Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-15 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: January 15, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:03 PM 7 Chair Chang called to order the Special Meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8 for January 15, 2025. 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Chang, Commissioner Akin, 10 Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Summa (remote), and Commissioner Templeton were 11 present. 12 Oral Communications 13 None 14 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 15 None 16 City Official Report 17 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 18 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer presented the Director’s Report. Parking programs, Safe 19 Streets for All Safety Action Plan, and a VTA presentation on their Visionary Network were on 20 the PTC’s meeting agenda for January 29, 2025. 21 The Housing Element Implementation PAMC Ordinance was recommended for approval by PTC 22 on November 13, 2024, and was anticipated to go to City Council on January 21, 2025. The 23 Lighting Ordinance update was scheduled to go to City Council on February 2, 2025. 24 On February 6, 2025, a community meeting on the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance 25 update will be held at 6 PM at City Hall. Yesterday was the first meeting of the Downtown 26 Housing Plan Community Advisory Committee. 27 Because of full agendas, a date had not been set for bird-friendly design to go to City Council 28 but it would likely be in March. Staff would mention it in the Director’s Report once a Council 29 date was targeted. 30 An Interim Director for Transportation joined staff this week and would hopefully be present 31 for the next PTC meeting as numerous transportation items were on the agenda. 32 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius announced Lily Lim-Tsao, a retiree from the City of San Jose, was 1 the new part-time Interim Chief Transportation Official. Rafael Rius will invite Lily Lim-Tsao to 2 attend the next PTC meeting. A job posting for a permanent Chief Transportation Official was 3 posted yesterday and it was anticipated to be a four-month recruitment process. 4 Nathan Baird will provide an update on shuttle transit programs at the PTC meeting on January 5 29, 2025. Before the January 29 PTC meeting, Rafael Rius encouraged the PTC to review the 6 draft Safe Streets for All Action Plan. The 172-page document was posted on the City’s website 7 in the Transportation section under Transportation Projects. Rafael Rius stated he sent several 8 months of collision data earlier this week. 9 At a PTC meeting in the near future, Commissioner Hechtman wanted the Transportation 10 Department to present a plan to track KSI (killed and serious injury) collisions and when it 11 would be reported to the PTC. The KSI metric was tied to the Safe Streets for All Safety Action 12 Plan. The PTC needed KSIs to determine if progress was being made. Rafael Rius will forward 13 Commissioner Hechtman’s request to the project managers for the draft Safe Streets for All 14 Safety Action Plan. 15 Action Items 16 2. Election of Vice Chair 17 Keith Reckdahl was the PTC Vice-Chair but he was now on the City Council, so the PTC needed 18 to elect a new Vice Chair. Commissioner Hechtman nominated Commissioner Akin. 19 Commissioner Summa seconded the nomination. Commissioner Akin accepted the nomination. 20 The Commission noted that Commissioner Akin took the lead on numerous issues at PTC 21 meetings, was prepared, and collaborative. 22 Motion 23 Commissioner Hechtman nominated Commissioner Akin. Commissioner Summa seconded the 24 nomination. 25 The motion passed 5-0 with Chair Chang, Commissioner Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, 26 Commissioner Summa (remote), and Commissioner Templeton voting yes by roll call vote. 27 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN-00012]: 28 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Site from 29 Commercial Service (CS) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to 30 Construct a 100% Affordable, Six-Story, 55-Unit Multifamily Rental Development. 31 Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning 32 District: CS (Commercial Service). 33 There were no disclosures from commissioners. 34 Principal Planner Garrett Sauls was the project planner for this application. The PTC had a 1 hearing on April 10, 2024. The ARB had two hearings and recommended approval to the PTC. 2 The application was tentatively scheduled to go to Council on February 10, 2025. 3 The project is a six-story, 55-unit residential rental project on a vacant lot. There were 32 on-4 site parking spaces provided, 30 within the lift system and two within the accessible spaces. 5 There were 55 bike lockers proposed at the back of the property and four short-term bike 6 spaces on El Camino at the front of the property. Five shared electric bikes would be provided 7 within the bike locker room. Of the 55 units, 14 will be assigned as low income and 41 will be 8 moderate income. 9 The project deviated from the following Commercial Service Zone District requirements: A rear 10 yard setback of 0-5 feet instead of 10 feet, site coverage of 87% instead of 50%, floor area ratio 11 of 4.42 instead of 0.6, height of 79 feet to top of staircase instead of 50 feet, open space per 12 unit of 31 square feet instead of 150 square feet, 32 parking spaces instead of 55, and one 13 short-term parking stall per 50 units instead of a loading zone. 14 At the meeting on April 10, 2024, the PTC asked the applicant and staff to consider expanding 15 the rooftop open space, expand the TDM plan, provide clarification on the affordability of the 16 project in relation to PAUSD’s salary schedule, and address concerns around the number of 17 parking stalls and on-site circulation. 18 The revised facades and rooftop deck design were shown. The rooftop deck was expanded to 19 include additional amenity space for tenants as well as tree canopy on the rooftop. The 20 previously proposed TDM plan included up to nine monthly transit passes for Palo Alto Link but 21 the TDM was now expanded to provide all tenants with a free VTA SmartPass. 22 As part of the CEQA document, the City’s environmental consultant Fehr & Peers evaluated the 23 circulation to and within the site. The PAMC required parking lifts to provide capacity for full-24 size or mid-size vehicles. According to Fehr & Peers, full-size and mid-size vehicles can access 25 Stalls 1-6 with three or fewer maneuvers. Stalls 7-8 can be accessed by full-size vehicles with 26 four to five maneuvers; mid-size vehicles with three or fewer maneuvers. To mitigate potential 27 concerns or conflicts, Condition of Approval #18 required limiting Stalls 7 and 8 to mid-size 28 vehicles access only, which the applicant was able to commit to as all stalls were assigned 29 parking spaces. 30 Affordability information was provided, including the Santa Clara County HCD Area Median 31 Income (AMI) for 2024 based on number of persons in the household. The low-income units 32 were previously at 80% AMI. Because of the higher density, the applicant will now provide the 33 low-income units at 70% AMI. The moderate-income units will be at 110% AMI as previously 34 proposed. The anticipated rents shown on the slide were slightly lower than in the staff report 35 because staff forgot to include the monthly utility allowance, which was typically $210 for 36 studios and $220 for a one-bedroom unit. Other staff report corrections included the 37 assumptions of the percentage of PAUSD teachers who would qualify for low-income and 38 moderate-income units. The assumptions for a one-person household in a studio were that 9% 39 of PAUSD salaries could qualify for low-income units; 81% for moderate-income units. For a 1 two-person household in a one-bedroom unit, the assumptions were that 22% of PAUSD 2 salaries could qualify for low-income units; 78% for moderate-income units. 3 This project satisfied Option 2 of the Council’s PHZ requirements for weighted value minimum 4 20% below-market rate units (the project proposed 75%). The property was within NVCAP 5 boundaries but was deemed complete before NVCAP standards were effective, which meant 6 the underlying Commercial Service District standards applied to this project. Removal of 7 existing protected valley oak was proposed because it exceeded a significant portion of the 8 buildable area, which the Urban Forestry Department evaluated as being 25% or more to allow 9 for tree removal. Proper replacement would be provided either onsite through trees on the 10 rooftop or by in-lieu fees and could be placed in other areas around the site or elsewhere in 11 Palo Alto. The roof deck provided the majority of the open space requirement for this project. 12 Staff recommended that the PTC recommend approval of the project and the CEQA document 13 to the City Council. 14 Jason Matlof, the applicant, delivered a slide presentation. Jason Matlof learned of the 15 challenges of teachers trying to find affordable housing in Palo Alto, so he brought this project 16 forward to address affordable housing specifically for teachers. 17 Jason Matlof reviewed the changes made to the project in response to commissioners’ 18 feedback at the PTC meeting in April. At that time, the Commission had voiced a strong desire 19 to see deeper affordability, which was difficult in the originally proposed footprint. In the early 20 summer, the City Council and the PTC started approving upzoning for parcels in the immediate 21 zone. Across the street from this project, the El Camino Real Focus Area was upzoned to 85 22 feet. The parcel for this project is within the NVCAP District, which was upzoned to 65 feet. The 23 revised application included 25% low-income units, as opposed to 20% previously. The income 24 threshold to calculate rents was decreased to 70% AMI for low-income units. The City standard 25 was to calculate rents at the top of each HCD income band, which was 80% for low income. The 26 height of the building was increased to add an additional residential floor, so now 55 units were 27 proposed. Parking spots were added for a total of 31 now instead of 24 previously. Slides were 28 shown of affordable rent calculation, teacher salary grades and HCD income bands, and rent-to-29 income ratios (HUD mandate 30%, commercial standard 33%, Alta Housing 50%). According to 30 recent U.S. Census Bureau data, 56% of California low-income renters spend more than 50% of 31 their income on rent. 65% of teacher salary grades were at 30% rent-to-income ratio, 19% were 32 at 33% rent-to-income ratio. 33 Isaiah Stackhouse continued the presentation. Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) required 20% 34 below-market rate (BMR). This affordable housing project was 100% BMR prioritized to local 35 educators and had the following community benefits: This project will create 55 units of 36 affordable housing to help meet RHNA goals. This project has minimal residential impact 37 because it is over 500 feet from the closest residential district. This project will improve jobs 38 and commutes because 87% of PAUSD teachers currently do not live in Palo Alto. This project 39 will strengthen PAUSD schools by increasing teacher recruitment and retention. This project will 40 provide transit-friendly, pedestrian-friendly, and bicycle-friendly housing because it is adjacent 1 to VTA Routes 22 and 522, there is a bus stock on the block, it is within a short transit to seven 2 PAUSD schools, had on-site bicycle storage, and shared e-bikes were provided. 3 This project was endorsed by the Palo Alto Educators Association (PAEA), California School 4 Employee Association (CSEA) Local Chapter #301, Palo Alto League of Women Voters, Palo Alto 5 Forward Housing, and the President and Vice President of the PAUSD. 6 The revised application addressed the April 10, 2024 commissioners’ comments about 7 affordability, open space, parking, trash pickup, and the TDM with the following changes: One 8 floor of BMR units was added, the percentage of low-income units was increased to 25%, and 9 the threshold was decreased to 70% AMI. The roof deck was increased by 50% to add more 10 usable open space. An extra level of parking machines was added to provide a total of 32 11 parking spaces. A new staging location was coordinated with the City for trash pickup. The TDM 12 was strengthened to address parking concerns and free VTA passes will be provided to all 13 tenants. 14 Commissioner Summa asked staff about the length of deed restriction. Garrett Sauls explained 15 that the zoning code had two standards that discussed the length of affordability; one standard 16 was whether a project had federal grants or time limits associated with public grants, which 17 was typically 55 years; the other standard said all projects or all units built as affordable were 18 restricted to 99 years. PHZ projects have more flexibility but typically the timeframe for how 19 long they were restricted was established from staff through the regulatory agreement with 20 Alta Housing. The PTC could make a motion to make a recommendation or add a condition to 21 the draft Record of Land Use Action to identify a timeframe for these units to be restricted. 22 Commissioner Summa noted in 16.65.075(c)(2) that affordable units shall remain affordable for 23 99 years unless there were federal funds involved. There were no federal funds for this project. 24 Chair Chang asked if the applicant expected 99 years. Jason Matlof replied that the applicant 25 had discussions with Director Lait and the length of deed restriction would be negotiated as 26 part of the regulatory agreement because the applicant had stated that being restricted to 99 27 years was very difficult. This project was a for-profit investment and the applicant’s plan was to 28 hold this property. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang clarified that the 99-year standard 29 applied to BMR units provided under the inclusionary ordinance for ownership projects but this 30 was not an ownership project. This project goes beyond what was required in that part of the 31 City’s code. Therefore, 99 years was a guideline but not a binding requirement for this project. 32 Chair Chang wondered if the applicant knew what they were going to charge for parking spaces 33 and whether there was any difference in how parking spaces were allocated and priced with 34 respect to the affordability level. Jason Matlof stated that parking was unbundled. Based on the 35 financial model, the parking spots will lease for $150/month available on a first-come, first-36 served basis, which Jason Matlof thought was slightly below the market. To avoid complication, 37 it was preferable to not have lower parking leases for tenants in the low-income units versus 38 moderate-income units; however, they were open to having a discussion after they model it. 39 Vice-Chair Akin wanted a clarification on the numbers in the staff report and the presentation 1 as it related to the HUD standards to include utilities and other incidentals such as insurance. 2 Garrett Sauls explained that the anticipated rents in the staff report did not include the utility 3 allowance; however, Page 13 of the slide presentation had the correct anticipated rent. Vice-4 Chair Akin remarked that the HUD standard required including the utility allowance when 5 performing affordability computations. Housing Planner Robert Feign stated the purpose of 6 deducting a utility allowance was to ensure rent and utility costs do not exceed 30% of the 7 tenant’s income if a tenant paid their own utilities. Vice-Chair Akin said his affordability 8 calculations were inconsistent with the bands of affordability in the presentation. 9 Jason Matlof explained that the rents were calculated per State and County regulations. For 10 example, the low-income category was 51% to 80%. For 70% AMI, using the algorithm of target 11 income divided by 12 multiplied by 0.3, and then subtracting the utilities allowance is how you 12 calculate the Palo Alto-approved rent. Jason Matlof stated his analysis showing each salary 13 grade by affordability category was consistent. The HUD standard of rent and utilities to be 30% 14 or less for determining affordability was not the same as City, State, or County standards. The 15 presentation showed the HUD affordability standard as a comparison. Commercial housing and 16 Alta (Palo Alto’s low-income housing administrator) use a gross income to rent comparison. 17 Robert Feign pointed out that Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.65.020(d) stated that affordable 18 rent shall include the total of monthly payments by the tenant for rent in addition to an 19 allowance for utilities and any separately charged fees. 20 Albert Yang gave an example of adding the utility allowance to $2049 and it calculated as 21 affordable to an annual income of $90,370 when using the standard of rent plus the utilities 22 allowance should not exceed 30% of income. Vice-Chair Akin arrived at the same calculation 23 using the HUD standard. 24 PUBLIC COMMENTS 25 1. Adam Schwartz strongly supported approval of this project. One of his children wants to 26 be a schoolteacher and it was difficult to find a one-bedroom apartment at this project’s 27 proposed price level. Adam Schwartz’s number one issue as a voter was construction of 28 more homes and this development was a very good step in the right direction. Adam 29 Schwartz urged everybody to vote in favor of letting this development go forward. 30 2. Matthew Pauly expressed his support for this project. Palo Alto needed to increase 31 housing supply to meet demand. This project was a good step in addressing Palo Alto’s 32 housing affordability crisis. This project was in a great location, had access to many 33 amenities, put a vacant parcel to productive use, and would benefit teachers who in 34 turn would benefit the entire community. Matthew Pauly urged the Commission to 35 approve the project as presented. 36 3. Ashley Cheechoo is a special education teacher. We want to provide our students with 37 the best-quality teachers but institutional knowledge is lost when special education 38 teachers leave PAUSD because they cannot afford to live here. Ashley Cheechoo 1 strongly urged the Commission to move this housing project forward to attract and 2 retain special education teachers. 3 4. Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, stated that over 45 pages of 4 support letters were submitted. Amie Ashton though this was a perfect location for 5 housing, was near Cal Ave, you can walk everywhere, transit was nearby, and was within 6 three miles of just about every school in the city. Two years was a very long time for an 7 affordable housing project. Amie Ashton has a teacher friend who lives downtown in a 8 very old studio apartment. This summer during our heatwaves, her friend’s apartment 9 was over 100 degrees, so she slept on Amie Ashton’s couch. New housing is a climate 10 resiliency strategy. Most of Palo Alto’s rental stock is over 50 years old. For all these 11 reasons, Amie Ashton asked the Commission to move this to Council with a 12 recommendation for approval. 13 5. Meb Steiner is President of the California School Employees Association (CSEA) Palo Alto 14 Chapter 301. Classified school employees (jobs other than teachers and administrators; 15 including food service, bus drivers, tech support, mental health therapists, behaviorists, 16 aides, and clerical support) are a critical part of PAUSD in supporting students, staff, and 17 the community. The salary scale ranged from food service workers at the lowest end 18 and full-time 12-month employees with professional degrees at the upper end. There 19 are many part-time employees. The vast majority of CSEA’s membership will qualify, 20 many for the low income and almost everyone for the moderate income. Meb Steiner 21 thought this project was a win-win-win for the city, for housing, as well as school 22 employees and teachers. We have to call a contractor if there is an emergency instead 23 of utilizing maintenance employees because they live three hours away. There is a lot of 24 interest from CSEA’s membership about this project. Its central location is ideal for 25 public transportation. Meb Steiner urged the Commission to move this forward to City 26 Council with a recommendation for approval. 27 6. Teri Baldwin, President of the Palo Alto Educators Association (PAEA), voiced her 28 enthusiastic support for this educator housing project. When she moved to California to 29 work in PAUSD 24 years ago, as many educators, she could not afford rent in Palo Alto 30 or the surrounding area. By providing below-market housing for educators, we can 31 better attract and retain the high-quality teachers our students deserve. Many 32 educators commute two hours or more each day. Several teachers wanted to attend 33 tonight but could not due to their long commutes. If teachers lived in the communities 34 where they work, they could meet with students, prepare lessons, grade assignments, 35 and attend school events instead of spending hours in traffic. Biking or using public 36 transportation rather than driving long distances to work helps educators reduce their 37 carbon footprint. Teri Baldwin urged the Commission to approve this initiative. 38 7. Korynne Headley has been an educator for over 20 years and lives in Oakland. Her 39 parents are both educators and they urged her not to come into this profession because 40 she would have to live far away from them. All people deserve housing. We are a team 1 with a desire to serve young people. Korynne Headley hoped this will be a quick vote to 2 forward this to Council so this project can get underway. 3 8. Kimberly Kwon echoed the prior commenters’ points. She is a teacher whose commute 4 home is sometimes two hours. She attended the meeting on the housing development 5 with 29 units available to Palo Alto teachers and there were at least 60 people in 6 attendance, so the need is very high and the interest is very great. Kimberly Kwon asked 7 the Commission to push this project forward. 8 9. Jennifer DiBrienza is an educator and former School Board Member. She urged the 9 Commission to support this project. She heard the commissioners’ concerns about 10 affordability but pointed out it is a formula, and the union heads of both bodies said 11 they want this and their membership wants this. Students benefit from seeing teachers 12 live in their neighborhoods. Ninety percent of staff qualifies for a unit. Jennifer DiBrienza 13 hoped the Commission moves this forward as quickly as possible so more money and 14 time was not lost and more staff can stay in our community and bike to work. 15 10. Bryan Baker concurred with the previous positive comments regarding the value of this 16 project. As a parent of a child with special needs, his family has been directly impacted 17 by the challenges and difficulty to recruit and retain quality individuals within the school 18 district, and the lack of available housing in Palo Alto was a critical element making it a 19 challenge. Instead of asking why we should do this project, he wanted to hear the 20 Commission ask why we are not doing more of these projects. 21 11. Michael Regula is not a teacher nor does he have any children but he strongly supported 22 this project and he wanted his City to support it as well. Palo Alto has been his favorite 23 place to live and he particularly enjoyed seeing schoolkids bike to school every day, 24 which reflected the City’s hard work to promote safety and environmental 25 sustainability. Palo Alto needs to work on housing affordability because much of the 26 housing in Palo Alto is out of the price range for vital members of our community, 27 including teachers and the staff who support them. Of note, 87% of PAUSD teachers live 28 outside the city, which has negative impacts on community building and environmental 29 impacts related to CO2 emissions. This project demonstrates a clear commitment to our 30 educators that we want them living in Palo Alto and we value the service they provide 31 our children. Living on El Camino Real provides transportation flexibility. He thought this 32 was a good project and he advised to not let perfect be the enemy of good. He looked 33 forward to seeing more of our teachers biking side by side with their students on the 34 way to school. 35 12. Rika Yamamoto voiced her strong support for this project. This development represents 36 a vital solution to the housing challenges faced by Palo Alto by providing 100% 37 affordable housing prioritizing PAUSD teachers and classified staff. The proximity to 38 schools and transit-friendly design will reduce long commutes, strengthen community 39 ties, and enhance retention. This project transforms an underutilized site into a 40 community asset by eliminating blight, reducing greenhouse gas, and aligning with the 1 City’s Comprehensive Plan for affordable housing. Approving this project is more than a 2 housing solution; it is a commitment to the future of our schools, students, and the city. 3 Rika Yamamoto urged the Commission to move forward with this initiative. 4 13. Herb Borock pointed out this project came under Planned Home Zoning, which deviated 5 from certain standards according to the staff report. The City never adopted an 6 amendment to the zoning code as required by Chapter 18.80 of the Municipal Code to 7 permit Planned Home Zoning. Regardless if a lot of people think the project will benefit 8 them or it is a good thing for the city, he does not see how the Commission can approve 9 a project if you do not follow the law. Throughout the community, typically there is no 10 charge for parking when people rent a unit. The parking cost is not added to the rental 11 unit cost to determine whether the project is affordable. He believed the Commission 12 should set as a condition of approval to prohibit anybody in this project from 13 participating in a Residential Preference Parking Program in the neighborhood, as was 14 done with the project at Page Mill and El Camino. The Commission may want to include 15 in the administrative record the letter in the current City Council packet about the 16 problems with the lift parking mechanism at Mayfield Apartments. 17 14. Zachary Anglemyer spoke on behalf of Palo Alto Forward as well as his grandmother 18 who was a high school English teacher for 50 years. His grandmother lived within three 19 miles of the schools she taught at, provided a very high level of education, and was a 20 member of her community. It is vital to have our teachers and the faculty who support 21 them be a part of the community but particularly the teachers. He agreed with Herb 22 Borock’s comment about needing to change legislation because it has resulted in 23 projects being stalled for multiple years. Zachary Anglemyer works in climate tech and 24 sustainability. He believed this project should be approved but thought this project and 25 every project brought forward needed to integrate the following: Inspire out-of-the-box 26 thinking for the way projects look, feel, and interact. Instead of using traditional building 27 materials, use hybrid architecture. For example, straw construction costs much less, 28 allowing greater affordability. 29 The staff report mentioned that pick-up/drop-off might occur on Lambert because of the bike 30 lane on El Camino. Commissioner Hechtman wondered if the applicant could explain what this 31 proposed structure would lose in order to accommodate an onsite pick-up/drop-off spot. Isaiah 32 Stackhouse replied that with Caltrans eliminating all parking on El Camino Real, you have to 33 eliminate all tenant parking to have a drop-off for deliveries to pull into a driveway. Jason 34 Matlof pointed out that Lambert was less than 50 feet away from the parcel, so it was very 35 convenient. There will be a high-speed door than can open in three seconds. The door will be 36 open during peak hours in the morning and afternoon to allow someone to pull in temporarily. 37 Chair Chang recalled trash pickup was a question when this application previously came to the 38 PTC and she wanted to know what the solution was. Isaiah Stackhouse responded that staff 39 identified a curbside location toward the corner on Lambert where the trash bins will be staged 40 early morning either once or twice a week. Garrett Sauls stated that the revised orientation and 1 layout of the trash bins was discussed with the Recycling and Zero Waste teams. It is a left 90-2 degree turn. The trash bins can be pulled straight out. The new design alleviated some of the 3 circulation issues for vehicles and trash collection mentioned in the last meeting with the PTC. 4 Chair Chang remembered one of the PTC’s previous concerns was the trash containers causing 5 visibility issues for cars. Chair Chang wondered if trash containers were prohibited from being in 6 the first 20 feet with the new daylighting rules in California. Garrett Sauls spoke with 7 Transportation staff and they did not indicate to him that it was an issue. The 20-foot distance 8 from the stop line at the stop sign intersection was specific to vehicle parking. Since no vehicles 9 are allowed to park there, it is available for trash containers. Isaiah Stackhouse added that the 10 City staff’s policy going forward was that trash loading for all projects needed to occur on the 11 side streets because of the Caltrans change to El Camino Real. 12 The Commission wanted to know the size of the trash bins and how the bins would get to 13 Lambert. Garrett Sauls replied that the bins were 3-4 cubic yards, which were standard-sized 14 bins for commercial or multifamily residential projects. At night, the applicant’s maintenance 15 staff would use pulley assists to manually pull the trash bins out from the trash staging area 16 inside the garage at the backside of the drive aisle and move it to the side street by pushing it 17 on the sidewalk. Typically, trash bins are about 3 feet deep. 18 Isaiah Stackhouse stated that the bins were a little taller than waist high. The bins will be staged 19 on the south side of Lambert where cars are turning in, not where cars are going out. The night 20 before the garbage is getting picked up, two maintenance people will use a pulley assist to roll 21 the 3-foot-wide bin down the crosswalk ramp, make a 50-foot trip along the sidewalk, cross the 22 street, and turn the bin 90 degrees to fit along Lambert. It is typical for projects to stage trash 23 bins in the center of garages. 24 There was no overnight parking on Lambert but Garrett Sauls remarked that trash bins left out 25 overnight was not considered parking. Trash was expected to be picked up in the morning and 26 moved from that location, so trash does not sit there during the day. The bins will be placed in 27 the garage in the back and will not impact the vehicles as they exit their stalls. The bikes will 28 exit along the side corridor, so there is no direct interaction between a bicyclist and someone 29 pulling the trash bins out. Commissioner Summa noted that the trash bins will not be a hazard 30 for bicycles turning on El Camino because it is on the south side of Lambert. 31 Commissioner Summa asked if the abutting property owner’s concern had been resolved about 32 underpinnings going across their property line. Garrett Sauls stated in his staff report that a 33 meeting was held with the applicant’s representative. The design did not require any 34 underpinnings on adjacent properties. Isaiah Stackhouse added that the parking pit was 35 intentionally located away from the property line to avoid requiring underpinning of the 36 adjacent properties. 37 Commissioner Summa asked for clarification because she understood this project was for 38 teachers and only the PAUSD teacher salary schedule was provided, so she was surprised to 39 hear in Public Comment that this project was also for school employees. Jason Matlof replied 1 that their partnership was with the PAEA and CSEA unions. The housing was meant for both 2 groups. All analysis was done relative to teachers because they had a 12-month annual salary 3 and were full-time employees for the most part, whereas classified employees were oftentimes 4 hourlies and had two jobs. 5 Chair Chang heard Meb Steiner say in Public Comment that all the CSEA staff would qualify. 6 Chair Chang asked if there were charts showing this because she did not think it was affordable 7 for all the CSEA staff. Chair Chang pulled up the salary charts and believed less than half would 8 qualify for the most affordable unit, the studio at 70% AMI. Jason Matlof stated there was a 9 difference between qualifying and affordability. You cannot discuss or assess affordability 10 because most of the CSEA employees were hourly, may work between 4 hours/week to 40 11 hours/week, and some had multiple jobs that would provide them a qualifying gross income, so 12 every situation was different. Commissioner Templeton did not believe the Commission needed 13 to worry if enough members qualified from the PAEA and CSEA because she thought there 14 would be a lot of interest. Chair Chang reiterated the issue was whether they can afford it. 15 Commissioner Summa thought it was important to have a more complete analysis. 16 Commissioner Summa assumed there was data on the CSEA employees; if not, the median 17 income could easily be determined from the budget. The PTC did not have any demographic 18 information on the teachers, such as how many had a partner and how many were single. 19 Commissioner Summa wondered how many teachers and other employees this project would 20 serve. Jason Matlof replied there were 1600 employees across the PAEA teachers and the CSEA 21 classified employees, in the context of 55 units. 22 Commissioner Templeton expressed her appreciation for the comments made by the public. 23 Where Commissioner Templeton grew up they had a lot of academic coaches, sports coaches, 24 and afterschool extracurricular activities led by teachers but her kids did not have that when 25 they were growing up in Palo Alto because teachers have to drive home for two hours to the 26 Central Valley. Commissioner Templeton was excited about this project. 27 Chair Chang thanked all the public commenters. Teacher housing was important to Chair Chang. 28 In reply to Chair Chang asking if the five electric bikes were part of the 55 bike spaces, Garrett 29 Sauls answered no. There are 55 bike spaces plus 4 public bike spaces plus 5 spaces for the 30 shared electric bikes. 31 Chair Chang inquired why there was a long gap between April to November and what the 32 typical timeframe was for an affordable housing project such as Wilton Court or the Grant 33 Avenue teacher housing project. Garrett Sauls responded that the delay was partly due to the 34 applicant reconsidering some of the design aspects to change the project from the initial 35 submittal of 44 units to 55 units. The increase from 44 units to 55 units exceeded the typical 36 allowance that HCD provides with density bonus changes under State law, which was a 20% 37 change in either unit count or square footage. Staff did not want to tell the applicant to file a 38 new application. To prevent further delay of an affordable housing project, staff kept the same 39 file and tried to expedite reviews to ensure the application could go to hearings as soon as 40 possible. According to the spreadsheets that calculate internal staff times for preparing reports 1 in advance of a hearing, for the ARB it is about 1½ months and for the PTC almost 2 months. 2 Not having a quorum also resulted in delays. 3 Staff provided the following responses to Chair Chang’s questions. Garrett Sauls stated the 4 proposal had a 0-5 foot setback because the setback in some places was 0 feet and 5 feet in 5 other places. The Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) did not have a maximum lot 6 coverage requirement. The proposed floor area ratio was 4.42 versus a maximum of 0.6 for the 7 CS District and 2.0 for AHIP. The proposed open space per unit was 31 square feet versus 150 8 square feet for the CS District and 50 square feet for AHIP. There were 32 parking spaces 9 proposed versus the CS minimum of 55 (1 parking space per 1-bedroom unit) and 42 for AHIP 10 (0.75 parking spaces per 1-bedroom unit). Albert Yang explained that these units were 11 restricted to households falling in the low-income or moderate-income categories. For example, 12 a tenant qualified for the low-income category if their income was between 50% and 80% AMI 13 but the rent was calculated at 70% AMI. 14 Chair Chang noted the TDM mentioned penalties could be enacted if there were too many 15 vehicle trips and she wondered what those penalties were. Garrett Sauls responded that those 16 penalties were typically not specified until a project was approved but they could be financial 17 penalties levied on the property owner to encourage them to ensure the practices in their TDM 18 plan were being used, such as tenants using their VTA passes. Garrett Sauls offered to get back 19 to Chair Chang when he had further information. Chair Chang recalled the PTC looked at the 20 Castilleja TDM penalties as part of their review of a project. Garrett Sauls stated that the PTC’s 21 conditions of approval could include explicit details for penalties if objectives were not met, for 22 example, within the first year or another timeframe. 23 Commissioner Hechtman asked if PC had a parking requirement and how the applicant would 24 manage things so this project was not over-parked and causing burden on the neighborhood. 25 Garrett Sauls replied that the PC ordinance does not have explicit parking standards. 26 Commissioner Hechtman thought the focus of this project’s TDM was to provide transportation 27 alternatives by providing every unit with a VTA pass and a bike spot, so tenants did not need a 28 car. This differed from most TDMs that had a penalty if traffic was not reduced, so maybe the 29 penalties for this TDM would be if you converted the bike parking to storage or if you stopped 30 distributing free VTA passes. Garrett Sauls pointed out this project had the convenience of a 31 VTA stop on both sides of the street, free VTA passes, and unbundled parking. 32 Chair Chang believed part of the reason for the TDM was to make sure this was a good 33 development as there was a concern of impact to neighbors as well as a concern for the 34 residents’ quality of life being impacted from parking a few blocks away and walking home in 35 the dark. Because it is a PC, the PTC can choose to place restrictions to address concerns. 36 Garrett Sauls pointed out there was no overnight parking allowed on the immediate side 37 streets in the vicinity. Not allowing overnight parking on the immediate side streets made 38 Commissioner Summa more concerned for residents walking farther distances, possibly after 39 dark when it is less safe, to park in surrounding neighborhoods unless there is a residential 1 parking permit program (RPPP) in the future. 2 Commissioner Summa asked if the length of time had been calculated for commuting on public 3 transportation to each of the PAUSD schools, to include going downtown to make a connection. 4 Commissioner Summa did not think all teachers and employees were able to bike, especially 5 because teachers often carry a lot of materials. Garrett Sauls did not have data on commute 6 times. Jason Matlof stated that seven district schools were along the El Camino corridor and the 7 VTA stop was a couple hundred feet away from the project. Four or five schools were within a 8 half-mile of a VTA stop and two more schools were within two-thirds of a mile, so those schools 9 were considered walkable from a VTA stop. Those schools could be easily biked to if the 10 weather permitted. Commissioner Summa wondered how long it would take to get to Ohlone 11 School. Jason Matlof did not know but Ohlone was not one of the seven schools along the El 12 Camino corridor. Commissioner Summa was concerned about tenants having access to safe and 13 efficient ways to get to their jobs and conduct the rest of their lives without cars. Based on the 14 parking ratio, Jason Matlof said 56% of tenants will have the option to park a car onsite. 15 Garrett Sauls mentioned he did not have a car and he commuted from San Jose to Palo Alto 16 thanks to the Caltrain Go Pass provided to him. Chair Chang asked if PAUSD offered transit 17 passes to teachers. Meb Steiner remarked there was an option to set aside pretax money for 18 transportation. PAEA and CSEA were founding members of Manzanita Works. Manzanita Works 19 offered free Caltrain passes for school employees. VTA passes were offered by the District to 20 some special education students, especially when students are in programs out in the 21 community. 22 Vice-Chair Akin will propose conditions of approval to address his concerns. Vice-Chair Akin 23 suspected the project was underparked but as the TDM plan did not prevent parking offsite, he 24 expected some residents will park in Ventura. The on-site parking will be challenging to use 25 because of the puzzle system and tight circulation in the drive path. Because parking was 26 unbundled, there was a financial incentive to park elsewhere for free. Vice-Chair Akin thought 27 the PTC needed to establish precedents for handling underparked projects. As density increases 28 and future projects may also be underparked, Ventura may develop an RPPP. If the residents of 29 this project were able to use a Ventura RPPP, it would eventually compromise the TDM goals 30 and the City’s sustainable goals by allowing more driving than originally anticipated. To address 31 this and recognizing it is unfair to impose a constraint on residents in the future without 32 advance warning, Vice-Chair Akin suggested the following condition of approval: “Residents of 33 this project shall not be eligible for Residential Preferential Parking Permit Programs that allow 34 parking within half-mile of the project. Residents shall be informed of this along with other 35 TDM information before renting a unit.” The distance constraint was to allow cases where 36 people have legitimate reasons for participating in an RPPP elsewhere in the City. 37 Commission discussion ensued. Albert Yang commented that under current State laws a project 38 cannot be excluded from an RPPP if it is within the RPPP boundaries. The RPPP boundaries can 39 be drawn to end short of the project but a project cannot be excluded if the RPPP zone 40 surrounds it on all sides. Vice-Chair Akin reworded his condition of approval to state that this 1 project would not be within an RPPP boundary. Commissioner Templeton was supportive but 2 noted that staff needed to keep that in mind if they worked on an RPPP for Ventura in the 3 future. Commissioner Summa fully supported the revised condition of approval. 4 Commissioner Summa thought the best way for projects to succeed that are underparked by 5 our traditional standards was to find renters to live in this building who want that lifestyle. 6 Commissioner Summa worried about people having to park far away, especially women, people 7 with disabilities, and people with young children. 8 Commissioner Hechtman suggested another approach could be to require that tenants declare 9 whether they will be using a car here and they have to lease a parking space if one is available; 10 if not, the prospective tenant will be notified there are no parking spaces available. 11 Commissioner Summa stated that people can park across El Camino in Barron Park. 12 Commissioner Summa supported Vice-Chair Akin’s idea. Vice-Chair Akin worded his condition of 13 approval to address his concern about Ventura but he was less worried about Barron Park 14 because it was at a sufficient distance from the project that parking should be minimal. 15 Chair Chang suspected this project was underparked. Chair Chang recalled retailers and 16 landlords saying at the retail ad hoc that parking was needed because this was a car-driven 17 society. Chair Chang was aware that people choose not to buy the Stanford parking pass and 18 instead park in the neighborhoods. Chair Chang visited the project site today and noted the vast 19 majority of Lambert had no parking from 11 to 5, which meant you had to park somewhere else 20 in the neighborhood if the 32 parking spaces were occupied. Immediately across the street, 21 there were “no parking anytime” signs by the office building. Chair Chang liked Vice-Chair Akin’s 22 suggestion because if this project was not underparked then we do not have a problem; 23 however, one of her big concerns was how are you going to get around if you do not have a car. 24 Vice-Chair Akin stated the PTC did not have the critical information needed on how many 25 PAUSD employees fall within the given income categories. Vice-Chair Akin made a general 26 conclusion that it was likely there were fewer people than anticipated who were eligible for 27 these units and who can afford them, although it did not justify changing this project, he 28 thought it justified the need to gather information for future decision-makers. Vice-Chair Akin 29 proposed a second condition of approval that annually, perhaps along with the TDM report, the 30 property manager produce a list of how many PAUSD employees were in the development and 31 in what type of unit to provide information-gathering to use for future projects to understand 32 the dynamics of demand. Commissioner Templeton and Chair Chang agreed it was a great idea. 33 Commissioner Hechtman pointed out that the applicant secured an arrangement with the 34 educational community but the PTC was not requiring the local educational community be 35 given priority. Commissioner Hechtman wondered if there was a concern about connecting the 36 PTC to a private arrangement by requesting the data proposed by Vice-Chair Akin. 37 Chair Chang mentioned she asked staff offline if it was possible for the PTC to have a condition 38 of approval to give right of first refusal to teachers because this project was being talked about 39 in the community as teacher housing. Almost every public commenter tonight was either part 1 of the PAEA or CSEA. Chair Chang was told offline by staff that was usually worked out between 2 the applicant and Alta, the housing administrator. It was important to Chair Chang that PAEA 3 and CSEA members must be given right of first refusal within a particular timeframe. Jason 4 Matlof agreed to provide an annual accounting of how many teachers were in the building. 5 Jason Matlof explained there were two agreements. The regulatory agreement with the City 6 will deed restrict them to the particular affordable rents. The second agreement existed with 7 the PAEA and CSEA to address how this will be managed and the prioritization process with a 8 right of first refusal for two weeks. It was a complicated process to have the PAEA or CSEA 9 Presidents as parties in the regulatory agreement because the PAEA or CSEA had to involve 10 their lawyers and their membership needed to vote. Jason Matlof believed there was no reason 11 for concern because they were bound to rent at the same amount to anyone, so there was no 12 economic incentive, benefit, or motive to rent to anyone else except the educational 13 community, and he would not lie to the community he lived in. 14 Commissioner Summa agreed with Vice-Chair Akin’s second condition of approval. This project 15 garnered wide support in the city because it was positioned as a project for teachers. There 16 were many unknowns of how it was going to work. Commissioner Summa thought the most we 17 can learn from it and how it was serving the PAUSD community was very important, and the 18 applicant agreed to provide the information. Commissioner Summa believed both of Vice-Chair 19 Akin’s proposed conditions were important. 20 Commissioner Hechtman commented on how the project had improved from when it came to 21 the PTC in April. It was rare to have 100% affordable projects. It was extraordinarily rare to have 22 a for-profit, unsubsidized, 100% affordable project. Commissioner Hechtman expressed his 23 appreciation of the applicant’s work to address the PTC’s, ARB’s, and Council’s comments. 24 Commissioner Hechtman believed that calculating rents was a function of qualified staff 25 applying state and local laws to arrive at a definitive formulaic number; it was not the PTC’s job 26 nor did he think the PTC should spend much time concerning themselves about those numbers. 27 The percentages of 70 and 110, the categories of low and moderate, were relevant to the PTC’s 28 discussion. The educational community priority was wonderful but it did not affect 29 Commissioner Hechtman’s opinion of this being an excellent project, although he expected it to 30 be full of educators and educational staff members, because our community needed more low-31 income and moderate-income units. Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of this project 32 and was okay with both of Vice-Chair Akin’s conditions. 33 Chair Chang noted the additional positives of this project were no single-family-home 34 neighborhoods were impacted, it was on El Camino, walkable to Caltrain, unbundled parking, it 35 provided many housing units, no additional funding was required, it was a beautiful building, 36 and she liked the bigger rooftop. Chair Chang had no objection to the height or density. Chair 37 Chang wanted a condition of approval to explicitly say the length of deed restriction was the life 38 of the building. Chair Chang was concerned about transportation because tenants who do not 39 have a car still need to get around. The VTA pass was a good start but Chair Chang knew of 40 Gunn students who could not get to school because the VTA routes changed. If two people live 41 in a one-bedroom unit, they need two bike spaces, so Chair Chang wondered if it was possible 1 to put bike parking anyplace else, maybe on the roof. Chair Chang wanted to encourage bikes. 2 Palo Alto was proud of its bikeability and wonderful bike paths. Sometimes biking was a faster 3 mode of transportation than riding VTA. 4 Jason Matlof did not think all units will have bikes. There will be spare bike spots because a car-5 owning person might not have a bike. Jason Matlof thought the bike parking could easily 6 accommodate a bike with pannier baskets but not a long cargo bike where you can fit multiple 7 kids. Isaiah Stackhouse commented that cargo bikes come in thousands of different styles, so 8 some may fit and others will not. Isaiah Stackhouse has an adult son who does not want a 9 driver’s license and does not bike or take the bus. It is far cheaper for his son to take Uber and 10 Lyft than to pay for a car and expenses such as insurance and repairs. Isaiah Stackhouse stated 11 they went through a lot of design development to expand the open space on the roof. They 12 were trying to make room for as many solar panels as they can get on the roof. The roof had 13 mechanical equipment requirements. Isaiah Stackhouse bikes to work. Isaiah Stackhouse would 14 love to fit more bikes on the property but did not think one more bike could fit. Isaiah 15 Stackhouse was trying to find the proper balance between maximizing every unit to provide as 16 much affordable housing as possible as well as accommodating cars and bikes, and he hit the 17 limit of the site for balancing all these competing interests. 18 Chair Chang’s bigger concern was affordability. Chair Chang wanted affordable housing. Chair 19 Chang thought the 70% AMI units were fantastic and below market as defined by what you can 20 find online. There was a difference between the State’s definition of affordable versus what 21 people were paying and what was practically affordable. When Chair Chang spoke to members 22 of the public, $3800 or $4000 for a one-bedroom unit was not what people were thinking of in 23 terms of affordable housing. Chair Chang researched available units in Palo Alto. Six studios 24 were available and the average rent was $2538. The average rent for the available 41 one-25 bedroom units was $3424, which was below the rent proposed for 110% AMI. This project was 26 affordable according to the State definition but it was not below market rate, and Chair Chang 27 was aware the City Council had talked about revising our local ordinances to reflect this. 28 It was said that no funding was being provided for this project; however, Chair Chang pointed 29 out there was a substantial subsidy because 100% affordable developments in Palo Alto have 30 100% of their impact fees waived. Chair Chang emailed staff earlier today and discovered the 31 total amount of impact fees waived for this project was over $4 million. It made sense to Chair 32 Chang to waive the impact fees for the 70% AMI units but the remaining units were effectively 33 market rate. Calculating 75% of the development fee was effectively for market-rate units, $3 34 million of the City’s waived amount was to get units at the same rent as a one bedroom 35 elsewhere in the city but those buildings with market-rate housing were not subsidized. 36 Although this project was providing new apartments, the one-bedroom units south of Oregon 37 Expressway were all under $2500/month and the majority of them were much larger. For 38 Wilton Court, the City contributed $6 million for 49 units that were much more deeply 39 affordable. For the teacher housing project at 251 Grant, the City contributed $3 million and 40 the District contributed $1.45 million for 29 units that were larger and had deeper affordability. 41 This project’s proposed units were very small, 500 square feet, so the market commanded a 1 lesser rent in many cases. 2 Commissioner Summa thanked the applicant for his hard work, the staff for assisting the 3 applicant, and the public who spoke and wrote to the Commission. Commissioner Summa had 4 no problem with the project’s height or density. Commissioner Summa had the same concerns 5 expressed by Chair Chang but she acknowledged that the applicant did not create these 6 problems. Commissioner Summa thought the City had been too slow to reevaluate our 7 affordable housing policies. Commissioner Summa thought the 70% AMI units were wonderful 8 but other affordable housing projects had a much deeper level of affordability. Palomino was 9 an example of a project at much higher AMIs that did not result in affordability. Commissioner 10 Summa found it hard to support this project when competing apartments cost a lot less and do 11 not have the same challenges as this project. Commissioner Summa stated this project was in a 12 good location, she loved the increased open space on the roof, and she was happy that the 13 situation with the neighbor was resolved; however, she thought the project would create 14 impacts that were impossible to mitigate. Commissioner Summa wanted these units to be 15 successful for the tenants of the building and to serve the community that served us in our 16 school system but she was struggling with how this building would be successful and found the 17 tradeoff too steep. 18 Commissioner Summa noted it was very difficult for the PTC to evaluate the value of jumping 19 from the underlying FAR of 0.6 to 2.0 for affordable to 4.5 for this project and how to compare 20 it to the loss of impact fees. Commissioner Summa liked Vice-Chair Akin’s proposed conditions 21 and thought those will help. Commissioner Summa wished the PTC had more demographic 22 information, such as how many employees had dual incomes, including how many teachers 23 work during the summer months. Because of the cost of housing, Commissioner Summa found 24 it troubling that we were not getting housing that offered many opportunities for people to live 25 well in our community. Commissioner Summa saw it is an opportunity to explore a new type of 26 affordability that did not have a complicated financing structure. 27 Commissioner Templeton stated it was fair to waive the $4 million impact fees because the PTC 28 was evaluating this project under the City’s current code. Commissioner Templeton thought 29 changes should be considered to have better incentives that do not cost the City. Commissioner 30 Templeton was comfortable with this project targeting people who work in PAUSD. 31 Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Summa’s comment about not getting 32 enough places to live well. It was very costly for the applicant’s staff to do all the iterations and 33 meet with City staff and commissions. Commissioner Templeton urged the Commission to be 34 cautious about making it a longer process when presented with a project that had a lot of the 35 things we were looking for. Before moving here 20 years ago, Commissioner Templeton lived in 36 Germany where she learned about a mythical animal called the eierlegende Wollmilchsau, 37 which was an egg-laying, wool-growing, milk-providing sow for bacon, so you get all these 38 things from one animal. Commissioner Templeton wished this project could do everything but 39 knew it was not physically possible to provide all the bike parking, car parking, and cheaper 40 affordable units, so we have to live with constraints. Commissioner Templeton acknowledged 1 the project was not perfect but it did not have to be perfect. 2 Commissioner Templeton moved the staff recommendation with the following conditions of 3 approval: 4 a. The residents should be notified that if a future RPPP will be enacted that they may be 5 excluded from it; 6 b. Annually, the property manager shall provide a report of PAUSD employees who live in 7 the building and which unit type they are in. 8 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 9 Chair Chang proposed a friendly amendment for the deed restriction to be for the life of the 10 building. Commissioner Templeton remarked that the Director would work that out with the 11 applicant. Garrett Sauls asked Chair Chang to be more specific rather than saying the life of the 12 building because the span was usually 55 or 99 years. Chair Chang proposed specifying the deed 13 restriction timeline for all units to be a minimum of 55 years. 14 Commissioner Templeton asked if staff planned to have this conversation with the applicant 15 before going to Council. Garrett Sauls replied it was usually part of the regulatory agreement 16 before building permit issuance, which was after Council approval. Chair Chang felt strongly 17 about her amendment because normally affordable housing was either inclusionary or had a 18 funding source that specified the deed restriction. Chair Chang did not feel comfortable 19 approving this project without knowing what she was approving. Chair Chang stated the 20 applicant was the funder but the City was also the funder in the form of waived impact fees. 21 This project could be sold, so Chair Chang wanted to ensure a long-term deed restriction. 22 Commissioner Hechtman was not comfortable supporting the friendly amendment because he 23 did not have industry knowledge on applicable deed restriction durations and had not thought 24 to ask staff to look it up before tonight’s meeting. Commissioner Hechtman believed the 25 Planning Director would have the City’s best long-term interests at heart when negotiating the 26 regulatory agreement. Commissioner Hechtman thought it was sufficient to tell the Director 27 that the deed restriction duration should be appropriate in light of the waiver of impact fees in 28 expectation of the long-term use of the property for affordable housing. 29 Because Garrett Sauls said the typical lifetime of deed restrictions was 55 or 99 years, Chair 30 Chang chose 55 years because at some point this building might need to be refurbished. Chair 31 Chang was concerned there were a lot of unintended consequences as a result of the City’s 32 decision to waive development fees for everything defined as affordable by State law, and 33 affordability did not have a defined length of time nor was it specified if it should be affordable 34 in perpetuity. Chair Chang has heard a number of Council Members discuss this concern. Chair 35 Chang did not want this project to be affordable for five years and then throw teachers out on 36 the street because it was no longer affordable. 37 Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Hechtman to have the PTC direct the 1 Director to negotiate the length of deed restriction with those things in mind. Chair Chang 2 recommended that Council look at this explicitly because it was a PC. Chair Chang did not want 3 to leave it up to the Director because it was the PTC’s job to ensure that the Council was getting 4 what they expected. Commissioner Hechtman was not comfortable with the friendly 5 amendment but liked the idea of having the Council decide the duration of the deed restriction 6 rather than the Planning Director, so that should be the PTC’s recommendation. 7 To approve a PC, the PTC needed to make all the findings but Chair Chang was not sure she 8 could make Finding #2 on Page 28: Development of the site will result in public benefits not 9 otherwise attainable. Chair Chang does not know if she can subsidize market-rate housing when 10 she thought about what could be done with $3 million or $4 million. 11 Whether it was affordable or market rate, Commissioner Hechtman believed every housing unit 12 we get was a public benefit toward fulfilling the 6087 more units needed in Palo Alto and 13 thought that was stated in the Housing Element. Jennifer Armer stated the Housing Element 14 had definitions of affordability and that getting those categories of housing built was one of the 15 goals for the community. Jennifer Armer did not know if the Housing Element used the term 16 “public benefit” but it was part of the PHZ language included in the staff report. Garrett Sauls 17 said the language that Commissioner Hechtman referred to was from the 2020 staff report to 18 the Council that discussed the multiple options for a PHZ. The Council had acknowledged that 19 housing was a public benefit and the driver behind reevaluating PCs. 20 Jennifer Armer noted it was often a goal of the PTC to try to get to a unanimous decision but 21 there were benefits to having a mixed vote along with the minutes from this meeting to show 22 there was a lot of support for this project but there were some concerns about the proposed 23 affordability levels. 24 Commissioner Summa wanted the Council to know that the code needed to be updated 25 because higher income levels of deed restriction that used to work were not very helpful now. 26 Commissioner Summa had the same concerns as Chair Chang. Vice-Chair Akin stated that the 27 issues that Chair Chang and Commissioner Summa had raised resonated for him, it needed to 28 be addressed and Council needed to get that message; however, Vice-Chair Akin thought the 29 current project should proceed. Commissioner Templeton removed Chair Chang’s friendly 30 amendment from the motion. 31 Motion 32 Commissioner Templeton moved the staff recommendation with the following conditions of 33 approval: 34 a. The residents shall be notified that if a future RPPP will be enacted, that they may be 35 excluded from it; 36 b. Annually, the property manager shall provide a report of PAUSD employees who live in 37 the building and which unit type they are in. 38 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 39 The motion passed 3-2 with Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, and Commissioner 1 Templeton voting yes by roll call vote; Chair Chang and Commissioner Summa (remote) voted 2 no. 3 Chair Chang spoke to her no vote. Chair Chang calculated that the $3 million subsidy was about 4 $1500 per teacher for rent every month. The City had a limited budget and needed 5 development fees to keep the City running. The City could do a lot with $3 million, such as 6 applying it toward affordable housing. While the housing itself might be a public benefit, you 7 have to factor in how much it cost the City. It did not make sense to Chair Chang for the City to 8 subsidize market-rate housing. Chair Chang could make Finding #2 because she needed to 9 evaluate the benefits. 10 Commissioner Summa voted no because she could not make Finding #2. 11 Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements, or Future Meetings and 12 Agendas 13 None 14 Adjournment 15 9:53 PM 16