easily accommodate that goal compared to other 22 municipalities. She had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that various aspects of the local 23 white collar and biotech workforce are flown in weekly. They are driving climate breakdown 24 and the load on other municipalities and regions are not being calculated. By housing the 25 workforce currently in demand, that can be stopped. 26 Mr. Michael Quinn commented on Scott’s comments regarding his letter. On page 59 of the 27 Ordinance, which states that the rezoning is limited to inventory sites. The occupied inventory 28 sites have been identified by HCD as one of the single weakest aspects of Palo Alto’s Housing 29 Element. His contributions to some of the work done by Palo Alto before it was submitted 30 consisted largely of contacting property owners about their properties in the inventory and 31 asking them directly if there was any possibility that they could be redeveloped. The response 32 was overwhelmingly negative, and it is clear that Palo Alto has not met it’s legal obligation to 33 research those sites. His understanding was that by limiting the rezoning to the inventory sites, 34 Palo Alto is effectively doubling down on what is already a losing hand. This will not go 35 unnoticed, and it creates a pretty significant problem if the town is serious about getting the 36 Housing Element approved. His belief is that the City is not serious. The current price of a home 37 in Palo Alto was transactive last year, and around 2.8 million and the cost on average was about 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. 1,700 per square foot. Mr. Schmid talked about a degradation of quality of life in the fact that 1 he doesn’t feel that he and his neighbors should have to pay for that. Mr. Quinn respectfully 2 asked him and the other members, and particularly the Board of Palo Altans for sensible zoning, 3 exactly how much of a tax subsidy they receive every year through [TIMESTAMP 1:16 4 Unintelligible] and just to perhaps revisit some of the sentiments on who is or is not a leach. 5 Sam Gersten commented that along with his wife and baby daughter, he has been renting an 6 apartment on Middlefield Road right by the Safeway, for the last couple of years. He’s a 7 member of the Midtown Residents Association Board and the Board of Congregation Emek 8 Beracha El Camino but was speaking up because he wanted to afford to stay in Palo Alto with 9 his family and continue to contribute to the community and help Palo Alto thrive. His rent has 10 already gone up $250 dollars a month this year and without more apartments supply in Palo 11 Alto, prices are going to keep going up and they won’t be able to stay much longer in Palo Alto. 12 Palo Alto has failed to build significant housing and its plans keep getting rejected for feasibility. 13 It’s too focused on keeping failed land use policies from the 1950’s in place. They need to go 14 above and beyond what’s been proposed and take drastic steps to allow far more housing on 15 far more sights throughout the City. Zoning standards have got to be drastically changed. Floor, 16 height, density, and parking requirements are way out of touch with what the population 17 needs. Approvals need to be sped up and eliminate barriers like tree and retail ordinances. As a 18 member of the Midtown Residents Association Board, he has seen high rents drive out 19 businesses and residents and while on the Synagogue Board he has seen bureaucratic 20 blockades stop basic security related means, a fence to protect his congregation from anti-21 sematic attacks. The current regulatory system and bureaucratic blocks need to change so that 22 future generations can feasibly live in Palo Alto. 23 Ms. Liz Gardner thanked the Commission for their patience and commented that she is head of 24 household, for a family of three, and her two sons are 4th generation Palo Altans. They are 25 section 8 voucher holders in Palo Alto, and she’s a grateful parent of Palo Alto unified school 26 district students and caring for an in-law that is ill and also aging in place. It’s been pretty 27 hectic, and rents are being raised and the reach for home ownership has gotten farther and 28 farther away. The City needs a lot of housing of all kinds and at all income levels. She was 29 disappointed when City Council rezoned RM 30 – fourteen acres. It was really sad because that 30 was right in the middle of town near schools, shopping, and jobs. She supported what Jennifer 31 DiBrienza said regarding putting so much housing out on the outskirts. Her concern is there will 32 be a situation where they will have to bus kids to different campuses. She would like to see 33 housing within the city near services, libraries, rec centers, doctors, and dentists; those kinds of 34 things that are supporting the community. Particularly for low-wage workers who are making 35 longer and longer commutes. Wages just aren’t going up. She really supports more housing 36 closer to city centers. 37 Chair Summa closed Public Comments and brought the item back for Commission discussion. 38 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lu requested information on the timelines, and if the joint session in November 1 with Council for the rezonings rights and the joint session in November on the new Housing 2 Element will be the same meeting. 3 Mr. Yang answered that he did not believe a joint session is planned for this ordinance. This 4 ordinance planned to return in a month for action. 5 Commissioner Lu asked if they would presumably address the new Housing Element in 6 November and then if there are any revisions to the sites or zoning from that meeting, would 7 they meet again in December or January to update the zoning. 8 Mr. Yang explained they are planning on treating the revised Housing Element as sort of a 9 separate track from this ordinance and if there were additional amendments to the code that 10 were required, [TIMESTAMP 1:23:25 Video skipped] that would come back later on as the 11 revised Housing Element is closer to adoption. 12 Commissioner Lu commented that in the back of his mind it will be hard to separate what 13 would potentially make HCD happier versus what’s in the Housing Element that was already 14 proposed and rejected and asked if there was an issue in trying to change the zoning in the 15 direction of the future Housing Element. 16 Mr. Yang responded that staff is looking for the Commission’s recommendation and direction 17 on FAR to go with what’s being proposed right now. One of the questions, for example, is 18 should these updates be limited to inventory sites, or should they apply more broadly. 19 Inventory sites are legally required, but the Commission may believe it makes sense to expand 20 that. 21 Commissioner Lu inquired what pushback have they done on the jobs allocation and HCD 22 numbers, if any. 23 Mr. Yang replied that there was a process several years ago, before the RHNA was set, where 24 members of the public and some City Officials spoke before ABAG and it advanced various 25 positions and arguments on why they believed some of the forecasts were incorrect, and that 26 ABAG should apply a different RHNA to the city. That was the process, now is the opportunity 27 to influence those figures and that’s the the situation that the City is in right now. 28 Commissioner Lu asked if any other cities have had any traction trying to compress those 29 numbers through any other avenue. 30 Mr. Yang answered no, and that he believed there was some litigation in Southern California, 31 where some of the Southern California cities attempted to challenge the RHNA allocation and 32 he didn’t believe they were successful in doing so. 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. Commissioner Lu asked if anyone could provide context on communications or developments 1 for the Stanford housing sites. There’s one listed as McDonald’s which has a large builder’s 2 remedy proposal and there’s another listed at the Rivian Offices which has a large office 3 proposal and inquired how the context or communication worked for those sites. 4 Chair Summa responded that they have a placeholder for those three sites in the staff report 5 because staff was not ready with those. Which is why they plan to bring it back to PTC in 6 October. 7 Mr. Yang added that staff has been in communication with Standford regularly, throughout the 8 developing of the Housing Element and also over the summer, and recently regarding those 9 sites. The lines of communication are open. 10 Commissioner Lu commented that they are very conservative with the Stanford sites, and have 11 picked out these three relatively small sites and for two of them they’ve moved ahead with 12 pretty significant different plans, which breaks his mental model of how they’ll work with 13 Standford and whether it would actually be practical to try to change zoning for other Stanford 14 sites, and whether that would be perceived as an adversarial move or something that’s actually 15 welcomed before developers control certain parts of the Stanford parcels. It sounded like there 16 isn’t deeper context available for how those two proposals went. 17 Commissioner Akin commented that he’d like to support the approach of creating the new 18 Section 18.14 as part of the code, regardless of what they end up doing to the baselines, it 19 seemed very likely that the sites in the housing inventory may need to be treated specially, and 20 the structure gives them a framework for doing that, and he’d like to support going ahead with 21 that approach. He stated that the packet suggests that the effects of applying these changes to 22 baseline zoning might not be significant and inquired if there will there be an analysis in detail 23 before they see this issue again. 24 Ms. Eisberg responded that yes, they treated the sites inventory differently because that was 25 the direction of the Housing Element, and the requirement under State Law. If they need to 26 rezone those RHNA sites, those are the sites that they would rezone. The Appendix D, which 27 was not included in the packet, shows that within the same zoning districts, the surrealistic 28 capacity of 20, 30, 40 an acre, it’s different for different sites with the same zoning district, is 29 why it was difficult for staff to adjust the base zoning when there are series of different 30 standards. Thus, they created a new chapter. The assessment in the staff report said those 31 inventory sites, after staff, the public and consultants had gone through them, that yes there 32 are some changes underway, but they were identified as the most likely sites to redevelop in 33 the next eight year period. The thinking is that if staff made these zoning changes across the 34 board, the base districts, they would be catching many sites that they do not expect to 35 redevelop. They’re existing uses that they would expect to continue during the next eight years, 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. and maybe the next eight years after that. If those sites do turnover, it’s probably less likely in 1 the current eight year period and maybe more likely in the future. Staff could do an order of 2 magnitude estimate of additional development that could happen but felt it’s not clear that the 3 6,000 units are going to redevelop during the next eight years. They are trying to set that up so 4 that can happen, but they were not trying to do a very specific analysis on that question. 5 Commissioner Akin commented that he thought that could be useful because the question will 6 likely come up again. 7 Vice Chair Chang commented that she thought an order of magnitude analysis, even if it’s as 8 simple as this is the land area, and this is the implication of how many more units would be 9 allowed if all of that land area were to be redeveloped. It is not like a likeliness component, but 10 if all of it were vacant right now and if were all to be redeveloped at that density, how many 11 more units would that generate versus what the current zoning allows. If it allows 1.25 FAR 12 because she doesn’t think they have a very good idea of how much area in the city is zoned GM 13 or ROLM. Additionally, how many more acres if they broadened the 18.14 to the rest of the 14 city, are they putting under that zone. She believed that kind of broad implication would be 15 helpful. 16 Ms. Eisberg replied that typically they do not do that sort of assumption of complete demolition 17 and redevelopment (interrupted) 18 Vice Chair Chang stated that she thought that they are not understanding any kind of order of 19 magnitude right now, that only a certain percentage of ROLM is included in figure four. If they 20 were to broaden this 18.14 to all our ROLM, what percentage is currently being affected by 21 18.14. If they were to broaden it to all of the city code, how much more would be affected and 22 similarly for all the other zones. She had no grasp of what percentage of each zone is currently 23 being impacted, so she didn’t understand what the potential long term impact is of a decision 24 to roll out these impacts for the entire city. Housing cycles aside, and housing opportunity sites 25 aside. Even that kind of order of magnitude type analysis would be very helpful in terms of 26 helping her understand what the actual impact of that decision would be. One of the 27 observations she had was about the ground floor landscaping. She expressed concern within 28 the Figure 4 GM and ROLM areas about the impact from an environmental perspective because 29 if there’s a potential to cover large swathes of land in concentrated areas by 101 and South Palo 30 Alto, where for high density housing is planned and developers could cover a 100% of the land 31 with development, but they don’t have permeable land for rainwater. There are ways to get 32 around that with respect to engineering, but people are being asked to think about permeable 33 surfaces. She also knows that in that area they had an underpass that flooded every single year, 34 and people couldn’t bike over to the Baylands until the new bike bridge was added. It is 35 wetlands over there, and she was concerned about the potential environmental impacts would 36 be with a large storm. She questioned if there are other things that need to be considered with 37 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. respect to the lot coverage. She is less worried about housing opportunities sites and increasing 1 the lot coverage elsewhere in Palo Alto, because when looking at the housing opportunity sites 2 map, they’re kind of sprinkled all over the place and it’s not large swathes that could potentially 3 be 100% covered with concrete, but she is concerned about that one particular neighborhood. 4 Which, as it is, is already going to be so different from the rest of Palo Alto. Vice Chair Chang 5 addressed the three Stanford sites. There was the Housing Element Working Group, Stanford 6 was a part of the Housing Element Working Group, and Stanford presented the PTC on their 7 ideas of how they could contribute to the Housing Element. They gave several reasons why they 8 couldn’t more broadly contribute to the Housing Element. Research Park, and the large amount 9 of land that Stanford has for Research Park is absolutely something that a lot of Palo Alto, and 10 many City Council members are interested in looking at for the next Housing Element cycle, but 11 that’s not on the table for this one, as she understands it. 12 Commissioner Hechtman thanked the members of the public who spoke, and contributed in 13 advance with written communications. It has been really robust, and we are hearing different 14 sides and different concerns on this critical issue for Palo Alto’s future. He called out former 15 Council member Schmidt and thought that he both forcefully and gracefully made the point 16 that this entire exercise of planning for a particular number of housing units in the next RHNA 17 cycle is based on figures that have already demonstrated inaccuracy. He found the information 18 interesting and thought the way Mr. Schmidt explained it helped him to understand it. It got 19 him thinking that if that were true, what was the result? Based on what may be largely 20 inaccurate numbers, it forced the city of Palo Alto to engage in a process to decide where 6,100 21 new housing units could go. The Council has, with a lot of work force, PTC, and the other 22 branches, ultimately identified 6,100 plus sites where that many units could go. If the HCD 23 RHNA numbers are off by 100%, then what they really should have been planning for is 3,000. 24 His belief is that in this RHNA cycle, it’s highly unlikely that 3,000 new units will be built. Even if 25 accurate lower numbers were figured, what this process has caused is potentially a longer term 26 planning than RHNA thought. Currently the question is being asked how many units they might 27 build, and how will they accommodate 6,100 units in the next eight years. In the next RHNA 28 cycle when looking back we’re going to see what really happened with the jobs market, and we 29 are already set up for the next cycle. It may be that the sites will cover a large part of our RHNA 30 needs for the next cycle. So, in that sense it’s a benefit. Part of the reason he doesn’t see them 31 hitting 3,000 units in this cycle is economics. They are opportunity sites because they haven’t 32 been redeveloped in the last five or eight or ten or fifteen years. And part of the reason they 33 haven’t redeveloped residentially is the money isn’t there. The profit of paying for that land, 34 building housing, it’s not showing up in the black or in the black enough to attract the 35 development community. Now we are going to upzone, at least the opportunity sites, through 36 this process, and that’s going to increase their value. The people who own those sites are going 37 to realize the value in the sale of those properties, and so the development community is still 38 going to have to contend with what are now higher land prices to try to fit their projects. That is 39 going to have a stifling effect on the kind of robust housing development that some might hope 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. for in the next cycle. Mr. O’Neil submitted an email on the 11th and raised some interesting 1 points. He made an assertion that while an economic or feasibility analysis is not expressly 2 required by Housing Element law, it’s impliedly required to fully perform the site constraint 3 analysis that is required by State Law and Commissioner Hechtman inquired if staff had any 4 reaction to that notion. 5 Mr. Yang responded that it’s something that we’ve been discussing with their Housing Element 6 consultant and with HCD. It was not staff’s understanding that a financial feasibility analysis was 7 required as part of the Housing Element process, and so they are clarifying with HCD what HCD 8 is looking for. 9 Commissioner Hechtman asked Ms. Eisberg to pull up the GM ROLM Housing Element focus 10 area on Packet Page 73. He thought that was the area that Mr. O’Neil was talking about in 11 asserting that nearly all of the opportunity sites are located in what he called a corner of south 12 Palo Alto. Commissioner Hechtman inquired what percentage of the 6,000 plus new units are 13 being accommodated in that area that is highlighted in blue or purple on the map. 14 Ms. Eisberg confessed she didn’t know, but I would try to figure that out if he wanted to move 15 on. 16 Commissioner Hechtman stated he felt that Mr. O’Neil was trying make the point that it’s a 17 high percentage, and that has some implications on a fair housing distribution. A number of 18 public commenters shared that thought and he wondered if staff had a reaction to that 19 consideration of whether packing that percentage in this area is going to continue the concerns 20 of HCD and be counter to fair housing distribution. 21 Mr. Yang responded that his question might be better addressed to the Housing Element 22 consultant team, because they’ve worked on AFAH analysis for many jurisdictions and are 23 familiar with HCD’s approach to those issues. Staff’s initial take is that this area of Palo Alto, 24 while not heavily residential right now, is actually a very high resource area in terms of an 25 assortment of support services and amenities that one would want to see in a residential 26 neighborhood. Thus, staff wouldn’t consider it a fair housing issue. 27 Ms. Eisberg followed up and stated that it looked like there are about 1,900 units zoned GM 28 ROLM, not just in this area, but mostly in that area, so maybe 30% of the 28% of the inventory. 29 Commissioner Hechtman thanked Ms. Eisberg and said that was very helpful. 30 Commissioner Reckdahl commented that one thing the City is doing is we’re upzoning, 31 increasing the residential density and asked if they should be decreasing the commercial 32 density. That would make it less profitable to do a commercial, which would make it more likely 33 to be residential. 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. Ms. Eisberg answered that she believed there is a separate program in the Housing Element 1 that looks at that very topic of potentially reducing commercial allowance. However, it’s not 2 part of this program. 3 Commissioner Reckdahl asked why it isn’t part of this program. 4 Mr. Yang explained that this program is specifically about reducing… changing the physical 5 constraints on sites that are on the inventory list. There’s a very specific requirement in State 6 Law, and that it is done by January 31st of 2024. There are a whole host of other programs that 7 are going to occur over the eight year period. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl inquired if it would make Palo Alto’s Housing Element more credible if 9 we did that now. 10 Mr. Yang responded perhaps. All of our programs in the Housing Element are geared towards 11 increasing the viability of housing production, and one of staffs challenges is prioritizing how 12 they’re going to tackle those. 13 Commissioner Reckdahl thought that this would have a lot of leverage because one of the 14 biggest constraints that’s preventing residential development is the fact that commercial 15 development is so lucrative, or at least has been. One of his concerns is that when looking at 16 the Fry’s location and then at West Bayshore, both of those had townhouse projects. 17 Townhouses are very popular right now, and more profitable than other rental units. If ROLM 18 GM becomes townhouses, they’re not going to meet the Housing Element and posed the 19 question of if they should be adding to the GM ROLM, a minimum density that would 20 encourage high density development there, either on some of the lots or all of the lots. And if 21 so, should it be part of this program. 22 Mr. Yang explained that they do have a minimum density of, he thought, 20 units per acre 23 proposed in the GM ROLM area, and it could certainly be higher if the PTC believed that makes 24 sense. 25 Commissioner Reckdahl commented that he thought it would be a good thing. Another thing 26 being proposed is increasing the density for both RM-20, 30, and 40. Increasing the maximum 27 density, but not increasing the minimum density. In the same type of thing, at least maybe for 28 RM-40, would they want to be bumping that minimum density up also to ensure that they get 29 some high density projects. They city wants a variety of housing projects in Palo Alto, but not all 30 micro units, however, they also don’t want all townhouses either. Would it make sense to 31 change the RM-40 minimum density? 32 Mr. Yang replied that is certainly something that the PTC could correct. 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. Commissioner Reckdahl inquired about another program in the Housing Element that is not 1 counting the FAR for three or four bedrooms, anything above two bedrooms don’t count 2 towards FAR to encourage more family sized units. However, he assumed that’s the same as in 3 the commercials, that would be a future program. 4 Ms. Eisberg answered that was right. She also believed that’s a separate program to encourage 5 family friendly housing. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl commented that it seems pretty easy to do, and he’s not sure why they 7 are not including that now, however he did understand there was a lot to go through. 8 Commissioner Templeton commented that she was going to do some follow up questions and 9 comments based on some things her colleagues had said. Regarding comments from 10 Commissioner Akin and Vice Chair Chang, she respectfully summarized how she felt about the 11 material so far, and that doesn’t speak to the potential, and it’s still a work in progress. 12 However, she had a sense that this presentation is not yet at the level of persuasiveness that 13 this city is going to need to accept it. Meaning that the nature of the questions so far has been 14 where’s the data, why are you suggesting that, help me understand. Her suggestion would be to 15 make their argument more persuasive to the general audience and that will help them be able 16 to get on board. The PTC is channeling feedback from the public, feedback as they read through 17 all the information and they need it to be a little more airtight, as far as a recommendation. She 18 questioned lot coverage, permeability, underground parking and explained that she had the 19 opportunity to hear from another local municipality that is trying to update their storm 20 infrastructure because of what happened earlier this year, as far as a natural disasters and the 21 space Vice Chair Chang mentioned has a significant risk to flood. When her kids were at the 22 preschool that was in that space and it rained, the entire lot was flooded, and they couldn’t get 23 their kids out. It was pretty serious, and that’s not a situation where you want to put an 24 underground parking garage. She’s really concerned about that and isn’t sure if that’s feasible. 25 It is very close to the bay and will the geography of that terrain support taller houses. We don’t 26 want to have another situation like the early 20th Century in San Francisco where they build on 27 too much sand. They need to make sure they understand that and that’s in terms of 28 persuasiveness, these are the kinds of things she’s thinking about. Natural disasters, if there 29 were an earthquake, or a flood, how is that specific space going to respond, and have they 30 made sure that they can build safely there for 1,900 homes. People should be confident that 31 they have built in a safe location. Regarding lot coverage, even people in dense housing or 32 lower income, or lower priced point housing, those people need to be able to see plants and 33 flowers too. She shared the concerns that have been expressed around that. Regarding a 34 minimum density that Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned, it’s a really interesting proposal. She 35 just wanted to make sure that, like Commissioner Hechtman said, that Palo Alto can distribute 36 spaces of minimum density throughout the city and not only in one area. She realized the way 37 that this had been presented to us, the PTC’s scope is just these two areas, however, going 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. forward the PTC will be keeping an eye on that and making sure that there are also other 1 spaces. Climate change, natural resources protecting the bay, and the Baylands are something 2 else to think about. If they put a large number of very high density projects there, it's going to 3 be different for what impact it will have on nearby environments. She recognized that they 4 have had some amount of CEQA investigation there, but a lot of people make a lot of trash, a 5 lot of sewage, a lot walking, and a lot of damage to the environment. They have to be 6 thoughtful that they don’t over intensify or impact on the Baylands because it’s very close. 7 Clustering in a very specific part of town is something she’s very sensitive to and understands 8 that the City wants to take advantage of places that present opportunities, but they also have 9 to think about where they will be positioning this presumably entry level housing in an 10 industrial zone, right beside 101. Looking at it through an environmental justice lens, is this 11 going to be a less healthy part of Palo Alto. Are those residents going to have more impact on 12 them by just the place where they’re going to live, which ties back into… is this space not being 13 like-enough to the rest of Palo Alto. On the one hand, there’s some possibilities there that are 14 really positive, being closer to work, bikeable to the Baylands and companies off the Baylands, 15 et cetera, on the other hand, what are they doing to the community if a please is created that is 16 so physically separate. It’s easy to write that off and say, gosh, every neighborhood is different, 17 but they are talking about a significant difference here and maybe that’s what they have to do, 18 but they need to be very intentional and aware of if that’s the choices they are deciding to 19 make. 20 Chair Summa thanked all of the commenters and emails they received on this topic. It’s all very 21 helpful. In particular, she was very interested in what Mr. Schmid brought up and is especially 22 troubling when you look at the failure of the RHNA process over the last fifty years. Every cycle 23 failed to achieve what it was supposed to achieve. By that, the market rate numbers were 24 achievable, and the subsidized rates were never achievable, and the delta between the two got 25 broader and broader with each RHNA cycle over eight years. This raises the question why we 26 continue doing it. They need something better, and when we do complete it, it should be based 27 on realistic data and there should be a process by which that can be adjusted. Nobody expected 28 COVID and the massive effects and changes in the way people do business, and the way we live. 29 It was a remarkable thing, actually. To the issues before us tonight, which are really the changes 30 to address a more urgent statutory requirement to the Comp Plan and then to the Municipal 31 Code and also to decide if we want to extend the new part of the municipal code 18.14, she’s 32 very concerned about reducing landscape standards also, because in the BASA area it will be 33 very different than the rest of Palo Alto, and they aren’t making room for anything except 34 maybe courtyards above podium parking, which she finds very undesirable, and on rooftops. If 35 they are going to have rooftops stand in for open space, then standards are needed for those 36 rooftops, such as how much green they should have and how much shade they should have. 37 Otherwise, they won’t be usable by anybody. It will be a real heat island out there and she 38 shared some of her colleagues’ concerns that this is just going to be like ‘not the other part’ of 39 Palo Alto. Which doesn’t feel right to her. They may have to do it, but her concern is that it is 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. going to be a very different area, and she didn’t see the walkable amenities that maybe some 1 people do in that area. Landscaping is a big deal to her, but that then affects height and 2 footprint. Those are some of the trade-offs. Another consideration is the consequence 3 associated with parcels that are opportunity sites that are not developed in this cycle, for the 4 next cycle, and requested a reminder of what that consequence is. 5 Mr. Yang explained that if there are sites that are used in two consecutive housing elements 6 that are not developed and the City want to use them again, they would then be required to 7 provide a certain level of by-right development. 8 Chair Summa added that’s one of the actual practical and real disadvantages of having an 9 unrealistic number of units to produce in the first place. That would be unfortunate if it wasn’t 10 the City’s fault, and it was due to the numbers being wrong. She is not interested in extending 11 the new title 18.14 to the rest of the city. She believed there are too many unknowns and 12 especially with HCD not having something suitable for the City yet, a housing element suitable 13 for them, and didn’t feel they have enough information on what those impacts would be. It 14 makes it clunkier to use the document, because staff will have to look in two places. Chair 15 Summa referred to Packet Page 72, and 18.20.030, Table 1. The change here was to an existing 16 piece of code, and the change was to call out, instead of just multiple family housing, it was to 17 make multiple family housing that are opportunity sites and multiple family housing that are 18 not opportunity sites. She inquired about there not being CUP permitted in the multiple family 19 housing element opportunity sites box, for MOR, and if that was a mistake or if staff didn’t 20 want it there. 21 Ms. Eisberg explained there’s two separate lines there because they need to allow multi-family 22 housing by-right, on those opportunity sites. However, in these zones there are, outside of the 23 opportunity sites, other sites that are zones with potential hazardous materials in this area, and 24 those are required to have a CUP. 25 Chair Summa questioned if for the housing opportunity sites, they don’t need to put Permitted 26 for MOR or CUP, for MOR. 27 Ms. Eisberg clarified that for MOR, currently there’s no housing opportunity sites proposed in 28 the MOR district. 29 Chair Summa thanked Ms. Eisberg for clarifying that. Chair Summa commented that she didn’t 30 know that the presentation needs to be more persuasive, and didn’t quite understanding that 31 point; however, she didn’t have other specific questions. She is very concerned about the 32 landscaping and those impacts, particularly in the BASA area, because she believed the rest are 33 spread out, and it’s something they have to do regardless of how they may or may not like it. 34 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. Vice Chair Chang commented that she concurred with Chair Summer and Commissioner Akin 1 regarding extending 18.14 to the rest of Palo Alto and agreed with the current staff proposal to 2 keep it a separate section for a number of reasons. One is that as highlighted by Commissioner 3 Reckdahl, it sounds like these changes tie into a number of other programs and because they 4 are located in one place right now, it’s very easy to see how they could pull the other programs 5 in and make it easier to find them. Secondly, there will be some changes to the Housing 6 Element, and currently everything that they’ve touched in one location. She knows there’s 7 litigation in southern California and potentially coming forward in other parts of the state, and 8 they’re going to see how this whole process goes forward. She is one of the folks that thinks 9 that some of the underlying assumptions potentially for the Housing Element numbers, may be 10 unrealistic and there are situations where it doesn’t serve Palo Alto’s best interest to have 11 inaccurate numbers to begin with because of some of these by-right implications for future use 12 of the same sites. She believes it’s best to keep things separate, for now, but that it may make 13 sense once they’ve lived with 18.14 for a while, to revisit it at that time. Regarding the tables, 14 Vice Chair Chang inquired how many Research Park housing opportunity sites are there right 15 now, in the current Housing Element. 16 Ms. Eisberg stated she would look that up. 17 Vice Chair Chang liked Commissioner Reckdahl’s comment about incorporating a minimum 18 density component and would love to see the tables when the PTC sees this again. If they could 19 see what the current minimum density is, they could adjust those, if necessary; and if there is 20 no minimum density, it could be flagged because it’s not currently in our tables. That would be 21 helpful. She did recognize that they can’t do everything right now and they are trying to pick 22 and choose and implement those things that are required by law to be done in January 2024 23 first. Her preference would be that when they adopt an ordinance, they adopt a minimum 24 density, because she doesn’t see why these multi-family parcels should be any different from 25 our other multi-family parcels. There should be a minimum density because there is a specific 26 goal for these. A number of other proposals that the PTC has approved, through the last twelve 27 to twenty-four months, have densities that have not come anywhere near what could have 28 been built on the properties because townhomes are so lucrative. If they want to see a variety 29 of housing, that needs to happen. Commissioner Reckdahl’s point about not counting FARs 30 above a certain number of bedrooms, which is another program, goes hand in hand with part, 31 1.1. If it’s possible, she hoped that when they do adopt 18.14, staff will be able to incorporate 32 both the minimum density, as well as that specific piece about the FAR above a certain number 33 of bedrooms being a freebie. That will incentivize the right types of proposals to come in. 34 Commissioner Lu commented that he understands the dilemma of staff, regarding the point of 35 being persuasive. This is a study session so they can figure out what the opportunities are to 36 make the Housing Element better. Clarifying his point about Stanford, they offered three sites, 37 and then proposed very different plans on two of them. One of them with the Builders Remedy, 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. and he doesn’t understand how the politics of Stanford landownership works, or to what extent 1 leasers have the ability to advance proposals themselves. Something happened very 2 dramatically for two of these three sites. This points to less cohesion in Stanford’s approach 3 than one might think. Given that, it seems totally reasonable to upzone parts of the Research 4 Park and zone it like a GM zone and put the ball in their court. They don’t have to pick the ball 5 up. Secondly, they’ve already shown a willingness to build a pretty big builders remedy project 6 on the McDonalds and fish market sites. He is generally fine with this extended zoning. Zoning 7 on El Camino is like patchwork. El Camino is very difficult to get a unified zoning approach. In 8 the GM and ROLM zones there’s also less of a patchwork, but still a bit of a patchwork. The 9 practical differences seem marginal as commissioners have mentioned. Most of those sites 10 won’t be developed, it’s certainly cleaner, and the PTC may be predisposed to approve those 11 sites anyway, they don’t need to add them all into the Housing Element sites so that potential 12 issues down the line are also kind of avoidable. He agreed that cramming housing along San 13 Antonio is not ideal and while it may not be a horrible place, it is not clearly fair, or affirmatively 14 fair. They should explore more opportunities to put out RFD’s for downtown and Cal Ave 15 parking lots, there are many more and they may not need to include all of them, including more 16 should be considered. Similar upzoning for the shopping center, or maybe Cubberly, as 17 Research Park. He supports clearer requirements for ground floor landscaping, clearer setbacks 18 for El Camino, San Antonio area, along that vein; and minimum density, as people have 19 mentioned. He would support holding the line on underground parking, where possible. He has 20 strong negative feelings about surface parking and podiums. He would support lowering 21 parking minimums as well, and including other programs to the extent that they can, as 22 Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned for commercial offices. 23 Commissioner Hechtman commented that he heard a couple of commissioners mention 24 reduced landscaping. His review of the Staff Report suggested that relocating landscaping is 25 maybe a more accurate description and requested clarification, as his understanding was a 26 certain percentage is still required but it can now be above the ground floor, where it will be 27 enjoyed by the occupants of that building and possibly somewhat in a more private way. We’re 28 not reducing landscaping requirements, we’re relocating them. 29 Ms. Eisberg stated he was correct. 30 Commissioner Hechtman continued with the comment from Commissioner Reckdahl about 31 looking at reduction of the commercial areas as a compliment to entice greater residential. 32 Believed they should examine that; however, he fears that when we do, they are going to find 33 that it’s actually going to be a site constraint. There’s no vacant commercial land in Palo Alto 34 right now. It’s all built, it’s being used, or it’s vacant and available for rent. Let’s say there’s a 35 50,000 square foot commercial building, and this new zoning that we’re talking about will allow 36 them to add 30,000 square feet of housing above it. If they have to reduce the commercial from 37 50,000 to 30,000 square feet developers won’t do that because the commercial is too valuable. 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. Yes, it should be considered, however they need to be wary that they don’t disincentivize 1 people from rebuilding on their property in doing so. Similarly, he thinks that they should look 2 at minimum density, but they need to very carefully consider it so to avoid a minimum number 3 of units you have to have, with a maximum height and a maximum FAR. Would they be forcing 4 people to have studio and one bedrooms, because that’s all that will fit in the 30 units. There 5 should be a number that’s low enough, while ensuring that they don’t end up with five units on 6 a property that could accommodate 50. He liked the idea of a minimum, but I think we’ve got 7 to look at that to get it right. The Chair correctly pointed out in conversation with Mr. Yang, that 8 one of the negative by-products of an overreach by the HCD in setting our RHNA numbers is if 9 these units, which we are identifying in this cycle, go through another cycle and still aren’t built, 10 then they become by-right development. If somebody is going to build by-right in Palo Alto, do 11 they want them to build by-right where it has already been decided there should be housing 12 compared withbuilders remedy applicants and SB 330 applications where they really don’t want 13 the density they’re proposing, but they can get it by-right. A number of the commissioners have 14 commented on their view of whether chapter 18.14 should or should not extend beyond 15 opportunity sites. He doesn’t feel he has the appropriate amount of information available to 16 form an opinion. Maybe staff can go into more detail on the potential benefits and detriments 17 of having 18.14 apply outside of opportunity sites, maybe with a couple of examples. 18 Commissioner Hechtman provided comments on the language of the ordinances. Starting on 19 Packet Page 72, we’ve got multiple family Housing Element opportunity sites subject to 20 regulations in Chapter, and we’ve correctly cited 18.14.020, but then multiple family other 21 sites, those that are not opportunity sites – but in also referencing 18.14.020 which, if it’s not 22 an opportunity site… That reference should not be there. If ultimately, it’s going to be decided 23 that it will comply to everything, fine. But if it’s a multi-family that’s not an opportunity site, so 24 that 18.14 doesn’t apply to it, then that reference needs to be removed. Packet Page 76, 25 18.16.060B, is an added clause, starting with Accept. It says: Chapter 18.24. and the new 26 language Accept that sites designated as Housing Element, there needs to be a comma there. 27 This one appears three times here. First on Packet Page 77, the new subpart C at the very 28 bottom of that page that says, “Combining district use regulations and design buildings 29 standards shall not apply to exclusively residential project on Housing Element opportunity sites 30 designed to accommodate lower income households”. Staff needs to add “see 18.14.020”. The 31 same thing happens on Packet Page 79, the same language about low income households, 32 toward the top of the page, and it appears on Page 75. It's the same reference, Commissioner 33 Hechtman asked staff to take a look at that. Regarding if 18.14 will apply outside of opportunity 34 sites, it’s been clear throughout this project that the Council is not interested in opportunity 35 sites in R-1 zones properties, with one exception, and that’s the faith based properties. If we 36 decide to apply 18.14 more broadly, across the city, that has to be accounted for. The intention 37 will not be to also apply that to the R-1’s not owned by faith based organizations. Relating to 38 that, if it applies to other than opportunity sites, a faith based organization can buy an R-1 39 house in a neighborhood and go multi-family. That’s not an intention, however, that needs to 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. be considered as another unintended consequence to look at as the discussion moves forward 1 with extending 18.14 beyond the opportunity sites. 2 Commissioner Akin commented that he’s not ready to commit to extending 18.14 yet, however 3 he’s not opposed to the idea of updating the baselines later, when there is better justification 4 for doing so. He spent some time going through current projects in the pipeline to see what the 5 City’s FARs have been lately. In the first fifteen projects he had time to review, the mean FAR 6 that is in the pipeline today is 2.2. One might say that’s surprisingly high, but that average is 7 high because there are a few builders remedy and density bonus projects in those first fifteen. 8 Seven out of those fifteen are under 2 FAR. And two of them are under a FAR of 1. There’s 9 building going on today, even though higher FARs are not allowed. The right approach for the 10 baseline is not completely clear to him, so he’s not ready to apply it this early. 11 Chair Summa commented that is very interesting data and thanked Commissioner Akin for 12 taking that time. 13 Commissioner Templeton expressed an interest in clarifying so that her persuasive comment 14 earlier was understood. When asking staff to make proposals more persuasive, it was because 15 she heard at least three commissioners ask for data to back up their recommendation, she was 16 not talking about sales persuasive, rather technical persuasive. Be able to make it very clear 17 what the recommendation is based on and justify it in a way that the PTC can all see at least 18 where staff is coming from, even if they may not all agree. Having that objective data to 19 support their recommendation would be very helpful for the community. 20 Chair Summa inquired about the blue annotations in the borders of the Comp Plan and wanted 21 to verify that it was in fact… all the proposed changes are between Packet pages 40 and 44. 22 Ms. Eisberg responded yes, it’s just the changes to the Land Use Designation definition. 23 Chair Summa continued that she doesn’t think anybody has specifically commented on that, it 24 was such a small amount of suggested changes she wanted to make sure that was correct and 25 say that they all seem appropriate her. Regarding the value of commercial versus residential 26 development, she believed the value per square foot is getting almost the same, and the 27 difference is, partially, because the rental structure for commercial is very different than 28 residential, and because the long-term leases not a hundred individual unit families 29 complaining about things; it’s a very different kind of property to own. Additionally, they have 30 tried very many ways for a long time in Palo Alto, to reduce adding new commercial 31 development but that’s really on their plate tonight. She strongly believes that underground 32 parking and podium parking are not desirable. She agrees with her colleague about that, and 33 inquired if they aren’t we reducing personal outdoor space, are they not requiring that for 34 individual units… or was that eliminated. 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. Eisberg answered that right now, this ordinance does not propose any changes to private 1 open space. A few years ago, the City may have made changes to whether one could do 2 common versus private, but this ordinance does not make any changes to private open space 3 requirements. 4 Chair Summa thanked her for that clarification. 5 Commissioner Reckdahl commented regarding extending 18.14, he is in the same boat as 6 everyone else. Down the road they probably do want to flow some of that back, but right now 7 18.14 should be for the opportunity sites. Once all these programs are developed, they can 8 revisit it for the rest of the city. He doesn’t believe they are missing anything by holding off and 9 not giving benefits to someone who’s not going to use it. As far as relocating landscaping, as 10 Commissioner Hechtman said, he had mixed feelings about it, because it is a constraint. He 11 doesn’t have an issue with the back of the lot. His concern with the front of the lots and 12 creating about neighborhoods. Walking by podium parking and walking by trees are two 13 different experiences. You have to have that ground floor, but at the back of the lot you can 14 have it elevated, and that would make it easier to have underground parking and make it easier 15 to build. Clustering everything down to GM and ROLM reminded him of Willie Sutton. He 16 robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The City is putting everything in that area 17 because that’s where the land is. That area is more likely to be developed than something 18 that’s brand new, second story, and very lucrative because of renting out office space. He does 19 feel it is a little unfair to put it down there, but it’s much more plausible that it’s going to be 20 redesigned than a new office building would be redesigned. Commissioner Hechtman talked 21 about a minimum. Commissioner Reckdahl agreed there could be bad side effects, the big thing 22 is it has to be high enough that they aren’t forced to do some type of high rise and if the 23 constraint is height that probably would be appropriate. He believed something along the scale 24 down on San Antonio probably would be acceptable and a limit of sixty might be giving up 25 units, and also giving up feasibility. Bumping that up would give us more room to implement a 26 meaningful minimum density as well. 27 Vice Chair Chang asked if Ms. Eisberg had an answer to her question earlier about the Research 28 Park sites, and where they are. 29 Ms. Eisberg answered there are seven sites and a total of 232 housing units going towards the 30 RHNA. 31 Vice Chair Chang clarified there’s seven sites, and three of them are the Stanford sites on El 32 Camino. 33 Ms. Eisberg apologized and stated she was looking at PF. It’s just that 330 El Camino site. So, it’s 34 just the Stanford site. There is just one. 35 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton requested clarification of if it’s 232 all Stanford sites, or just the one. 1 Ms. Eisberg responded it’s just one Stanford site, 3300 El Camino. 2 Vice Chair Chang continued and explained that if they are going to be pulling out those Stanford 3 sites separately, unless they are thinking about extending the proposed changes in Table 2 4 more broadly beyond 18.14 to all of Research Park, she didn’t think it’s helpful to have 5 Research park covered in Table 2. Research Park is a huge opportunity for housing and without 6 a really long and thoughtful discussion about what the maximum landscape coverage, what the 7 maximum lot coverage, what the maximum density should be, what the maximum height 8 should be, they shouldn’t put anything there. It’s a huge housing opportunity for the city, it’s 9 also a huge opportunity for planned neighborhoods, they just saw something that was zoned 10 RM-30 go away, doesn’t want their intention for this area to be incorrect. They could 11 conceivably go really high in some places and go low in other places but they need to also 12 consider carving out large parks, for a school; and feels strongly about removing Research Park 13 from Table 2, because they’re already defining those three Stanford sites separately in 18.14 14 and Research Park merits a lot more thought unless they plan to rezone Research park more 15 broadly that is a much larger discussion than something that should be done at the PTC. It’s not 16 constrained the same way as the rest of Palo Alto. Then related to that, it’s a segway about 17 Figure 4. When looking at Figure 4 and thinking about the BASA area and GM ROLM, this is just 18 a plea for us to please look at this area. It’s not a PTC level decision to be made, but it is a 19 school board and City Council level decision to be made. Please think about services for the 20 1,600 units that are going to go in there with probably 1,600 kids, if not double that. That’s 21 elementary schools in Palo Alto. That is four elementary schools. There is a great deal of 22 planning that needs to go into developing Research park. 23 Chair Summa agreed fully. 24 Commissioner Reckdahl noted that south of San Antonio is actually Mountainview High School, 25 and Mountainview School District, so the GM should really be reaching out to Mountainview. 26 Vice Chair Chang said yes, south of San Antonio is, but that little corner of Figure 4 is not and 27 that’s where, by her calculations and a prior iteration of the Housing Element inventory list, it 28 was about 1,600 units. 29 Commissioner Reckdahl stated that in Figure 4, the area in the far right there is Palo Alto city 30 but Mountainview school district. 31 Vice Chair Chang stated she would love the data on that, but regardless, there’s at least one 32 elementary school going in there, if not two. 33 34 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Reckdahl totally agreed that between planning and parks and bike paths and 1 schools, there’s a lot of stuff that needs to be planned. 2 Commissioner Templeton commented that there are lots throughout this city, most notably 3 Research Park that has a tremendous vast opportunity for them to consider in a completely 4 different way. There are challenges like the plumes are there, and it’s beautifully landscaped 5 already. If they ripped all that out and didn’t put something back that would be a loss for the 6 community. Additionally, she worked at tallest building over there and bird strikes were very 7 common. They can’t go very high. It was only a two or three story building on top of a hill. 8 Those are migratory paths, this is right by the Baylands, it would be devastating to the wildlife 9 community to have very tall buildings with that much glass that residential would require. She 10 would be very concerned, even with the technology for safe windowpanes, which it had and 11 even was named as being bird friendly. They lost multiple birds a day and it was really hard. She 12 would not want to think about encouraging high buildings in that space and it would be a huge 13 mistake. Yes, it is an opportunity for housing, but there has to be a balance between both 14 housing and the needs of the natural resources and the environment. There’s also the flooding 15 risk which had already been mentioned but she wanted to make sure for good coverage that it 16 was mentioned again because it floods a lot there, and it is right by the bay and that land is 17 already saturated. It’s going to be pretty risky to build underground parking in those spaces. 18 She couldn’t think of any underground lots on the other side of 101, and maybe the 101 makes 19 it far enough away where it would be suitable. As far as schools are concerned, this area is 20 pretty close to Cubberly, which is why they retained the property. It would be a huge 21 development project to get that high school usable again. We do have some adjacent sites like 22 Greendale and preschool and family buildings that could probably turn into an elementary 23 school, but those facilities are also very outdated. While the land exists, the facilities don’t exist 24 and that’s been a source of much debate over the last half decade, maybe more, about what 25 direction they should go with that property. It’s a long ways off, even though the property is 26 there. 27 Chair Summa commented that she appreciated the comments about bird safety, it’s really 28 important. Obviously, they won’t put underground parking where the soils do not allow for that 29 in any location. She was more concerned with podium parking on El Camino and Commissioner 30 Lu said she was anti underground parking and podium. She believes underground parking 31 should be kept underground, when possible, to free up the ground grade for other uses such as 32 housing or parks. Regarding podium parking, she considers unsightly and just not something 33 they would want in Palo Alto. 34 Chair Summer asked Ms. Eisberg and Ms. French if they received what they needed in terms of 35 feedback from the PTC. 36 37 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Eisberg responded it had been very helpful, and she appreciated all of the input. She will be 1 passing along the comments to staff and the consultants. The zoning ordinance can really add 2 on to the zoning stuff, but she knew they have a number of comments about bigger planning 3 issues that will need to be considered. 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of 6 August 9, 2023 7 8 Chair Summa requested a motion. 9 10 MOTION 11 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the draft verbatim minutes of August 9, 2023 as 12 revised. 13 14 SECOND 15 Commissioner Reckdahl seconded the motion. 16 17 Chair Summa requested a roll call vote. 18 19 MOTION PASSED 6 (Akin, Chang, Lu, Summa, Hechtman, Reckdahl) -0 -1 (Templeton abstain) 20 Commission Action: Motion by Akin, seconded by Lu. Pass 6-0-1 (Templeton abstain) 21 22 Committee Items 23 None 24 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 1 Chair Summa called for a motion to cancel the late September PTC meeting. 2 3 MOTION 4 Vice Chair Chang moved that they officially cancel the PTC meeting on September 27th. 5 After confirming with Mr. yang that a motion was not necessary, Vice Chair Chang retracted her 6 motion. 7 Commissioner Templeton reported that Senator Josh Becker is having an open house. He 8 recently relocated his district office from San Mateo down to Menlo Park, which is very 9 accessible. She encouraged everyone to go by on Friday September 22nd between 2:00 and 10 4:30. 11 Commissioner Hechtman reported that The City, in conjunction with Valley Water, was going to 12 replace the levee gate at Byxbee Park and it was thought that the project was going to take 13 possibly three summers and during that entire period the travel path would be closed. Last 14 week he spoke with Valley Water while they were doing an inspection of the improvement and 15 they told him that they’ve decided they don’t need to do that massive replacement project for 16 maybe another twenty or thirty years and will instead do a refurbishment of the existing 17 improvement which would likely close the path for only a summer. Additionally, it will be a 18 couple of summers from now. That is great news for hikers and bikers that love to get out that 19 way. 20 Commissioner Reckdahl commented that September 29th there will be a moonlight run down 21 to the Baylands. It used to be a great party before COVID, so hopefully it regains its momentum. 22 Commissioner Templeton reported that she attended the Parkland, for the expansion 23 dedication of the Parkland at Boulware Park over near the Fry’s site, the Mayor was there, and 24 Council Member Lauing was there, and it was really nice. She met members of the Ventura 25 community who were all excited and she met the guy who found the lot and connected the 26 owners of the lot and the city people so we could buy it. It was really cool, and I just wanted to 27 share as she thought of all the hard work the PTC put into that project. It’s a great project and 28 the whole thing is already demolished and underway, so it’s exciting. 29 Chair Summa reported she attended the Council meeting last night and they approved the 30 PTC’s unanimous recommendation to change the underlying land use from CS for the three 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. commercial sites, to mixed use, which is the SOFA, and it was incorporated into the staff’s 1 recommendation. Chair thanked staff for their hard work on that. 2 Adjournment 3 9:00 pm 4 5