Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-10 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: July 10, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call To Order / Roll Call 6 7 Chair Chang called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 Oral Communications 12 13 There were no requests to speak. 14 15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16 17 Veronica Dao announced there were no changes. 18 19 City Official Reports 20 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 21 22 Chief Planning Official Amy French displayed a slide with notes from the Office of 23 Transportation (OOT). She believed the May Collision Report had been emailed to the PTC 24 earlier in the day. Staff continued to coordinate with Caltrans on the El Camino Real Bike Lanes 25 Project and was waiting for Caltrans to issue final plans and a construction schedule. She 26 presented a slide showing upcoming meetings. The July 31 meeting had been cancelled. The 27 August 14 meeting would include the Stream Corridor Ordinance update and study session, the 28 Dark Skies and Bird-Safe Design Ordinance, and the Retail Study recommendations. 29 Modifications to the Retail Study would be brought to the PTC for discussion. August 28 30 included a PC Project, 660 University, and the OOT would provide an update on Parking 31 Programs. The Housing Incentive Program was scheduled for September 11. A letter had been 32 received from HCD regarding the Housing Element submittal, and Assistant City Attorney Yang 33 would address any questions related to that. She provided a slide listing items that were 34 anticipated to go to Council in August and items for September or October. She provided an 35 update for the Rental Registry Program (RRP). A Council Housing Ad Hoc meeting was planned 36 for early August and a community meeting for August 22. She would be happy to take questions 37 at this meeting and attempt to return with responses. The questions that would be inputted in 38 the portal were in development, so they were not ready to be shared. A member of the OOT 39 was available to answer questions. 40 1 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang stated that updates and minor revisions had been posted 2 last Tuesday in response to informal conversations that had occurred with HCD staff about the 3 Housing Element. HCD sent a letter yesterday stating it was close to being certified but they 4 wanted four minor changes to the programs, which staff was working on. When the changes 5 were ready, they would be posted for a seven-day period, and they hoped to hear back from 6 HCD shortly after that. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton asked why minor changes were holding up the Housing Element. She 9 had heard when it was being submitted that everything was preapproved. She announced that 10 she would attend the August 14 meeting. 11 12 Albert Yang answered that HCD had stated that public comments raising new issues that had 13 not been considered may have needed to be responded to. He discussed why the changes were 14 classified as minor. 15 16 Commissioner Lu asked what the expected timeline was for the actual HCD approval. He 17 requested a recap of the changes from the May to July redlines. He noted that the three 18 program changes in July redlines were flagged in previous HCD comment letters and at the 19 Council PTC joint meeting and they had been assured that the concerns would be generally 20 resolved, and he queried where miscommunication occurred and if there were risks of other 21 points that may not be included in the latest redlines. He queried when the HCD formal letter 22 would be shared and when the four changes being requested would be known. 23 24 Albert Yang replied that HCD stated that they would prioritize Palo Alto after submittal of the 25 latest redlines and to expect about two weeks. He recapped some the changes from the May to 26 July redlines, which were not major. He was not sure why there was inconsistency or 27 miscommunication regarding the three program changes in the July redlines. If the HCD letter 28 was not up on the Housing website, it would be shortly. There was no reason for it to not be 29 available. 30 31 Action Items 32 33 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park 34 Redevelopment/3980 El Camino Real (24PLN-00129): Recommendation on 35 Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to Allow for a 36 Subdivision of a Single 4.5-acre Parcel into Two Parcels. The Subdivision Map Would 37 Facilitate Redevelopment of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park with a 61-Unit 38 Apartment Building on a 1.69-Acre Parcel and a 44-Unit Mobile Home Rehabilitation 39 on a 2.81-acre parcel. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the 40 California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 41 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). For 42 More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at 43 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 44 1 Chair Chang requested disclosures. 2 3 Commissioner Lu had visited the Buena Vista site previously, and he had nothing else to 4 disclose. 5 6 Commissioner Summa had nothing to disclose. 7 8 Commissioner Akin had nothing to disclosure. 9 10 Chair Chang had no disclosures. 11 12 Vice Chair Reckdahl had no disclosures. 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman disclosed that his firm represented the owners of the park when they 15 sold to the Housing Authority, which he did not think was an issue. He had not visited the site 16 recently. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton had no disclosures. 19 20 Principal Planner Claire Raybould declared that the project before the PTC was a Vesting 21 Tentative Map (VTM) for Buena Vista redevelopment, which was for a 2 lot subdivision of an 22 existing 4.5-acre parcel to create a 1.69-acre parcel and a 2.81 acre parcel. She explained that 23 the Tentative Map was necessary for funding purposes. The resulting parcels were code 24 compliant. Each lot exceeded the requirements for minimum lot size and minimum width and 25 depth. The 1.69-acre lot would be redeveloped with an apartment building, and the 2.81-acre 26 site would be rehabilitated as a mobile home park through the State HDC. The net lot sizes 27 excluded the existing Valley Water easement along the frontage. The PTC was to look at the 28 subdivision map findings for approval, which mainly looked at consistency with the land use 29 designation and zoning of the site. The subdivision included various changes to easements, 30 which included removal of obsolete easements [or 30:43] references to utility easements that 31 would be removed. It also provided new public and private easements, which included a 32 sidewalk across the frontage of the property, and new utility easements. There had been a 33 question related to an existing road or highway easement along the frontage, and she clarified 34 that the removal was not necessary. It was an obsolete easement, which had been dedicated to 35 Santa Clara County prior to the area being annex in to Palo Alto. It was not to be part of the 36 map and if it were to be removed, it would need to be done through a separate instrument 37 (hopefully prior to recording the map). Staff recommended that the PTC recommend approval 38 of the proposed VTM to Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. She 39 announced that Housing Authority staff was attending this meeting. 40 41 Santa Clara County Housing Authority Project Manager Kris Adhikari, developer and owner of 42 the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, discussed public meetings being important milestones in 43 making progress. He spoke of Buena Vista being a special community, and he provided some 44 history of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The Housing Authority had worked to stabilize 1 the park and create a redevelopment plan for the park to remain a quality affordable housing 2 community. They did extensive community engagement and established goals in partnership 3 with residents, which included a right to return to improved affordable housing, to preserve 4 ownership opportunities, and to improve amenities and utilities. Their plan would achieve 5 those goals. There would be two projects operating as one, which included an all-electric 6 apartment building and a fully redeveloped mobile home park, and both sites would be under a 7 75-year affordability deed restriction. Bifurcating the parcel would allow the development to 8 proceed as planned. He indicated that their staff was available to answer questions. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman questioned why there would be fewer than 100 affordable units 11 today. He did not understand the reference to two affordable housing units contributing to the 12 housing inventory referenced on Packet Page 12 because there would be more than two. He 13 asked if the reference to tenant relocation in the land use statement of decision was a topic for 14 the PTC at this meeting. 15 16 Claire Raybould understood that there would be fewer than 100 affordable units today because 17 when the property changed hands perhaps there were a number of existing homes at the time 18 determined to be uninhabitable and irreparable, so they were taken out of service. She thought 19 the reference to two affordable housing units contributing to the housing inventory referenced 20 on Packet Page 12 was a typo. She would investigate it and, if needed, correct it in the Staff 21 Report to Council. 22 23 Kris Adhikari added, regarding there being fewer than affordable 100 units today, that there 24 was also a portion of the park that they were not able to purchase. 25 26 Albert Yang affirmed that the reference to tenant relocation in the land use statement of 27 decision was not a topic for the PTC at this meeting. 28 29 Vice Chair Reckdahl noted that the red square/rectangle on Slide 1 was in the wrong spot. He 30 inquired if the Housing Authority had to follow Palo Alto zoning for this project. 31 32 Claire Raybould confirmed that the red square/rectangle on Slide 1 was in the wrong spot. 33 34 Albert Yang explained why they did not investigate whether the Housing Authority had to 35 follow Palo Alto zoning for this project. 36 37 Chair Chang discussed the markings for the 5-foot sidewalk easement for Parcels A and B and 38 questioned if they should be referenced twice. 39 40 Claire Raybould explained the markings for the sidewalk easement. It would go across the 41 entire property frontage. The final map process would provide all the closure calculations 42 showing the exact point of start. 43 44 Commissioner Templeton inquired if the frontage was Los Robles and if there would be painted 1 bike lanes there. She stated the sidewalk was a huge improvement. 2 3 Claire Raybould confirmed that Los Robles was the frontage. There were no proposed changes 4 to the bike lanes. 5 6 Public Comments 7 8 There were no requests to speak. 9 10 Commissioner Akin addressed the CEQA exemption, and he was surprised by the transportation 11 study because it did not analyze VMT and it relied on the assumption that up to 35 families 12 moving from a mobile home to an apartment at the same location would cut their daily trip 13 count in half. He thought the work done for the Housing Element Supplemental EIR could have 14 been leveraged. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman supported the staff recommendation. He pointed out a couple typos 17 on the Record of Land Use on Packet Pages 19 and 36. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton queried if there would be enough parking. She supported this item. 20 21 Claire Raybould answered that there would be significantly more parking on site. 22 23 Commissioner Summa supported the staff recommendation. She welcomed all the Buena Vista 24 tenants and those helping them that were attending the meeting. She requested that minor 25 adjustments be made to materials to reduce the heat island effect. 26 27 Chair Chang supported the project. She questioned if the 40 percent of units provided to 28 households earning 30 percent of AMI, 40 percent provided at 50 percent AMI, and the 29 remaining 20 percent at 80 percent AMI would be split evenly between the apartment units 30 and the mobile homes. 31 32 Santa Clara County Housing Authority Sarah White confirmed that the percentages of units at 33 the AMI targets Chair Chang referenced would be evenly split between the apartment units and 34 the mobile homes. There were existing residents that did not fit into those categories. There 35 was a provision that all existing residents had a right to return, so it may take time for 40/40/20 36 percentages to be achieved over time. 37 38 MOTION 39 40 Commissioner Summa moved the staff recommendation Parts 1 and 2. 41 42 SECOND 43 1 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 2 3 VOTE 4 5 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 6 7 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 8 9 3. ACTION/LEGISLATIVE: Continued Discussion and Recommendation on Proposed 10 Amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) Chapter 11 18.52 (Parking Regulations) Specific to Implications of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 12 (Continued from the May 29, 2024 PTC Public Hearing) 13 14 Amy French commented that the ordinance discussed on May 29 was on the path to Council 15 without Section D. Staff recommended that the PTC continue discussion. She expressed that 16 there were gaps in the recording of that meeting, but she tried to capture the advice and 17 recommendations for additional research. They planned to present to Council the type of 18 research and additional resources that might be needed for some of that work. She provided an 19 overview of the AB 2097 piece of the ordinance and what the PTC’s concerns had been. She 20 characterized these as two topics with one being should projects utilizing AB 2097 require 21 providing short-term loading space for ride share and deliveries, how it should account for 22 small sites where providing a space may be difficult, and should more than one space be 23 required for lager buildings. The second was to consider a shuttle loading space [idea 54:24] to 24 enable access from pedestrian zones to car parking areas, loading spaces in parking structures 25 and alleys, and the City requiring that projects utilizing AB 2097 provide ADA and EV charging 26 spaces on site, and with that constraint a question concerning housing development had been 27 raised. It was agreed that ADA was needed near retail and services downtown and California 28 Avenue. Clustering EV spaces away from the shopping areas was to be considered. Staff began 29 some research working with OOT, which had been captured in a set of tables, which she 30 furnished. The OOT was actively looking into ADA space needs in the Cal Ave area, and there 31 were ADA spaces in the garages and surface lots. Some walkthroughs had been done to look at 32 street and alley spaces, which she outlined on the slide. She understood that in most cases, 33 ADA placard holders would be able to exceed the time limits imposed on loading spaces and 34 short-term parking spots. She detailed the numbers and locations of taxi, valet, commercial and 35 non-commercial loading, and short-term spaces with different time limitations, which were 36 listed on the color-coded slide. The table excluded public parking garages and surface lots. In 37 the last couple years and beyond, there had been a study of University Avenue, a project 38 looking at University Avenue streetscape. The side streets had not been considered. She shared 39 a slide showing University Avenue between the different blocks. There had been a study in 40 2017 of the downtown parking occupancy conditions, which she would forward if needed. She 41 supplied a slide showing the AB 2097 circle area. 42 43 Chair Chang stated that changes would likely require more staff investigation, so if there should 1 be a recommendation to do certain things but without there being enough data, the PTC could 2 make a recommendation to acquire additional data, and then Council could decide whether 3 additional resources should be dedicated to generate the data. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman stated that the staff recommendation was to discuss this discrete 6 issue of the ordinance. He questioned if there could be a vote to move this forward to Council 7 in some form. 8 9 Amy French responded that the recommendation could include a request that Council pursue 10 and direct staff resources. 11 12 Albert Yang remarked that the PTC could recommend specific changes to Council. 13 14 Commissioner Summa asked how the circles were measured and where the [EPACENTER 15 1:01:59] was located. 16 17 Amy French stated that the circle was as the crow flies and it was the [epicenter 1:02:06] of two 18 of the stations. For the Palo Alto station, not only the station was the point, but the transit 19 center with the busses that accommodated SamTrans and VTA. 20 21 Chair Chang asked if it was measured from the point or the edge of an area. 22 23 Amy French answered that it was measured from the point in the case of the two stations but 24 the Palo Alto station, it was not only the trans station but the transit center that included the 25 bus turnarounds. 26 27 Commissioner Summa inquired if there was one circle because the center of the whole transit 28 center, including the parking lots, etc., was established. She wanted to know how it was 29 calculated precisely. She assumed the EPACENTER was the center or the property. 30 31 Amy French stated that the shape was more oblong or oval than the shape for the Cal Ave 32 Station. There was a train circle and a bus transit center circle that were merged. She explained 33 why there were two circles. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton added that there were two overlapping circles and each transit 36 center had a circle overlapping almost entirely. 37 38 Albert Yang thought it was four or five circles and that each blue dot appeared to be the center 39 of a circle and was the center of each of the platforms. 40 41 Chair Chang pointed out a typo on Packet Page 46. She declared that the discussion would start 42 with topic one and then move to topic two. 43 44 Public Comments 1 2 There were no requests to speak. 3 4 Commissioner Hechtman saw an issue with there not being a clear definition of feasibility yet; 5 however, there was no question with feasibility related to the ADA and EV charging spots. He 6 wondered if everything could be solved by removing the word feasible and rather than saying 7 shall provide, say encourage or strongly encourage to provide loading space, EV charging space, 8 and ADA space. The drawback was it would be permissive, not mandatory. 9 10 Commissioner Akin was thinking along the same lines as Commissioner Hechtman, although 11 more prescriptively. In the code, there were mechanisms to use director’s adjustment for 12 reduction, which was flexible. He wanted to see, at least, accessible parking and loading zones 13 be required. He suggested requiring them and making it clear that if not provided the applicant 14 must submit a TDM plan describing how remaining spaces would be provided and it would be 15 director’s adjustment to decide whether a project could omit accessible places or loading zone 16 altogether. It would be the burden of the applicant to suggest a mechanism for accomplishing 17 that and strictly the director’s decision to accept it or renegotiate. 18 19 Commissioner Lu voiced that Commissioner Hechtman’s comment made sense. He was 20 interested in ADA parking, not so much EV or loading spaces. In response to Commissioner 21 Hechtman’s comment, he wanted to understand the default state for AB 2097. He understood 22 that if parking was provided it would have to align with default standards, so if parking was 23 voluntarily provided and one ADA space was required for a building of a certain size, for 24 instance, the applicant would not have a choice and would have to prioritize the ADA space. 25 26 Albert Yang stated that there was a provision in AB 2097 that basically said notwithstanding 27 what had been said in the section that cities could require that ADA and EV spaces be provided 28 as if the section did not apply. The provision was a little unclear and cities across the state had 29 taken different approaches. The majority took the approach that Commissioner Lu described 30 and what staff had been doing, which was if parking was voluntarily provided, EV and ADA 31 spaces had to be provided as they normally would be. The minority approach was to say one 32 had to provide all the ADA and EV spaces that one would have provided if the normal parking 33 requirement applied, which he elaborated on. 34 35 Commissioner Summa thought existing development in downtown areas where there was no 36 setback required could be exempted, so it would apply only to new developments. She 37 regarded the word feasibility to be problematic. She did not find EVSE spots off site to be 38 problematic. She prioritized ADA spots and thought they should be as close to a location as 39 possible. For loading spots, she was interested in accommodating human loading, not 40 deliveries. She believed AB 2097 contained a lot of [if you do not want to do this, this is how 41 you do not have to do it 1:18:52], which Palo Alto had not utilized. She detailed why she was 42 mystified by the circles. She did not think expanding the circles would provide an advantage for 43 residents or future residents. To help determine need, she believed there needed to be a study 1 of existing ADA spots and how they were being utilized. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton requested clarification of where the circles were specified to be from 4 in the law. She recalled that centers of the circles had been specified by transit centers, and she 5 requested confirmation of that. Based on the drawing, there was no need to consolidate 6 [centers 1:23:13]; the center had its own right to its own radius except they were overlapping. 7 8 Albert Yang did not recall where the circles were specified to be from in the law, and he did not 9 think he could find it for this meeting. He had a sense that there had been direction from the 10 state. Staff had taken the radius from the edge of a polygon, not from one point. 11 12 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated there was a lot of [housing buildup 1:23:33], but he knew one was 13 the edge of the platforms, so any part where there was loading was the criteria. Another one 14 was the property, so even the parking lot, the final corner of the polygon of the property was 15 where it was measured from. However, he noted that he could not speak to 2097. He liked 16 Commissioner Akin’s suggestion for director approval. He questioned how onerous director’s 17 approval would be. 18 19 Amy French replied that typically a director’s adjustment for parking and loading would go hand 20 in hand with an architectural review application for a new project, so it would be bundled 21 together and brought to PTC. Generally it was a staff-level, director-level process, which could 22 be appealed along with the architectural review approval for a project. Most projects would go 23 through architectural review. In general, they would present a plan and staff would review it 24 and make a decision, which would ride along with that action. 25 26 Albert Yang added that it could be a significant additional issue for housing projects, which he 27 outlined. 28 29 Chair Chang felt strongly that ADA parking should be in close proximity. She did not want to do 30 anything too shortsighted with respect to EVs. She thought the state had a law that everything 31 would be electric in 2030. She worried that the ADA, EVSE, and loadings were not being 32 properly planned for due to future height and density of housing possibly increasing. She liked 33 Commissioner Akin’s idea but she was not sure about the magnitude of the problem for all 34 three categories of spaces, and she worried about how onerous it could be. She liked the idea 35 of planning for EVSE. It could work well with an in-lieu fee, but that could also become onerous. 36 It made sense to group EVSE spaces together. She added that it would cost the City money to 37 do those installations in City parking structures, so it would make sense for new development 38 to contribute a small amount toward infrastructure. 39 40 Commissioner Lu asked how the City permitted or charged for curb cuts and driveways. He 41 voiced that virtually all projects would have sidewalk frontage, so a potential solution for 42 properties that dedicated no parking would be to dedicate a part of the sidewalk for a disabled 43 or loading spot. He wanted to know if the City could facilitate such a process. He did not prefer 44 requiring full accessible and electric parking. Option 1, as described by Albert Yang, was more in 1 the spirit of the law, and he wanted to encourage car-free lifestyles. He thought EVs were lower 2 priority. He felt developments with very little or no parking would be an exciting opportunity 3 and experiment. They would have bike parking and potentially other mitigations. 4 5 Amy French replied that curb cuts were not being done downtown in the University Avenue 6 area and were an option in the outer areas. 7 8 Transportation Planning Manager Nathan Baird did not have a perspective on how the City 9 permitted or charged for curb cuts and driveways. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman addressed Packet Page 45 and queried if Government Code Section 12 65863.2 was addressed in some other section that was not included in the Staff Report. 13 14 Albert Yang responded that Palo Alto did not prioritize ADA and EV when parking was provided 15 voluntarily, just the standard ratio of ADA and EV spaces was required. Those requirements 16 were in the Building Code. If no parking was required but someone voluntarily provided 17 parking, they would be directed to sections of the code that required meeting ADA and EV 18 requirements no matter the number of parking spaces. It could not be waived through Density 19 Bonus Law. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman thought that provided protection on those issues, which he liked. 22 Regarding loading spaces, if the last sentence started with something like subject to adjustment 23 by the director in the event of demonstrable infeasibility, he thought more pressure would be 24 put on an applicant to show that it could not be done, and if it could not be done, the applicant 25 could escape doing it by having the director so determine. He inquired if that preface could be 26 waived using Density Bonus Law. 27 28 Albert Yang thought that statement would allow for a waiver under Density Bonus Law. 29 30 Commissioner Hechtman voiced that because it could be waived, that prefatory clause may not 31 be needed. In that event, then all that would have to be dealt with would be not every project 32 being a Density Bonus Law project. 33 34 Albert Yang confirmed that was correct. It would not apply to commercial projects. He noted 35 that Commissioner Summa’s suggestion of carving out projects not changing the existing 36 footprint was well taken. AB 2097 was very broad and could apply to tenant improvements, so 37 he wanted to ensure those would not be captured. The City would be rolling out an improved 38 and expanded HIP, hopefully this fall, and projects could not take advantage of the HIP if they 39 were using Density Bonus, so there might be a fair number of housing projects deciding not to 40 use Density Bonus. 41 42 Commissioner Hechtman thought Subpart D needed a mechanism for requirement and relief 43 and if feasibility could not be defined but a mechanism could be provided for a decision, that 44 was second best. He thought D could be handled that way along with folding in the concept of 1 carving out projects that would not change the existing footprint. 2 3 Commissioner Akin voiced that the director’s adjustment was attractive because it would be 4 applicable even if the Density Bonus Law was not involved. There was an amount of mechanism 5 in place in the code for doing things one wanted to do, and the applicant did not have to prove 6 it would be infeasible to provide accessible parking but make a convincing case to the director 7 that it could be handled some other way. It would eliminate the feasibility issue and build in 8 flexibility for shared parking. He found it attractive. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman remarked that the feasibility was solely limited to loading spaces. He 11 wanted better guidance than feasibility on loading spaces. 12 13 Vice Chair Reckdahl voiced his concerns with not providing loading spaces. For ADA, 2097 got 14 rid of parking requirements because one would be close to transit. He noted that the disabled 15 was likely to drive, so some parking needed to be required. The question was should it be a full 16 allocation or should the amount normally required for a development be reduced. He was open 17 to there being some ADA parking requirements but not the full requirement. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton stated that there needed to be accommodation for drivers who were 20 disabled because not everyone could walk the distances to transit, etc. As long as there was 21 sufficient direction from the code, that would be covered, but if this would eliminate ADA 22 parking, it needed to be protected. She queried what risks this state law provided and if some 23 of Palo Alto’s other protections would be overridden. 24 25 Chair Chang understood that with the adoption of the Housing Element there would be 26 increased density in the circles. In the past, it was thought that was a need for a certain ratio of 27 ADA spots. There would be more development not required to create any ADA spots, so there 28 might be a shortage. The demand was unknown. She questioned if this would override the 29 federal level mandates. 30 31 Albert Yang did not believe AB 2097 exposed the City to any additional risk under the ADA. 32 People claiming that sidewalks were inaccessible or without the right cuts dealt with 33 accessibility of a provided service or resource. In this case, parking was not being provided. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton questioned how housing was not a service being provided by a 36 housing system or unit. 37 38 Albert Yang answered that there was a difference between City programs and infrastructure 39 and zoning code requirements for private development. 40 41 Chair Chang expressed that Albert Yang did not believe AB 2097 created a liability of the City in 42 terms of the City not meeting federal ADA law. However, it may create a practical problem, and 43 she was concerned that there may not be enough spots to meet demand. She indicated that 44 the ADA parking should be included with the currently proposed treatment for a loading zone, 1 which would be required, and then allow director’s discretion. She questioned if there were 2 City rules for on-street ADA parking. 3 4 Nathan Baird replied that with the on-street curb programs, they made sure that affected users 5 agreed on what needed to happen. With a loading zone, they would assess whether the folks 6 around the loading zone agreed to it. If folks around an on-street curb space wanted an ADA 7 spot, he believed that could be accomplished. He was not aware of any specific requirements 8 generally. He did not know what conditions led to some ADA parking in the Cal Ave area being 9 removed, but they were examining relocating those spaces. There was a process for on-street 10 ADA space requests, which was context specific. The OOT was looking at ways to provide more 11 flexible curb and use changes, but they were not currently equipped with policy or technology 12 to do that. 13 14 Commissioner Akin mentioned that 18.54.030G governed accessible parking not associated 15 with a particular building, which included some of the on-street parking, and there were some 16 requirements that were reasonable. He wondered how much of the discussion was based on 17 uncertainty around how likely it would be that zero-park developments would be built. He did 18 not worry about cases when parking would go into a project, but he worried about the cases 19 where it would be zero parking, which he felt would become more common, and he wanted 20 assurance that there would be access in such cases. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton noted that when the code was established, zero parking had not 23 been anticipated, so it needed to be backfilled. Maybe minimum requirements for ADA needed 24 to be considered. She asked if the changes made tonight would apply only to AB 2097 and if the 25 issues could be fixed or if something broader was needed. 26 27 Chair Chang thought the PTC was trying to fix the bug created by AB 2097. She remarked that 28 ADA was protected [for] [inaudible 1:54:41]. 29 30 Commissioner Lu wanted to confirm that the discussion was in the context of the AB 2097 31 housing projects with 50 or more units. 32 33 Amy French did not think that was the case because any development in the circle was not 34 required to be parked. 35 36 Albert Yang affirmed that Amy French’s comment was correct. 37 38 Commissioner Lu remarked that with Section D, the first discussion topic, the code would begin 39 with residential mixed-use structures with 50 or more dwelling units. A restaurant not wanting 40 to offer parking was not in the scope of this discussion. He did not believe any wider sweeping 41 rules were being made now. 42 43 Chair Chang noted that D had been pulled specifically, but she inquired if the issue raised was 1 the whole of 1852.040. 2 3 Amy French believed that Item D had been pulled out of the ordinance and that the rest moved 4 forward but there was interest in having more information in order to have a discussion about 5 how to think about areas in AB 2097. 6 7 Commissioner Lu wanted the PTC to be explicit about all the desired uses to be extended. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton inquired if only Item D on Packet Page 46 was being discussed and if 10 the question was whether where feasible should be included. 11 12 Chair Chang recalled that in the last discussion broader comments were raised, that it was not 13 just about housing developments, but it was about everything in the circle, but for loading, the 14 PTC was specifically concerned with those units. She thought the PTC was interested in having a 15 broader discussion of ADA and EVSE. She suggested starting with a motion related to D, and she 16 thought a recommendation to Council for the PTC to study some other areas more was 17 required. 18 19 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated two scenarios bothered him with regard to ADA – not being able to 20 find a handicapped parking spot and a bank of handicapped parking not being used. To avoid a 21 bank of handicapped parking that may not be used, he suggested making half the spots 22 handicapped only and half three-minute parking. 23 24 Commissioner Hechtman thought there were a couple options to address Subpart A. He 25 explained that one was to take a wait-and-see approach. The alternative would be to inform 26 Council of this being a PTC concern and to communicate to Council that the PTC wanted spots 27 or at least some part of the required spots. On Subpart D, he thought where feasible could be 28 deleted. Without that language, there was still flexibility in the code to handle a situation where 29 there was no place for a loading zone. This would provide a requirement for a loading spot and 30 if there was a reason that could not be done, the director would provide an adjustment or one 31 of the other modifying mechanisms in the code could be used. 32 33 MOTION – [D, SPECIFICALLY LOADING FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH 50 OR MORE 34 DWELLING UNITS 2:04:06] 35 36 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to Council adoption of Section 37 18.52.040, Subpart D, the modification provided in the packet, with the elimination of the 38 words where feasible so the sentence would begin with the word projects. 39 40 SECOND 41 42 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 43 1 Commissioner Lu voiced that no specific language was needed regarding director approval 2 based on Commissioner Akin’s reading of the code. 3 4 Albert Yang stated it was not needed. It might be helpful but staff could think about that. He 5 understood the spirit of the motion. 6 7 VOTE 8 9 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 10 11 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Summa, Reckdahl, Lu, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) 12 13 Chair Chang declared that the large concern with ADA spots and secondarily EVSE spots needed 14 to be addressed. She thought Commissioner Hechtman did a good job summarizing what could 15 be done. She did not remember stating she was okay with not providing ADA spots, but it 16 appeared that it had been approved at the last meeting. She wanted that flagged for Council. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton also did not remember stating she was okay with not providing ADA 19 spots. 20 21 Commissioner Akin requested that Slide 2 be displayed, and he queried if the state would 22 consider this a constraint. He stated, regarding unbundled parking, that developments may 23 choose to unbundle and then parking would not be physically close. It had been captured that 24 the PTC wanted to discuss this and possibly make a recommendation to Council, so the task 25 seemed to be making a recommendation. 26 27 Albert Yang stated it was included under Topic 2 but it had not received a bullet point. He did 28 not know what the state would say, and he thought it would depend on how it played out. If 29 there were going to be applications on larger sites that were able to provide parking, that 30 would be okay. If developers had to build on top of parking and they decided not do the project 31 or they lost units, the state may have an issue. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman thought discussing something that would modify Subpart A, which 34 had been forwarded, would be a recommendation to revisit the recommendation the PTC 35 made and for Council to consider mandating some level of ADA and possibly EV parking. 36 37 Commissioner Summa commented that ADA and EV spaces was captured in the slide and there 38 had been problems capturing the conversation that evening (there were gaps in the recording). 39 She thought the PTC meant for this to be a carveout for discussion. She did not see how a 40 specific recommendation to solve this could be made to Council based on staff not feeling like 41 they could go further without Council approval for that course of action. She thought some 42 options should be presented and to emphasize that, while it may not be required under AB 43 2097, the PTC felt there was a morally compelling argument that the law should be used to best 1 serve a project with accessible parking. She believed it had to be a general principle and that 2 various approaches could be conveyed. 3 4 Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Summa’s comments. She wondered if more information 5 was needed to identify the principles. She did not know if there had been consensus. She had 6 heard a suggestion to require the ADA parking that would otherwise be required and another 7 to require some portion of the ADA parking that would be required. 8 9 Commissioner Summa addressed Vice Chair Reckdahl’s recommendation related to combining 10 what would have been the required ADA parking perhaps under baseline and federal law (with 11 the understanding that there may not need to be as many assigned ADA spaces) with three-12 minute parking, but she was not sure about the three-minute time limit. She thought EVSE 13 could be offered off site, but then there was the matter of financial contribution to upgrade 14 parking stalls. 15 16 Chair Chang considered moving a recommendation to Council to look more closely at the need 17 for ADA parking as well as a way to remedy the situation for developments providing zero 18 parking. She agreed with Commissioner Summa’s comment concerning EVSE parking. 19 20 Commissioner Lu did not agree with the comments regarding EVSE spaces. He wanted to 21 communicate to Council that ADA access should be prioritized; ask Council to direct staff to 22 create a street/sidewalk ADA accessible parking policy, which would also support loading 23 spaces in a way that would be responsive to developments, so ADA spaces would be prioritized 24 in front of a development; and that there be clarity around other requirements. Staff would 25 need to address different uses, numbers of units, and square footage in relation to how many 26 ADA and loading spaces would be needed for a development site and/or sidewalk. 27 28 [MOTION 2:16:50] 29 30 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved that the PTC recommend that Council direct staff to investigate the 31 need for ADA and EV parking in areas subject to AB 2097 and then return subject to PTC for 32 further deliberation and maybe for recommendation. 33 34 [SECOND 2:17:20] 35 36 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion. 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman had a motion along similar lines as Vice Chair Reckdahl’s motion but 39 with a couple more concepts. 40 41 Vice Chair Reckdahl was happy to withdraw his motion. 42 43 [MOTION 2:17:55] 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to Council that it consider some 3 modification of Section 18.52.040(a) to mandate at least a minimal number of ADA parking 4 spaces for projects within one-half mile of public transit consistent with the language of 5 Government Code Section 65863.2 and the position taken by some cities responding to AB 6 2097 and to direct staff to develop/refine a policy to provide ADA parking spaces on streets and 7 other public property in the areas one-half mile within transit areas. He stated that was the 8 concept of the motion. 9 10 Vice Chair Reckdahl [amended his motion to state what Commissioner Hechtman voiced 11 2:19:11]. 12 13 Chair Chang did not think Commissioner Hechtman’s motion included EVSE spaces. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman intended to omit EVSE spaces from the motion. He thought the PTC’s 16 big concern was accessibility, and he thought EV may resolve itself in the future. He discussed 17 EV solutions possibly being different. 18 19 Vice Chair Reckdahl was skeptical to require EVSE, but he included it in the motion because he 20 wanted it to be investigated. He did not believe the PTC wanted to mandate EVSE parking, but 21 maybe it needed to be considered more by the PTC and staff. He suggested taking a straw poll 22 to see if investigation of EVSE parking was desired. 23 24 Commissioner Summa thought EVSE should be investigated, but she felt much more strongly 25 about ADA issues. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton inquired if the EVSE spaces would be on the street or the curb. 28 29 Vice Chair Reckdahl responded the EVSE spaces would be on private property. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton asked if there were laws that addressed that and, if there were such 32 laws, was there concern that they would be vacated. 33 34 Chair Chang answered that there were laws if parking was to be provided in the circles, but if 35 parking was not provided, there would be no EVSE parking provided. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton aligned with Commissioner Summa. She hoped a building would not 38 be no parking, but if a building was no parking, she did not care if there were no EV parking 39 spaces. She had seen a lot of EV street parking in other jurisdictions. 40 41 [AMENDMENT 2:23:30] 42 43 Commissioner Hechtman added that the third prong of the amended motion was for Council to 1 investigate the desirability of requiring at least a minimum number of EV parking spaces for 2 projects within one-half mile of public transit, consistent with the language of Government 3 Code Section 65863.2 and the position taken by some cities regarding AB 2097. It was very 4 much the same as the ADA spaces but to investigate the desirability rather than mandate a 5 minimum. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton asked if anything should be added about in-lieu fees. 8 9 Chair Chang thought the PTC consensus concerning in-lieu fees was that if there was a need for 10 EVSE parking but that it would not need to be on site in the same way ADA would be needed 11 and that there could be more flexible solutions that would allow the problem to be solved 12 without creating difficulties for the property owners and developers. 13 14 Vice Chair Reckdahl, as the maker, was willing to accept the amendment. 15 16 Commissioner Summa thought the amendment captured the PTC’s concerns and that it did not 17 try to solve a problem that the PTC was not equipped to solve at this meeting. 18 19 Commissioner Lu was open to language on investigating EVSE, though it was much lower 20 priority than ADA. He felt that he may have enough information to not support EVSE. He 21 requested that the motion language concerning what other cities were doing be repeated. 22 23 Commissioner Hechtman replied that the language was consistent with the language of 24 Government Code Section 65863.2 and the position taken by some cities regarding AB 2097. It 25 was not describing whether it was the cities in the majority, which it was not, but he did not 26 think it needed to be described as the minority position. 27 28 Amy French understood Vice Chair Reckdahl’s motion to be that the PTC recommend that 29 Council direct staff to investigate the need for ADA spaces and return to the PTC for a 30 recommendation and the EVSE part was pulled out into investigate the desirability of EVSE and 31 including the government code. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman did not think that fully captured the motion. He stated that Vice Chair 34 Reckdahl’s motion was that the PTC recommend to Council that it consider some modification 35 of Section 18.52.040 Subpart A to mandate at least a minimal number of ADA parking spaces 36 for projects within one-half mile of public transit, consistent with the language of Government 37 Code Section 65863.2 and the position taken by some cities responding to AB 2097. The second 38 recommendation was that Council direct staff to develop a policy for providing ADA parking 39 spaces on streets and other public property in the areas within one-half mile of public transit. 40 Thirdly, the PTC recommended that Council investigate the desirability of requiring at least a 41 minimal number of EVSE parking spaces for projects within one-half mile of public transit, 42 consistent with the language of Government Code Section 65863.2 and the position taken by 43 some cities responding to AB 2097. 44 1 VOTE 2 3 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 4 5 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Templeton) 6 7 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 8 9 Chair Chang stated that commissioners could raise questions related to the RFP and that staff 10 would return with answers at a later date. 11 12 Commissioner Lu requested follow up and confirmation of the status of the renter-focused 13 Housing Element programs. 14 15 Commissioner Summa asked what methodology had been used to create the circles. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton announced that her August away dates would be the 19th through 18 the 23rd, so she would attend the August 14 meeting. She requested that there be information 19 on the Parking Permit Program on August 14. She did not know how to provide feedback 20 related to areas for improvement that had been identified. She questioned if there were 21 periodic check-ins on the permit programs. [She requested there be 2:37:59] a study session [or 22 2:38:00] feedback from constituents. 23 24 Commissioner Hechtman had received the May traffic data showing injuries, and he requested 25 that fatalities and serious/significant injuries be broken out. He discussed the problems with 26 the transcription of minutes being behind schedule. He requested that something be done to 27 resolve the issue. 28 29 Chair Chang requested that the Residential Rental Registry Program be on a future agenda. She 30 hoped that the questions related to that program could be brought to the PTC, so cohesive 31 feedback could be provided to the consultants. She had questions related to how it would be 32 enforced, program fees, time required for initial registration, and availability of online training. 33 She requested an update. 34 35 ADJOURNMENT 36 37 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 8:27 PM 38