HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-13 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: November 13, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:00 PM 7
8
Chair Chang called to order the September 25 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 9
meeting. 10
11
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Reckdahl 12
(arrived 6:05 PM), Commissioner Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Lu (remote), 13
and Commissioner Templeton were present. Commissioner Summa was absent. 14
15
Oral Communications 16
None 17
18
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 19
None 20
21
City Official Reports 22
1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 23
1
Assistant Director Jennifer Armer displayed the PTC meeting agenda items for December 2024. 2
There will not be a Special Meeting next week. A Special Meeting was tentatively scheduled for 3
December 18. The December 11 Regular Meeting had five potential items for discussion: 4
HIP/AHIP Ordinance, update and discussion on parking programs, projects at 4075 El Camino 5
Real and 3265 El Camino Real, and an El Camino Real focus area study session. 6
7
City Council’s agenda for November 18 included a previous PTC item, the interim and 8
emergency ordinances for implementing high-priority retail revitalization measures. 9
10
The following staffing changes were announced to the commission. Clare Campbell retired 11
earlier this year and Coleman Frick was the new Long-Range Planning Manager. Chitra Moitra 12
was retiring later this month. Planning Manager Jodie Gerhardt was offered the role of 13
Development Center Manager. Claire Raybould was the Interim Planning Manager. Three 14
members from Long-Range Planning were hired six months ago and will present to the 15
Commission this evening: Julia Knight, Robert Feign, and Vishnu Krishnan. 16
17
Senior Engineer Rafael Rius mentioned the Rail Committee Meeting at City Hall will be held on 18
November 19. 19
20
Action Items 21
2. Review Draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Progress Report and 1
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and Recommend City 2
Council Authorize Transmittal of the Reports to the Office of Planning and Research 3
and Department of Housing and Community Development, Respectively, by April 1, 4
2025. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. 5
6
Principal Planner Julia Knight delivered a slide presentation on the Comprehensive Plan 7
Implementation Annual Progress Update. Following PTC and City Council review, annual reports 8
were due in April to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and California Department of 9
Housing and Community Development (HCD) to track program implementation progress. 10
11
In 2017, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, which included 410 programs across various 12
elements. The Comprehensive Plan identified implementation priorities and level of effort 13
required to complete program implementation. 14
15
There were new definitions for level of effort. Standard was a relatively lower level of effort, 16
likely accomplished with existing resources and staff. Significant was a moderate level of effort 17
and may require additional resources. Substantial was a high level of effort and was very likely 18
to require additional staffing, financial, or other resources. 19
20
Of the 410 programs, 291 were ongoing (meaning continuous best practices), 17 completed, 52 21
partially completed, and 50 pending. Of the 97 programs with a target completion date by 22
2022, 62 were ongoing, 7 completed, 21 partially completed, and 7 pending. Of the 93 23
programs with a target completion date of 2022-2027, 43 were ongoing, 3 completed, 21 24
partially completed, and 26 pending. Of the 11 programs with a target completion date after 25
2027, 3 were ongoing, 2 completed, 1 partially completed, and 5 pending. Of the 393 total 1
programs remaining, the levels of effort required to complete were 221 standard, 122 2
significant, and 50 substantial effort. 3
4
Housing Planner Robert Feign delivered a slide presentation on the Housing Element 5
Implementation Annual Progress Update. The Housing Element included programs and 6
implementing objectives designed to address housing preservation, affordable housing, housing 7
development, governmental barriers, housing diversity, and fair housing. Of the 110 8
implementation program objectives, 40 were ongoing/standard operations, 9 completed, 35 in 9
progress (30 of which were anticipated to become complete or ongoing/standard operations in 10
2024/2025), and 26 pending or not yet initiated. 11
12
The City was tasked with ensuring adequate capacity in the site inventory for Regional Housing 13
Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 6086 units in 2023-2031. As of October 2024, building permits were 14
issued for 417 units, of which 89 were low income (almost 10% of RHNA), 71 moderate income 15
(approximately 7% of RHNA), and 257 above-moderate income (approximately 10% of RHNA). 16
In addition to the permitted units, the City had 483 entitled units representing projects that had 17
received planning approvals but had not yet pulled building permits, of which 164 units were 18
entitled for extremely low, very low, or low-income categories; 31 units entitled for moderate 19
income, and 288 units entitled for above-moderate income. 20
21
Planning and Development Services Department staff would coordinate with relevant City 1
departments to address identified priorities. City Council review and authorization of the 2
annual progress reports was expected in early 2025. Following Council approval, the reports 3
would be finalized and submitted to OPR and HCD by the statutory deadline of April 1, 2025. 4
5
Since the annual report included what was accomplish during the full year of 2024, 6
Commissioner Hechtman asked why it was presented in early November instead of bringing it 7
to the PTC in late January when the Commission could see the complete report. Jennifer Armer 8
responded that the reports were expected to go to Council in March 2025, and to OPR and HCD 9
by April 1, 2025. The timing was based on the City’s past practice but Commissioner 10
Hechtman’s suggestion could be part of the direction to staff or as a general comment for staff 11
to consider changing the reporting scheduling in the future. 12
13
On Packet Page 14, Commissioner Hechtman queried if the levels of effort in the Attachment A 14
table correlated with the dollar signs used in previous years’ reports. Julia Knight replied that 15
the level represented the effort required to complete program implementation estimated at 16
the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Only the terminology changed: $ was standard, $$ 17
was significant, and $$$ was Substantial. 18
19
Public Comment: None 20
21
Comprehensive Plan, Packet Page 23, Program C2.2.2 was about measuring the effectiveness of 1
City services. Commissioner Akin heard a lot of interest in the general public about the 2
measures being made public. Commissioner Akin thought that staff comments on this item 3
would be helpful to Council. 4
5
Packet Page 28, Program L2.8.2 was about the housing unit inventory, Commissioner Akin 6
thought it would be useful to Council if staff had anything to report on the status of measuring 7
non-rental housing. 8
9
Packet Page 38, Program N4.10.3, Commissioner Akin wondered if staff wanted to include a 10
comment about the response to the recent Tesla spill. 11
12
Packet Page 52, Program T1.2.3, Commissioner Akin did not see how bicycle safety and 13
micromobility programs were related to the program goal, which was to formalize TDM 14
requirements. Commissioner Akin felt strongly about this because the Commission was 15
depending on TDM to manage the impacts of projects reviewed by the PTC this year; therefore, 16
it was valuable to have the Office of Transportation comment on the status of formalizing TDM 17
requirements. 18
19
Commissioner Hechtman remarked that the current reporting timeline meant that staff had to 20
write if they expected to do something by the end of year and then revise it after the 1st of the 21
year. Therefore, it was logical and might be a more efficient way to use staff’s time to bring the 1
Comprehensive Plan to the PTC toward the end of January if their schedules allowed. 2
3
Commissioner Hechtman recalled the Commission asked Chitra Moitra a couple years ago to 4
have a column or table to highlight to the PTC what had changed in the Comprehensive Plan 5
update from the prior year. Commissioner Hechtman did not need to read all 410 programs 6
every year but he did want to see what had changed because it showed progress. The staff 7
report mentioned it was part of the table but Commissioner Hechtman did not see it. Julia 8
Knight replied that the Staff Comments 2024 column on the far right addressed any changes in 9
level of effort to complete, target completion date, or completion status. Commissioner 10
Hechtman looked at the comments for the 17 completed items, 4 of which were completed 11
within the last year, and found 6 of the 17 had comments but it was unclear if those 6 included 12
the 4 completed this year. For next year’s report, Commissioner Hechtman asked staff to 13
succinctly demonstrate what changes the Commission should focus on from last year to this 14
year. 15
16
Vice-Chair Reckdahl asked about the reporting schedule. Julia Knight explained that Council 17
staff reports were due to the City Manager’s team eight weeks before going to Council, so the 18
report had to be completed by the end of January to meet the HCD deadline of April 1. If staff 19
brought the report to the PTC at the end of January, there was not enough time to include PTC 20
input. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang stated that staff used to bring the Comprehensive 21
Plan to the PTC in January or February but there was no time for staff to make any changes 22
before the report went to the Council, so staff changed it to a November/December timeframe 1
in response to the Commission’s request. Vice-Chair Reckdahl inquired if staff should bring the 2
annual reports to Council before March so staff had time to modify the reports to include 3
Council’s feedback. Julia Knight remarked that staff usually brought it to Council as a consent 4
item because it had gone through detailed review with the PTC. 5
6
Vice-Chair Reckdahl preferred number rankings because it was easier to understand than terms 7
such as substantial or significant. The column could use numbers such as 3/1 to describe the 8
level of effort and priority, and include duration. Higher attention was given to higher priorities, 9
which is why Vice-Chair Reckdahl thought it was important to include the priority ranking in the 10
column. Vice-Chair Reckdahl wanted to know the status of high-priority projects. Vice-Chair 11
Reckdahl thought some of the low-priority projects were never going to be done, so he wanted 12
to make sure the projects were correctly rated to ensure something he considered a high 13
priority was not given a low priority. 14
15
Chair Chang commented it was useful to see what had changed and what was pending. The 16
table had overdue pending projects with a target completion date of 2022 but they had not 17
been touched. Chair Chang was concerned about safety-related projects. The Planning and 18
Transportation Commission discussed safety issues multiple times. On Packet Page 59, T6.1.3, 19
pedestrian safety along Alma Street between Embarcadero Road and Lytton Street was 20
supposed to be completed two years ago but the Department comment said work had not 21
commenced with no further explanation. If a known problem was deprioritized, Chair Chang 22
wanted to know why. On Packet Page 59, T6.6.5 and T6.6.7 were pending, which were to 1
identify and construct safety improvements for pedestrian underpasses including on 2
Embarcadero Road with a completion date after 2027; however, some projects required a lot of 3
planning, Public Works, and budgeting. Chair Chang thought it may be valuable for staff to 4
review if projects were in the appropriate prioritization category. 5
6
Chair Chang stated that in pre-meeting she asked staff whether this list of pending or partially 7
completed items was brought to City Council as an input into their annual planning process and 8
the answer was not explicitly. Council received a copy of the list but was not prompted to refer 9
to the list when making their goals and priorities for the year. Chair Chang thought it was good 10
to remind Council of projects that were determined to be important priorities to avoid 11
inadvertently deprioritizing projects and because some required long-range planning. 12
13
Commissioner Lu noted a few ongoing projects were upgraded to partially complete. As a best 14
practice, Commissioner Lu suggested moving as many projects as possible from ongoing to a 15
category with a deliverable output or deadline. Commissioner Lu echoed Commissioner 16
Hechtman’s desire to clearly see what changed. Commissioner Lu would appreciate some 17
qualitative commentary as well. Based on Commissioner Lu’s work experience, it was useful to 18
have executive clarity, including clear owners for the specific goals or programs as well as a 19
comment on what went well this year, what had fallen behind or was under-resourced. 20
21
Given the amount of construction that may happen in Palo Alto in the short term, S2.11.2 on 1
Packet Page 48, study appropriate restrictions on underground construction in areas outside of 2
flood zones seemed important to Chair Chang. The project was categorized as a standard level 3
of work to be completed by 2022 but there was no information on why it was pending. Chair 4
Chang suggested that the PTC recommend to staff to put an asterisk by items to flag for City 5
Council’s attention. 6
7
Chair Chang was concerned about T2.3.1 on Packet Page 55, VMT compliance for CEQA, which 8
was supposed to be completed by 2022. The Commission looked at VMT and CEQA when 9
hearing numerous items, most recently maybe NVCAP, Fry’s, and the Housing Element. 10
11
Packet Page 58, 5.4.1 was about exploring incentives to encourage people to share parking. 12
Chair Chang recalled discussion about this on the PTC this year, which underscored the need to 13
verify prioritization. 14
15
Commissioner Templeton queried where it said which projects were important. Julia Knight 16
replied that when the City Council adopted and certified the Comprehensive Plan in 2017, there 17
was a priority category of high, medium, or low correlating to how quickly a project needed to 18
be done. There was no tool to track priorities. High priority had a target date of completion in 19
2022, medium priority was 2022-2027, and low priority was beyond 2027. Commissioner 20
Templeton pointed out that if a high priority had a 2022 target date of completion and it was 21
two years overdue, it was a low priority; therefore, the target date did not translate to priority. 22
1
Commissioner Templeton asked if it was helpful to staff for the PTC to include as feedback 2
which items were more important. Jennifer Armer responded that it was valuable to staff to 3
hear from the PTC if there were items the Commission wanted staff to look into or which items 4
were important; however, the final decision on prioritizing staff work involved the budget and 5
priorities set by Council. Staff acknowledged commissioners’ concerns about projects that were 6
not completed, so staff can bring that feedback to the department responsible for the project. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton echoed Chair Chang’s comment; improve the clarity of current 9
priorities on the chart. It was difficult for the Commission to give feedback on changing 10
priorities if the priorities were not understood. Commissioner Templeton asked staff to think 11
about ways to map this to Council’s priorities for the current year. 12
13
In reply to Commissioner Hechtman querying if the Staff Comments column contained new 14
comments for 2024, Julia Knight answered, yes, the provided comments were updated for this 15
year. Commissioner Hechtman recalled previous Comprehensive Reports indicated changes, 16
making it easier to focus on. 17
18
Commissioner Hechtman thought the Council declared the priorities in 2017. For next year, the 19
PTC could tell staff if they were interested in certain projects happening sooner within the 20
2022-2027 timeframe and staff could transmit the input to Council. To remind the 21
commissioners, Commissioner Hechtman suggested making a note in next year’s staff report 1
that staff was looking for input on project priorities. 2
3
Table 2 on Packet Page 14 had seven pending short-term priority projects due in 2022. For each 4
of those seven projects, Commissioner Hechtman recommended staff provide a short blurb in 5
the staff report to Council to highlight that something Council thought in 2017 should be done 6
by 2022 had not been started yet and why. 7
8
On Packet Page 66, the Housing Element Annual Progress Report Status Column’s second, third, 9
and fourth boxes said anticipated to go to Council in early 2024. Commissioner Hechtman 10
thought it was a typo and should read 2025. 11
12
Commissioner Hechtman commented it was useful for the commissioners if staff identified to 13
the PTC next year what was updated on the Housing Element Annual Progress Report table. 14
15
Commissioner Templeton noticed the table on Packet Page 15 had the same number for 16
extremely low and very low and wondered if it was a coincidence. Albert Yang explained that a 17
number was halved to create the two categories of extremely low (30 percent of area median 18
income) and very low (30-50 percent of area median income). 19
20
Commissioner Lu wanted to know if staff expected comments, strong feedback, or 21
consequences from HCD; or what HCD was hoping to see. Robert Feign replied that when HCD 22
certified the Housing Element, HCD mentioned a few programs they would look at closely to 1
track progress. The Planning Commission has seen some of those programs in study sessions, 2
for example the HIP/AHIP program. For the most part, Robert Feign thought the City was on 3
track in regard to the status of the programs as a whole as documented in the attachment. If 4
HCD provided feedback, staff would address it accordingly but staff did not anticipate any 5
specific feedback. Staff did not receive any feedback on program statuses the last time this 6
report was sent. 7
8
Knowing that HCD would look at the City’s numbers and maybe more critically examine the 9
programs during the in-depth mid-cycle review, Commissioner Lu asked if new timelines 10
needed to be communicated. Robert Feign responded that if implementation of a program was 11
behind schedule, staff would provide the context of the status in the report that goes to HCD. 12
Staff would continue to modify this table before submittal to HCD in April. 13
14
Vice-Chair Reckdahl suggested identifying the big picture by answering the following questions 15
in the staff report to Council: Are we on track? Are we where we expect to be? Do we have to 16
do any hiring? If we need to do hiring, we want to get that started as soon as possible. Are 17
there risks that could push us off track? 18
19
Chair Chang said she had asked in pre-meeting if there were consequences for not meeting 20
certain targets and that staff responded it was mainly at the halfway checkpoint and there was 21
SB 35. Chair Chang thought it might be useful to remind Council in the staff report of those 1
consequences and triggers. Chair Chang commended and thanked staff for their work. 2
3
Motion 4
Commissioner Hechtman moved to recommend City Council authorize the transmittal of the 5
draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Progress Report (Attachment A) and 6
draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Attachment) to the Office of 7
Planning and Research and Department of Housing and Community Development, respectively, 8
by April 1, 2025. 9
10
Vice-Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 11
12
The motion passed 6-0-0-1 with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Reckdahl, Commissioner Akin, 13
Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Lu, and Commissioner Templeton voting yes by roll 14
call vote; Commissioner Summa absent. 15
16
3. Review Amendments to Title 18: Zoning Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 17
(PAMC) to Implement Programs 1.5 (Stanford University Lands), 3.6 (Expedited 18
Project Review), 4.1 (Replacement Housing), and 6.5 (Alternate Housing) of the 19
Housing Element 2023-2031, and Title 21: Subdivision and Other Divisions of Land to 20
Incorporate Changes as Directed by Housing and Community Development (HCD). 21
22
Vishnu Krishnan, Senior Planner with the Long-Range Planning Division, delivered a slide 23
presentation on the draft changes to the Title 18 Zoning Ordinance and Title 21 General 24
Requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to facilitate the implementation of Housing 1
Element Programs 1.5A, 3.6D, 4.1A, and 6.5C-G. 2
3
Housing Element Program 1.5A (Stanford University Lands), 3.6D (Expedited Project Review), 4
4.1A (Replacement Housing), and 6.5D-G (Alternate Housing) were Council priorities for the 5
current year. The deadline to implement them for the adopted Housing Element 2023-2031 6
was January 31, 2025. Program 6.5C (Alternate Housing) had an implementation deadline in 7
June 2025. Since 6.5C was the only program with an implementation deadline in June 2025 8
requiring an ordinance update, staff thought it was beneficial to expedite this implementation 9
with the other programs due in January 2025. 10
11
PAMC Section 18.20.030 was amended to permit residential multifamily in Stanford Research 12
Park zones. There was an error in the staff report sent to the Commission. The proposed 13
change to the ordinance excluded sites subject to or impacted by the City’s Hazardous 14
Materials Ordinance 18.42.200. This would be an added footnote to the Industrial 15
Manufacturing District Land Uses table in Section 18.20.030. 16
17
For Program 3.6D (Expedited Project Review), the proposed change was to PAMC Section 18
18.77.070 (c) and (d) to limit ARB review to two meetings unless otherwise requested by the 19
applicant. 20
21
Program 4.1A (Replacement Housing), PAMC Section 18.40.160 was amended to include new 1
Subsections (a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B). In subsection (a)(3)(A), if the proposed development was not 2
a residential development, replacement units may be located on a different site but within the 3
city and be developed prior to or concurrently with the proposed development. Subsection 4
(a)(3)(B) reads: Replacement of protected units as defined by Government Code Section 5
66300.5 shall be subject to additional requirements of Government Code Section 66300.6. This 6
limited the number of public hearings on a housing project, complying with the applicable 7
objective general plan and zoning standards that were deemed complete. 8
9
Program 6.5C (Alternate Housing), PAMC Section 18.14.060 was amended to allow group 10
homes to be treated as by-right use in all residential zones, provided the development 11
complied with the City’s objective design standards. 12
13
Program 6.5D (Alternate Housing), PAMC Section 18.14.060 was amended to allow supportive 14
housing meeting State law requirements to be treated as a by-right use where multifamily and 15
mixed uses were permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. 16
17
Program 6.5E (Alternate Housing), PAMC Section 18.14.060 was modified to allow low-barrier 18
navigation centers to be treated as a by-right use in zones where multifamily and mixed uses 19
were permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, provided the 20
project satisfied the requirements of the State law. 21
22
Program 6.5F (Alternate Housing), PAMC Section 18.14.060 was amended to allow emergency 1
shelter for homeless to be reviewed ministerially. Section 18.20.040 Site Development 2
Standards was amended per requirements of Government Code Section 65583. This included 3
text (a)(4)(A). 4
5
Program 6.5G (Alternate Housing), PAMC Section 18.28.040 was modified to allow farmworker 6
housing as a permitted use in the Additional Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Zones. 7
PAMC Section 18.28.070 was amended to ensure no discretionary permit would be required for 8
farmworker housing of up to 36 beds or 12 units in the AC Zone. PAMC Section 18.28.080 was 9
amended to ensure farmworker housing with six or fewer people in OS zones be treated as a 10
single-family use and did not require a discretionary permit. 11
12
Changes were made to Title 21 as directed by HCD as a condition for certification of the 2023-13
2031 Housing Element. 14
15
To comply with the State requirements of Senate Bill 9, PAMC Section 21.11.040(d) removed 16
the following text: Newly created lot lines shall not render an existing structure noncomplying 17
in any respect. 18
19
Upon PTC’s recommendation, staff would take these draft ordinance changes to the City 20
Council early next year for adoption. 21
22
Regarding Page 6, Program 6.5C (Alternate Housing), Vice-Chair Reckdahl wanted to know the 1
definition of group home; and the differences between a group home, a dormitory, and renting 2
out rooms in a house. Albert Yang replied that a group home was defined as a facility with a 3
shared kitchen and other facilities that often provided wrap-around services. Commissioner 4
Akin pointed out the definition provided in the next to the last paragraph on Packet Page 88. 5
Vishnu Krishnan read the following definition in the Zoning Ordinance attachment: Housing 6
shared by unrelated persons with disabilities that provide peer or other support for their 7
residents’ disability-related needs in which residents share cooking, dining, and living areas. 8
9
In reference to PAMC Section 18.40.160, Subsection (a)(3)(A), Packet Page 89, Commissioner 10
Akin queried how the requirement was met to develop prior to or concurrently with the 11
proposed development project. Albert Yang responded that building permits would be issued 12
concurrently. The City would not finalize the commercial development until the residential 13
units received their occupancy. In answer to Commissioner Akin questioning if the requirement 14
needed to be explicitly stated to ensure it was clear to the applicants, Albert Yang did not 15
believe so because the language was taken from the State law. 16
17
Commissioner Hechtman noted the term Housing Development Project was used in the draft 18
ordinance on Packet Pages 87, 88, and 89 but there was no definition in the provided portions 19
of the ordinance. Vishnu Krishnan confirmed Title 18 defined a Housing Development Project. 20
21
Chair Chang asked where the AC Zone was located. The only area Vice-Chair Reckdahl knew of 1
was just south of Page Mill where there were horses. Vishnu Krishnan had the same question 2
and looked it up, and confirmed that was the only location he found. 3
4
Public Comments: Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, spoke on behalf of the 5
organization and their all-volunteer Housing Element Working Group. The proposed code 6
amendments were what they had hoped for, and they looked forward to supporting the 7
projects that would result. Amie Ashton gave a special thanks to the Planning Department for 8
bringing this item forward today and for their clear and informative staff report. 9
10
Commissioner Lu’s understanding was that emergency shelters for homeless referenced in 11
Packet Page 81 and the ordinance in Packet Page 86 were specific to the ROLM Zone. Several 12
site development standards were rewritten in Packet Page 85 and updated in Packet Page 86. In 13
response to Commissioner Lu’s questions, Vishnu Krishnan confirmed that all the changes were 14
specifically required by State law. The way supportive housing was written, you had to abide by 15
Government Code Sections 65050 through 65056. Among other things, the State required 16
changes to how some of the parking was calculated. 17
18
Commissioner Lu wondered if any impact was expected to existing shelters such as Hotel de 19
Zink, Heart and Home Collaborative, or the shelters that rotated through faith-based sites and 20
were not in the ROLM Zone. Vishnu Krishnan did not know of any impacts. Albert Yang 21
confirmed there would not be any impacts because this only sets forth the rules for shelters in 22
the ROLM Zone if they want to be treated as uses by right. The existing shelters already had 1
everything they needed to operate. 2
3
Commissioner Hechtman wanted a better understanding of replacement units on Packet Pages 4
79 and 80. From the staff report, Commissioner Hechtman understood that when doing a 5
housing development project on a parcel with housing units, those housing units had to be 6
replaced under State law. Under AB 1218, when doing a non-housing development such as a 7
commercial development, on-site BMRs had to be replaced but market-rate housing units did 8
not need to be replaced. Based on Commissioner Hechtman’s understanding of the language of 9
18.40.160 (a)(3)(A) on Packet Page 89, staff drafted the ordinance to go farther than State law 10
because the developer of a commercial project had to replace BMRs and market-rate housing 11
units on site or could elect to provide those units at a different location in Palo Alto, and the 12
Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued for the commercial project until the replacement 13
housing had its Certificate of Occupancy. 14
15
Commissioner Hechtman asked if any of Palo Alto’s commercial zoning did not allow housing. 16
Vishnu Krishnan confirmed the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service 17
Commercial, and Downtown Commercial Zones allowed residential. Research Office and 18
Limited Manufacturing, Research Park, and General Manufacturing Districts allowed 19
multifamily. Public facilities allowed multifamily residential and Housing Element Opportunity 20
sites. PTOD allowed multifamily residential. 21
22
Commissioner Hechtman wondered if a property was in a zone that allowed multifamily but 1
had a single family home on site, if it could be replaced with a single family home on site or if 2
the developer was forced to buy another site to replace the single family home. Albert Yang 3
thought it could be addressed by making a rule that fewer than three dwelling units be allowed 4
as a mixed use or require the developer to build three units (the definition of multifamily) even 5
though there was only one existing unit. Commissioner Hechtman pointed out this could apply 6
to public property, for example if the City wanted to buy a piece of land to make a park, a 7
parking lot, or another municipal facility. Commissioner Hechtman hoped that staff would look 8
at this issue before sending the ordinance to Council. 9
10
Since it was the end of the year, Chair Chang believed there was a typo on Packet Page 78 11
where the second paragraph under analysis stated that others will come before the PTC near 12
the end of the year or in 2025. Vishnu Krishnan said it was a typo. Robert Feign stated it was 13
correct because HIP/AHIP was coming to the PTC before the end of the year. The El Camino 14
Focus Area was not an ordinance recommendation but it was an item anticipated to come to 15
the PTC before the end of the year. 16
17
Motion 18
Commissioner Akin moved to recommend the City Council adopt the Draft Ordinance amending 19
Sections of PAMC Title 18 (Zoning), with the amended footnote to PAMC Section 18.20.030 20
regarding hazardous materials, and Title 21 (General Requirements). 21
22
Vice-Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 1
2
The motion passed 6-0-0-1 with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Reckdahl, Commissioner Akin, 3
Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Lu, and Commissioner Templeton voting yes by roll 4
call vote; Commissioner Summa absent. 5
6
Commissioner Hechtman thought it was understood in the motion that the PTC was not 7
directing staff to make an adjustment but that staff would review the issue discussed and make 8
any adjustment they felt was warranted. 9
10
Approval of Minutes 11
4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 12
Minutes of September 25, 2024 13
14
5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 15
Minutes of October 9, 2024 16
17
In response to Chair Chang asking if the Commission was allowed to combine the two sets of 18
minutes and do a voice vote, Albert Yang answered yes to both. 19
20
Motion 21
Commissioner Akin moved to approve verbatim and summary minutes of September 25, 2024, 22
and October 9, 2024, as revised. 23
24
Vice-Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 1
2
The motion passed 6-0-0-1 with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Reckdahl, Commissioner Akin, 3
Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Lu, and Commissioner Templeton voting yes by voice 4
vote; Commissioner Summa absent. 5
6
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and 7
Agendas 8
9
Commissioner Lu, Council Liaison, provided an update on last night’s Council meeting. There 10
was discussion on AB 2097 to relax or eliminate parking requirements within a ½ mile of a 11
major transit stop. The Council decided to maximize protections of ADA and EV charging spaces. 12
There would be discussion at a future Council meeting about whether there could be flexibility 13
or incentives for developers who voluntarily chose to provide a certain amount of parking. 14
15
Commissioner Hechtman congratulated the PTC body on the quality of its commissioners, 16
which has resulted in two commissioners ascending to City Council. Commissioner Lu had more 17
votes for Council Member than an incumbent. Vice-Chair Reckdahl and Commissioner Summa 18
were in a tight contest that was too close to call but one of the two would be a Council 19
Member. Commissioner Hechtman believed there was no better training ground for any City 20
Council than to participate in that City’s Planning Commission. Commissioner Hechtman 21
expected great things from the PTC Commissioners who become Council Members. 22
Commissioner Hechtman was pleased that both open Council spots not being pursued by 1
incumbents would be taken by PTC Commissioners. 2
3
After six years of the previous template, Commissioner Templeton noticed that staff updated 4
the slide templates with beautiful new pictures. Commissioner Templeton wanted to thank 5
whoever implemented the new slides. 6
7
Chair Chang adjourned the meeting. 8
9
Adjournment 10
7:37 PM 11