Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's call this meeting to order. Good evening, and welcome to the July 13th, 2026 meeting of the Menlo Park Planning Commission. I am Chair Ross Silverstein, and I thank you for joining us this evening. Established by state law, our city's planning commission is composed of seven volunteer residents of Menlo Park appointed to four-year terms by the city council. According to California state law, the planning commission shall do all of the following. PREPARE AND PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND REVISE AS NECESSARY THE GENERAL PLAN. IMPLEMENT THE GENERAL PLAN THROUGH ACTIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING AND SOME DIVISION ORDINANCES. ANNUALLY REVIEW THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY OR COUNTY AND THE LOCAL WORK, PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS OF OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES FOR THEIR CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7. endeavor to promote public interest in, comment on, and understanding of the General Plan and regulations relating to it, consult and advise with public officials, agencies, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional, and other organizations and citizens generally concerning implementation of the General Plan, promote the coordination of local plans and programs with the plans and programs of other public agencies, and perform other functions as the legislative body provides, including conducting studies and preparing plans other than those required or authorized by this title. In addition, the Commission reviews development proposals requiring a use permit, architectural control, variance, minor subdivision, as well as the environmental reviews associated with those projects. When applicable, the Planning Commission reviews below-market rate housing agreements associated with these applications as well. The Commission is the final decision-making body for these applications unless appealed to to the City Council. The Commission also serves as a recommending body to the City Council for major subdivisions rezoning conditional development permits, zoning ordinance amendments, general plan amendments, and environmental reviews associated with those projects. Staff in our city's planning division are responsible for the processing of development applications, as well as for both implementing and amending the general plan zoning ordinances and related policies in order to further the goals of the city. We encourage your active participation, whether you're an applicant or interested member of the public, there will be an opportunity to speak for each specific agenda item, as well as for general public comment. With that, I will call the roll. Vice Chair Beruzzi.

Present.

Commissioner Erick.

Present.

Commissioner Farrick.

Here.

Commissioner Headley.

Present.

Commissioner Schindler.

Here.

And I am present. So we have six commissioners in chambers, which is a quorum with one commissioner absent. The next item on our agenda is reports and announcements. Ms. Sandmeier, are there any staff reports or announcements this evening?

Yeah, good evening, Chair Silverstein and commissioners. So tomorrow's city council meeting will include an appeal of the planning commission's approval of the use permit and associated variances for 305 Haight Street. And the City Council meeting will also include an informational item on the housing element, regional housing needs allocation capacity and progress, and a tentative project schedule for the development of the parking plazas. That concludes my updates, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do any commissioners have questions about those announcements or reports or announcements of their own? Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to report on a book that I read recently that I think would be valuable to members of the community as well as members of the Planning Commission. This is a book focused on affordable housing development called Bittersweet Lane, Creating Homes in the American Affordable Housing Crisis. The author is Jamie Madden. It's part autobiographical. The author grew up living in affordable housing in South Boston and was affected by housing instability most of his childhood before going on to college at Swarthmore and then earning a master's in city planning from MIT. It's also partly a textbook about how affordable housing gets built, including many lessons about the planning process, community engagement, and the types and tiers of financing used to build affordable housing. There were three appendices in the book that will keep it on my bookshelf next to my desk for this reason. There's six pages detailing the different roles that professionals play in the housing development process just with short descriptions of each of them. These are terms that we see regularly in our books. documents and in our discussions, and I thought it was very helpful. There's also an explanation of what a developer's pro forma is and how it gets used and built, which I thought was particularly another fascinating appendix. So again, for the benefit of commissioners and for the public, the title of the book is Bittersweet Lane, Creating Homes in the American Affordable Housing Crisis. Okay.

Thank you. Do any other commissioners have, oh, Commissioner Schindler, again.

I do have one more thing, but I wanted, I had the opportunity to take a look at the staff report in advance of tomorrow's city council meeting. So Ms. Sandemeyer talked about the component that will be a update on the housing element RENA allocation capacity and progress. I particularly wanted to look at it because when we discussed the housing element progress back in March, I had shared with commissioners my own little back of the envelope that I had done trying to be forward-looking about how close we were to hitting our RHNA targets. So I had, again, done it with using publicly available information about projects that were under consideration, projects that had been proposed. And because I had sort of done that, I felt like I needed to just revisit this document and bring it to the attention of commissioners. If you are constrained on time, I would encourage you just to skip straight to table six in the staff report for the city council report tomorrow. It basically, let's see, my takeaway is from the staff report that will be discussed with council tomorrow. was that at the end of last year, at the end of 2025, we had delivered 23% of our affordable arena targets, so the three categories that we bundled together and describe as affordable, in 38% of the time of the housing element, so three years. and that according to the detail in the staff report, we still need to produce 1,272 additional affordable units between now and January of 2031. and if you add, if you incorporate assumptions about the projects that are already pending, that are pending or already approved, that gets us 435 of that. just under 1,300 we need to deliver. So this is, when I compared this to some of the things that I presented just as my own analysis a couple of months ago, it wasn't too far off, but I felt obligated to call attention to the fact that there were parallel and analytical streams. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Schindler. Seeing no other items on reports and announcements, we will move to the public comment portion of our agenda. Under the public comment agenda item, the public may address the commission on any subject not listed on the agenda. Each speaker may address the commission once under public comment for a limit of three minutes. You are not required to provide your name or city of residence, but it is helpful. The commission cannot act on items not listed on the agenda, and therefore the commission cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under public comment other than to provide general information. Please know that if you are here tonight to comment on one of our agenda items, you will have a chance to speak when we get to that item on the agenda. To learn how to participate, I'm going to turn to our clerk this evening, Ms. Roy, to begin our public comment period.

Thank you and good evening Chair Silverstein, Planning Commissioners and members of public. At this time, if any member of the public in the Council Chamber wishes to provide a public comment on item D, please provide me with a comment card from the back table. If you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button or if you are calling in phone, please press star 9 on your keypad and we will be notified of your desire to speak. This will be the final call for the public comment on item T. I'm seeing no hand raised or comment cards. So Chair Silverstein, you may continue with the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll close our public comment portion and move to the consent calendar. Item E1 is the approval of minutes from the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Roy, can you please call for public comment for the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair Silverstein. At this time, if any member of the public in the council chamber wishes to provide a comment on this item E1, please provide me with a comment card from the back table. If you're joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button. And if you're calling in, please press star nine on your keypad and we'll be notified of your desire to speak. At this moment, I don't see any hands or comment cards, so Chair Silverstein, you may continue. Thank you.

Thank you. Do any commissioners wish to pull item E1 from the consent calendar? With that, I will take a vote. All those in favor of approving the item E1, please raise your hand. That is five yeses, and I will abstain, so the motion passes. Moving to item F1 on the agenda. This is regarding a use permit at 1024 Sevier Avenue. At this public hearing, the Commission may consider and adopt a resolution to approve a use permit to add a second floor as well as conduct interior modifications to a single family residence that would exceed 50% of the replacement value of an existing non-conforming structure in a 12-month period. The proposal would also exceed 50% of the existing floor area and is considered equivalent to a new structure. The subject parcel is located on a substandard lot with regard to minimum lot area and minimum lot width in the R1U zoning district. We may also determine this action is categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines section 15301's class one exemption for existing facilities. Mr. Ball, are there any updates to the staff report on this item?

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I have one update to the staff report, and that is that the date and exhibit C project condition A would be corrected if the project is approved. And then the applicant and I are available for any questions.

Thank you. Do any commissioners have any clarifying questions before we open public comment? Commissioner Farrick.

Yes, thank you. And through the chair, could I ask you to repeat that? Mr. Ball, I didn't quite track the the item to be corrected.

So the I was saying that the date would be it would correctly reflect the July 13 date. And that's an exhibit C project condition a Thank you.

Seeing no further clarifying questions, Ms. Rory, can you please open public comment for item F1?

Thank you, Chair. Once again, at this time, we are opening public comment period for item F1. If you are in the council chamber and you wish to speak, please provide me a comment card on item F1. Please provide me a comment card from the back table, or if you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button, or if you are calling in via phone, place star nine on your keypad, and we'll be able to speak. At this moment, I don't have any hand raised or comment cards with me. This is the final call for item F1. I'm still seeing no other hands or comment cards. So Chair Silverstein, you may proceed with the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to commission discussion. Do any commissioners have any discussion or motions they would like to make on this item? Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, through the chair I wanted to confirm my understanding of something with staff as it relates to the soffit that was put in against the, to not intensify the existing nonconformity. On one of the walls, there's a discussion about ceiling heights over 12 feet. And I wanted to confirm my understanding that when there is space above a ceiling height of 12 feet, that starts to count into the floor area calculation. Is that correct?

yes that's correct um if there's a floor floor to ceiling height the um any additional height over 12 feet would count at 200 floor area okay and by incorporating a soffit against that wall that no longer counts is that correct that's correct okay thank you for clarification

Seeing no further commission discussion, I would like to move to approve item F1 as per the staff report. We have a second from Commissioner Headlee. I will call the vote, assuming no further discussion. Vice Chair Bruzee?

Yes.

Commissioner Erick?

Yes.

Commissioner Farrick?

Yes.

Commissioner Headlee?

Yes.

Commissioner Schindler?

Yes.

And I vote yes as well. Motion passes unanimously. We will now move to item F2 regarding a use permit at 1908 Monalto Avenue. At this public hearing, the commission may consider and adopt a resolution to approve a use permit to demolish an existing single-story duplex and construct a new two-story single-family residence on a substandard lot with regard to minimum lot depth in the R2 zoning district. This project would include an accessory dwelling unit, which is a permitted use not subject to discretionary review. The commission may also determine this action is categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines section 15303's class three exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures. Mr. Ball, are there any updates to the staff report on this item?

Thank you, Chair. There are no updates to the staff report, but myself and the applicant are available for any questions.

Do any commissioners have clarifying questions for either staff or the applicant at this time? Commissioner Headlee.

I have a question about what a no-mow lawn is. I was curious if that was a natural phenomenon or like an artificial turf.

Hi. I'm for this project. So that normal lawn was specified by the landscape designer. And it's an actual lawn. It's longer than a typical lawn. And it needs less water than the typical lawn. So that's why I should specify this for the backyard area. We want to reduce the water use. I hope that answers the question. Thanks.

I didn't understand that entirely. I believe, however, I did hear that it is actual grass.

Yeah, actual grass, yes.

Need to be mowed. Any further clarifying questions? Commissioner Schindler.

I think this is a clarifying question. I wanted to clarify my read of two things in the plans. One is that there appears not to be any kind of door between the ADU and the main residence. I guess I could start by asking staff that question. And my second question is to confirm that there is no closet in bedroom five. Is that correct? Are both of those correct?

For A, it is correct. There's no door between the ADU and the main house.

I'm sorry. Could you either speak closer to the microphone, or maybe just a lot of people are having trouble hearing you here in chambers?

How about now? Is that clear? Moderately. OK. Sorry, try to speak louder. For question A, yes, there's no door between the ADU and the main house. For the second question, bedroom five, yes, no closet. It's a pretty small bedroom, so we decided not to put a building closet, maybe a cabinet in the future, but no closet.

Thank you for clarifying.

Sorry, for the record, would you mind identifying yourself?

Oh, sorry. Although the name is not correct, but I'm the archetype. My name is Hao. First name Hao, last name Wang, W-A-N-G. I'm the archetype, yeah.

Seeing no further clarifying questions, Ms. Roy, can we please open public comment for item F2?

Thank you once again, Chair Silverstein. At this time, we are opening public comment period for item F2. If any member of public in the council chamber wishes to provide a public comment, please provide me a comment card from the back table. If you're joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button or if you are calling from phone, press star nine on your keypad and we'll be notified of your speaking. This will be the final call for public comment on item F2. At this moment, I'm not seeing any comments hand raised. So Chair Silverstein, you may continue with the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll now bring item F2 to commission discussion. Do any commissioners have anything they would like to comment on or motions they'd like to make regarding item F2?

Commissioner Eric. I move to approve item F2 as per the staff report.

I'd be happy to second that with a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? None. I will have a question. Sorry. Yes, Commissioner Farrick, please.

I'm just out of your peripheral. Thank you, Chair. I just actually had a question for staff. Given the zoning for this, would this project, would the development potential on this parcel have been three dwelling units or even four if there was a ADU associated with any of those dwelling units? And I realize that's not the project. I'm just asking so that because it's an R3 zone.

R2Zone? Yeah, it's R2Zoning. They could build up to three or more Well, duplexes and projects of three or more dwelling units are allowed, but again, I mean, it would depend on your lot size and floor area and building coverage and all of those other development standards.

Great. And then just to clarify Commissioner Schindler's question, I see on the floor plans, it looks like there's not a door and I just couldn't hear the architect very well. So I think he said there's no door. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. That's it.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, we do have a motion and a second. I will call the vote. Vice Chair Beruzzi.

Yes. Commissioner Erick. Yes. Commissioner Farrick. Yes.

Commissioner Headley. Yes. Commissioner Schindler.

Yes.

And I vote yes. So the item passes unanimously. We can move to item F3 regarding a use permit, architectural control, major subdivision, and below market rate housing agreement at 624 University Drive. At this public hearing, the commission may consider and adopt resolutions to one, approve a use permit, architectural control permit, and below market rate housing agreement to demolish four existing residential units and construct five new three-story residential buildings with a total of six dwelling units and associated site improvements on a substandard lot with respect to width in the R3 zoning district. And two, recommend to city council To City Council, approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide the property into six condominium units and denial of a state density bonus law. Government Code Section 65915 and relevant amendments. Fees concession request at 624 University Drive. The project would include two units for sale at below market rate, with one unit affordable for households earning up to 50% median area income, and one unit affordable for households earning up to 80% area median income. and is being submitted subject to the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915 and relevant amendments, which permit exceptions to the city's zoning ordinance requirements. Sorry, which permit exceptions. The applicant is requesting SDBL waivers from development standards to decrease the minimum front and rear setbacks and modify the building profile requirement. In addition to requested waivers, the applicant is requesting three SDBL concessions to the BMR guidelines pertaining to dispersed location of BMR and market rate units. proportionate number of bedrooms amongst BMR and market rate units, the proportionate floor area amongst BNR and market rate units. The applicant is also requesting an SDBL concession to waive certain fees for the two BMR units. The project utilizes SDBL for calculating the sales price of low market rate units based on household size. We may also determine this action is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15195 residential infill and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 class 32 infill. After saying all that, I want to inform the public and members of the commission that the applicant has requested that we continue this item to a future date. However, we will still open up public comment in case any members of the public would like to opine on this item. Before doing so, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions about this item that we're not going to be discussing it tonight? Um, Ms. Sandmeier, is the applicant here to answer questions if someone on the commission did have a clarifying question?

Uh, yes, I believe the applicant's attorney is here to answer questions or online.

So if you do have a clarifying question to the applicant, then go right ahead. Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, Chair. I have a clarifying question, but it is, I believe, answerable by staff in this case. The recommendation in the staff report is to approve three of the four requested concessions if the fourth allowed concession, or they're allowed four concessions, if we do choose not to approve one of them. as a city, whether it's in the responsibility of the planning commission or city council, if one of those concessions is not approved, does the applicant have the ability to go back and ask for a different fourth concession? And if so, what does that process look like?

Yeah, through the chair, we do have the project planner, Jacob Garcia online, I believe. I don't know if he wants to maybe take a first stab at the question.

Yes. Hello. Hello, Planning Commission. Thank you. My name is Jacob Garcia. I'm the contract planner for the City of Menlo Park and the project planner here for 64 University. For your question, It is, if the applicant ultimately decides to modify the project to request a different concession under the state density bonus law, we believe that that would be possible. However, they would need to resubmit their project plans and request state density bonus laws to city staff so that we can review such concessions and make a recommendation based on the evidence that have been provided by the applicant. As a result of that revision to the plans, we would need to assess at that time whether or not the project would need to be reviewed by the Housing Commission again. Should there be any changes to the BMR agreement or through the Planning Commission, that entitlement path isn't clear until we would have more certainty or clarity on the project application.

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. I'm taking away from the explanation that it would be reviewed by staff and there is a possibility it would go back to possibility of review by the housing commission, by the planning commission and or city council, depending on what the concession was.

And I would add that it really, if there's a substantial modification to the approved entitlement, that's when, you know, like unit count or, you know, massive redesign, that's when it might come back to planning commission. But otherwise, it's too hypothetical to really, you know, discuss whether it would come back or not. Oops. And if there's a substantial modification, it might come back for a hearing. We just wouldn't know.

Thank you.

Seeing no further clarifying questions, Ms. Roy, can we please open up public comment for the item?

Thank you Chair Silverstein. At this time, if any member of the public in the council chamber wishes to provide a public comment on item F3, please provide me a comment card from the back of the table. If you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button or if you are calling in, press the nine on your keypad and we will be notified of your desire to speak. Please note that this will be the final call for the public comment on this item. I'm seeing no comment curves and hand raised at this moment. Chair Silverstein, you may continue with the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, I would like to make a motion to continue item F3 to a later date.

I'll second.

With a motion and a second, I will call a show of hands vote. All those in favor to continue item F3, please raise your hand. And that passes unanimously. We can now move to item F4 regarding a use permit to architectural control major subdivision below market rate housing agreement and environmental review at 500 El Camino Real. Sorry, yes. Wait, let me make sure I have all of my... Nope. At 335 to 355 Pierce Road. At this public hearing, the commission shall consider and adopt resolutions to approve a use permit, architectural control permit, and below market rate housing agreement to construct two new three-story multifamily residential buildings consisting of eight townhome dwelling units and associated site improvements on a vacant substandard lot with regard to minimum lot depth in the R3 zoning district. And two, recommend to the city council to approve of a vesting tentative subdivision map to merge two parcels into one and subdivide the site with eight residential condominium parcels and one common area parcel. And denial of a state density bonus law, SDBL, government code section 65915 and relevant amendments, fees concession request at 335 to 355 Pierce Road. The project, referred to as Laurel Landing by Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, would include all BMR residential units to be owned and occupied by households earning no more than 80% of area median income and is being reviewed subject to SDBL, which permits exceptions, 12 SDBL waivers and five SDBL concessions requested to the city's zoning ordinance requirements. We may also determine this action is categorically and statutorily exempt under CEQA guidelines sections 15183, 15194, and 15332. Mr. Chan, are there any updates to the staff report on item F4?

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission, Chair Silverstein. Since the publication of the staff report, staff has provided three items of correspondence that have been provided to us. These items of correspondence are at your dais and also at the back counter. They are inclusive of 15 letters of support for the Laurel Landing project.

Perfect. Thank you. And will there be a presentation on the item as well?

Yes. This evening we have with us Robert Smith, who's the project manager of the real estate development team, as well as Felix Ong. He's a chief real estate officer and both are from Habitat for Humanity, Greater San Francisco. And they have a brief presentation before we go into discussion. Perfect. Please go ahead.

Sorry, can I ask just to make sure that you're speaking more into the microphone so anyone online can hear you perfectly?

Thank you. Project manager.

I'd like to take the opportunity before we start just to say thanks very much to staff for their support and guidance as we've progressed this application to you this evening. So next slide, please. As I'm sure you're aware, Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco works in the three county areas to create home ownership opportunities for families earning up to 80% area median income. Habitat has recently completed a number of home preservation projects within the city and a number of home resales for additional homeowners. And we're really hopeful to be able to make this addition to our work with these eight new residential units. Next slide, please. When we partner with homeowners, we ask that they invest 500 hours of sweat equity to help build their homes and their communities and the community's homes. Next slide, please. And this work is supported by a network of volunteers, Habitat's own construction crew, and external partners to support the home building process. Next slide, please. In addition to staff's overview of the project, the below market rate housing agreement was adopted by the City Council around about this time last year. The unanimous City Council action also approved funding support for the purchase of the site and also the permitting of the project. additional support that planning commission can make in their recommendation to city council for the fee waivers that uh requested as part of the state density bonus law request would be greatly appreciated and would much support the project next slide please Staff and Habitat have gone through a number of rounds of review to ensure that the project meets the objective design guidelines of the city. And as an SB 330 Housing Crisis Act project, the form of the design is closely controlled by city standards, which we specifically meet. The density bonus law request, as I mentioned, is an opportunity to waive a number of fees that would financially support the project. With that, Habitat's available for questions, and we really appreciate your time and consideration with this project. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for either staff or the applicant? Seeing no clarifying questions, please take a seat, and can we please open up public comment?

Thank you, Chair Silverstein. Once again, at this time, if any member of the public in the Council Chamber wishes to provide a public comment on item F4, please provide me a comment card from the back table. If you are joining by Zoom, click on the raised hand button, or if you are calling in, press star 9 on your keypad and will be notified of your desire to speak. This will be the final call for the public comment on item F4. At this moment, I have two comment cards with me. And our first speaker for this item F4 is Dina Aberka. followed by speaker John Testor. So please move forward to the podium and let me set up your three minute timer for the comment and then you can begin. You may now begin.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners and Chair. My name is Dina Alvarca, and I'm actually going to read out of the paper because otherwise I'm going to mess it up. I've been a Habitat homeowner since 2011, and I am a full supporter of affordable housing. I am here tonight to express my support for the Habitat for Humanity project at 335 Pierce Road, more known as the Laurel Landing. I am a resident of the Belhaven community since 1989. And in 2011, as a 32-year-old, I was able to afford my first forever home as a single mom with two little kids within my neighborhood. So I was able to stay in my neighborhood, work at a local grocery store, and I've been able to hold that job for the last 25 years. I, too... became a homeowner thanks to Habitat for Greater San Francisco, only because it was so affordable that I was able to afford my home. Affordable homeownership is increasingly out of reach for many families in our community just like me. Menlo Park needs a lot more affordable homeownership opportunities for local families to stay in their community, where they grew up, where they work, and where their kids go to school. The Habitat for Humanity project at 335 Pierce Road will provide a mix of two, three, and four-home bedrooms serving a variety of household sizes. This project has been carefully thought out to fit in the neighborhood, which is my neighborhood, and I am ecstatic to know that another eight families can actually be able to afford a home just like I did at one point. Oh, yeah, that's why the read. I was fortunate to stay in the neighborhood that I saw me grow up. My kids graduated college and are now full-grown working community members. And they're also holding a local job. A lot of homes of building, a lot becomes a building. a building becomes a forever home and a home to a family that is a shining light to a brighter community. I'm respectfully asking for you guys, the Planning Commission, to support and approve the Habitat for Humanity project by waiving the fees and keeping the design as it is. I think that if those eight families can stay in the community, it will only improve their lives, their future, and it will prepare their kids for a brighter future just like I did. Thank you.

Thank you, Dina. Our next public commenter is John Tester. Please, you may begin speak now.

Okay. Good evening. My name is John Taster. I'm a supporter of affordable housing in San Mateo County. I'm here tonight to express my support for the Habitat for Humanity project at 335 Pierce Street. I'm currently a termed out board member of the San Mateo Housing Leadership Council, and I'm a 20-year Habitat for Humanity volunteer. It was actually among the first volunteers on this project as we cleared out the site from overgrown vegetation and so forth earlier this year. I support the project because it's needed. Habitat is the leader in producing affordable home ownership for low-income families, something that is otherwise out of the reach of so many people in this county. In addition to quality housing, Habitat developments enhance family security and bring a new dynamic to families who otherwise would live in crowded and or substandard housing. Habitat for Humanity developments allow access to something that is increasingly out of the reach of so many people and so many residents of our county, affordable home ownership. I've helped to build houses in many places in the world, in Canada, in Haiti, in Vietnam, all over the Bay Area, various places in the United States. And one of the things that I see over and over again is not so much the fact that we built the homes, but I see the way people respond. see their expressions when they start to move into housing that they never thought that they would be able to afford, especially the children. And to me, that is what it's all about. I've had the privilege of working with President Jimmy Carter on several occasions, and I heard him just really beautifully describe Habitat for Humanity's unique vision and approach to homeownership. He said that this work allows us to do what we're called to do without exalting ourselves or demeaning the people we come to help. This project, in my opinion, fulfills President Carter's vision. It's about people. It's about families. It builds people's self-esteem. With all of its design features, which I hope will continue as presented, This project, in my view, will transform lives and will enhance the Meadow Park community. As I stated earlier, affordable home ownership is increasingly out of the reach for so many families in the county. This project offers a meaningful solution by creating homes that allow residents to build equity and to stay connected to the schools and jobs and community value Menlo Park. So for these reasons, I urge the Planning Commission to support and approve the Habitat for Humanity project at 335 Pierce Street. Thank you.

Thank you, John. We have two more raised hands, so I will invite our next speaker from online, Pam D. Jones, who will be followed by Miko Harris-Parker. Pam, I will begin your timer, and I am allowing you to talk.

Good evening. Thank you. I did send in an email earlier, but I forgot to ask for the waiver of any fees wherever possible. And I also would like to note that the community here met in December of 2017 and talked to the city, and then it was Midpen that owned the property. stating that this project is exactly what we wanted. So anything that you can do to move it along and support the program will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Pam, for your comment. Our next public speaker is Miko Harris-Parker. I will allow you to speak now and begin your timer.

Good evening, Commissioner members and members of the public who are present. I too sent in a written public comment, but I did want to speak this evening. I want to thank the three speakers who have just spoken. Thank you for your comments and the sincerity that was expressed about the, especially the emotions that come with home ownership. And I just wanted to piggyback a little off of the comments that were made. As a second generation Belle Haven resident who raised third generation Belle Haven residents, this opportunity means everything to me and my community. The ability for my sons, their future children, my neighbors, and their family members to purchase a home in the community where we live and have built our lives helps strengthen and stabilize our neighborhood for generations to come. For many members of our community, this project represents the fulfillment of a long-held dream of home ownership, and I hope it is only the beginning. We need more affordable home ownership developments like this one. I encourage you planning Commission members to please consider and adopt the two resolutions that are presented to you today. This project is vitally needed to address citywide affordable housing shortage here in menlo park and provide home ownership for our bell haven community, so I thank you to habitat for humanity. staff and all of those who've been involved for getting this project to this point. I thank city staff for the work that they have done. And I really do hope that the planning commission moves forward with approving these resolutions this evening. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comment. At this point, I don't have any more comment cards or hand raised. So Chair Silverstein, you may continue with the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we get into commission discussion, I just want to clarify with staff and structure things a little bit. It's my understanding that tonight we have the ability to formally approve the use permit, architectural control permit, BMR housing agreement, the 12 SDBL waivers, and the first four SDBL concessions ourselves. On top of that, we are being asked to or not to recommend to city council the subdivision vesting tentative map and the fifth fee waiver concession. Am I understanding correct? That is correct. Perfect. So we can ground, I would like to at least ground the discussion in those two areas, the things that we can formally approve, and then we can talk about recommendation to City Council. And with that, I'm very happy to open the floor to any Commissioner comments. Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, Chair. I apologize. I probably should have made this a clarifying question. I would have for the prior agenda item had it not been... put forward to a date in the future. I was hoping that given that there are not always, I'm hoping that staff could remind all of us, both commissioners and the public about the process for concessions and waivers, how they work and what the role of the planning commission is or could be in reviewing waivers and then concessions.

Yes, certainly, Commissioner Schindler. Thank you for the question. So the waivers and concessions, concessions are sometimes also called incentives. They come from state density bonus law. And state density bonus law, in a nutshell, if you provide a certain amount of affordable housing, you are granted the ability to get a density bonus, meaning more number of units. And then on top of that, you have the ability to request unlimited waivers from certain development regulations that would otherwise preclude the development of the project at the proposed density. And then additionally, you can also get concessions or incentives that would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the provision of affordable housing. So some of those words I said are exactly from the state density bonus law and That's kind of the criteria that we're working around. So in sum, you get a density bonus. For the Laurel Landing project, they're entitled to an 80% density bonus, which allows them five additional units or four additional units on top of the five base units, leading to a maximum of nine, which they're proposing eight, which is under the maximum density allowed. They're also entitled to unlimited waivers. And this evening they are requesting 12 waivers. And they are also entitled as a 100% affordable housing project to five concessions, which you have read about in your staff report.

Thank you. I know that in prior project reviews, sometimes there has been discussion or even public comment raising particular concerns about waivers or about concessions. And could you just briefly remind us about where Planning Commission has discretion or not?

Thank you. So based on the information submitted as part of the application, also the state density bonus law waiver letter that you have within your packet, we have reviewed the information and determined that it is appropriate and that it meets those different findings for waivers, granting them would otherwise preclude the density that which is proposed. And then also for the fee concessions, they would result in identifiable and actual cost savings for the project. In terms of the concession requests that you have this evening, the first four that you have in Table 5 of your staff report, staff recommends approval. And those are the items that the Planning Commission has authority to act on this evening. And then concession number five regarding the fees concession, that fees concession item, as the chair noted, is something at the council level of action. But the Planning Commission is recommended to Act on the resolution, which is attachment B, which would provide that recommendation of denial for the stated reasons in your staff report.

I would add to that through the chair that generally concessions and waivers are a state mandate. So the commission's discretion to change a waiver or concession is largely limited unless we can make health and safety findings, which are very stringent. And there is case law that essentially states, you know, we have to accept what the developer has said about the design and how it may reduce costs and waivers with regards to physical standards.

Does that answer your question? Thank you. I appreciate the reminder of the context. And I always think it's constructive and sets the stage well. So thank you.

Commissioner Eric.

Thank you, Chair. To the Chair, I have a follow-up on that to staff. I realize a lot was written in the staff report about the various concessions and waivers, but I still have an outstanding question, which is the city attorney's The city attorney's office just noted that there is not a great deal of discretion outside of health and safety findings for concessions and waivers. And so I'm confused why there would be discretion for the fees, which is another concession and waiver.

That is a good question. And it is in state law where there's all this discussion of saying, you know, you basically have to grant concessions and waivers, but fees are an exception. So the law actually says nothing in this section requires or prohibits the city from using, you know, denying a fee as part of a concession request. So it remains within the city's discretion to either deny or deny a fee waiver as a concession or grant it.

Okay, thank you. So a follow-up question to that. A number of the waivers, or at least the context with which we're looking at them, are in order to incentivize affordable housing and in order to ensure that the... affordable housing is in fact financially feasible to develop in the first place. And so as a result, we are happy to grant various concessions in order to add either more density or less parking or whatever it ends up being. And that, in my mind, is with the lens of ensuring that these projects happen. And that is my understanding of the intent of state law is we want these projects to happen. We want to make sure that they have the ability to happen. I have a very hard time disconnecting that with the fees themselves. And I understand that we have discretion on the fees as a city, but from the perspective of staff who is recommending that we don't recommend a fee waiver, can you maybe in late person's terms clarify as to why you think that might not be impact, financially impact this development from potentially happening? And is that going to be a significant burden to get over that hill?

I will start with a quick thought and then hand it over to Calvin. You know, I think that at least part of why we're discussing this at the council is just, you know, these, it's the city's budget. So we might, you know, the city council will has built in certain assumptions in the budget and they would need an opportunity to discuss this. I would then hand it off to Calvin. So that's just a note sort of framing generally when it comes to fees in general.

Yes, it will always go before city council. I guess what I'm trying to understand is why would this recommendation go before city council with staff suggesting that they not recommend it as opposed to staff suggesting that they do give the fee waiver?

Thank you, Chair Silverstein. So staff did think about this extensively, and we also had pre-meeting discussions with the applicant to give them a heads up that we were concerned about this item. Obviously, concessions of any type of fees, not collecting those fees, those would actually result in what the code says is identifiable and actual cost reductions because you're not paying them. But for the reasons that are stated in your staff report, and I'll go over them now, we worked in tandem with the housing division. We also have Adam Patterson, who's a management analyst at two with the housing division online who worked very closely before I got involved with this project for the BMR, the NOFA, all those things. So if you have any other questions, Adam can answer that. But in sum, for three main points, the staff is not recommending approval of the fees concession. And if you're following along in your staff report, I'm at the bottom of page 13 and the beginning of page 14. The first item is that the city has already previously committed $3.6 million from the city's housing, BMR housing fund. And this is one of the largest amounts of money that we've ever given. And then just jumping to point number three at the beginning of page 14. Usually when the city gives money for these type of affordable housing projects, they are in the form of a deferred loan. However, in this form for Habitat, it was a grant, meaning that we don't get any money back. So it's just straight $3.6 million. So that's a big difference. And then the last item is that Our staff, we did look at various different projects that have been funded over the years. And this project by far per unit is the highest amount we've ever given at $450,000 per unit subsidy in essence. So for those reasons, that's why staff is recommending the denial of the fees waiver just to, you know, we have to keep in consideration of other needs for the city.

Thank you. And on the exact same framing, I would love if the applicant would be able to opine on the fees specifically, just to ensure that we get full clarity. I understand that Habitat for Humanity is a nonprofit. It's my general assumption that more fees reduced is absolutely better. I would love to get some understanding on whether or not Projects like these are genuinely contingent on this type of fee waiver happening or not, or is it just kind of the more the better? Thank you.

Thanks for the question. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Felix Aoyang. I'm the chief real estate officer at Habitat for Humanity. And I have the actual unique privilege of also working at MidPenn for the last 10 years prior to my joining Habitat. So I was part of the team that actually purchased the two sites initially, which was formerly a fourplex that was very dilapidated and a vacant lot on Pierce Road that were contiguous. um i want to go back a little bit on the history and then answer the question if that's okay um so mipen i think this is nine nine ten years ago uh purchased these two sites with the intention of buying more of the block uh to to essentially aggregate enough lots to build another low-income housing tax credit rental project uh very similar to the ones we have on willow street uh willow avenue And after we purchased these two, we did go to the community and solicit feedback as to what they want to see for these two sites and in their neighborhood. And we heard very strong feedback at the time, and you're probably aware of this, that Belle Haven neighborhood feels that a lot of the past Menlo Park affordable housing projects have been cited. on in the bell haven neighborhood and very few if any has been built on the other side of the highway and that they felt that there should be a fair distribution of low-income housing so we took that to heart and we asked the the community what is it that they would want in place of the current vacant lot which was a ground for a lot of dumping and dilapidated housing which um really very close to not being suitable for living. So I think the kind of response that we got was they wanted to see affordable homeownership. They wanted to see a tool that will prevent displacement of neighbors in that community, something that people can own and stay rooted in the Belle Haven neighborhood. So that was when we reached out, MIPEN reached out to Habitat, And there were further discussions with the community and ultimately MidPen sold the property to Habitat specifically for the purpose of developing affordable housing. So I joined Habitat four months ago and got to pick up the project again. So I'm actually very eager to see it start construction within 10 years time and 10 years from since we first purchased the property. I think, you know, I would just very briefly kind of talk about Habitat's funding model. And there are several layers, like all other affordable housing projects. And we actually primarily rely on the home buyer and their ability to use 30% of the housing burden to pay for a mortgage. That is roughly... let's say 40% of the total development cost that they're able to support themselves. So after that, though, in the financing stack, we have to go out and essentially raise money to make the project work. A very significant portion of that is what Calvin alluded to, which is the local subsidies that are available. So thank you to the city of Mantle Park for supporting this project. The bulk of the funding The contribution to the project has been essentially like it's in the land. And then we've also applied to the county of San Mateo for their affordable housing fund. And we are hoping for a tranche of additional public subsidy that will go into this stack. We formerly had a commitment from the Stanford Fund for, like, there's a housing fund from Stanford, a portion of which was going to be spent in San Mateo County. That was $1.5 billion of additional public subsidy, which has since been clawed back by Santa Clara County. And so that is no longer available and on the table. So that's the public stack. And then whatever is not enough between the... the buyer's mortgage and the public funding stack or the funding portion, we have to raise through philanthropy. And so the question of do fee waivers matter? Yes, absolutely. They matter in the sense that we wouldn't have to raise that amount. So I think the amount of fee waiver sums up to about $600,000. $600,000 for the eight homes, which is a significant amount on a per unit basis. That amount of fee that's on eight townhomes. So I also understand and appreciate that I think the city has to pay for their infrastructure. And At the same time, multiple truths can exist at the same time. This was formerly a fourplex and a vacant lot that wasn't really contributing to the community. So it is a balance. I'm not actually going to strongly urge you one way or the other, but I will say that the waiver of fees or a partial waiver of fees is important to the ability of this project to be financially feasible and our ability to raise funds adequate money to essentially start construction. So we are hopeful that we can get there. And once we pass through this stage, we'll be working with staff to talk about pulling a building permit. So our hope is actually to start construction by next summer. big summer, which will then, you know, really mobilize the whole neighborhood to come out. This is going to be a volunteer build project. So yeah, it's going to be a great occasion and the, you know, every dollar matters for the stack.

Thank you. That was a really long answer. Thank you for the long answer. We appreciate the context. Vice Chair Baruzzi.

Yeah, this is a question for staff. What's the precedent in our community for waiving fees like this for other developments? Have we ever done it?

Thank you, Commissioner Baruzzi. As part of a state density bonus law fee concession type project, to my knowledge, and again, my colleagues, this is the first time we've had that request.

And how many of this sort of project, these homeownership BMR projects that have we seen in Menlo Park? Not many, right? I think we've had, you know, as inclusionary, maybe some townhomes and duplexes built over the years as part of new subdivisions. But this is pretty unusual, right?

Yes, I would say that this is definitely less common than the normal inclusionary housing. If you'd like some more examples, we can ask Adam Patterson who's online from the Housing Division to speak more on that. Would you like that?

So I guess I'll go ahead and opine here. I actually spoke with somebody who works for Midpen about this project a little bit. And it sounds like it's just taken rather a long time to come together. I think there was a point where there were funds that were potentially going to be recalled or something like that. It's taken a while to come together. And it seems so desperately needed in the community. And so I'm encouraged that we're getting so close to being able to pull it together. not being on council and not having the full picture of all of the financial things that they need to consider and not having fiduciary responsibility for the city, I won't say that I would absolutely waive the fees. But I can see this as a special case. It's a nonprofit organization. This is not about cutting corners or about developers making profit. This is money that doesn't get spent on fees for the city of Menlo Park can go to provide more housing. And so I just hope that the council won't decide to do anything that ends up stalling this project further. And I'm grateful that it's come together so far. So that's my thought. And it looks great. One question I had for the developer actually for Habitat was, is there a scenario in which this project could have been more affordable, for example, if you'd been allowed even more density on the site?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. As is kind of implicit in the application that we're requesting, there are a number of waivers for the development standards. And one of the reasons for that is that when we develop the units that we have, we develop those family size units. So our units are typically a lot larger than maybe a rental affordable unit. project that has a lower bedroom count and smaller units. So that would have been one way to reduce the per unit fees is by adding additional units, but then we would have compromised on the size of the units and the amenities that go along with them. So for example, internal garages for each unit could have been something that would have been removed from the project had we tried to increase the density. So it would have lowered the cost, but it would have compromised the residential quality.

As a quick follow up, does the same apply to height?

Yes and no. If we could add height to the project, then we would be able to get additional units. But then we would fall under a different form of fire protection where a ladder truck would need to drive onto the site. And that would, again, change the dynamics of the project to make it we would have to make compromises elsewhere.

Fair. Thank you. I have a question for staff with regard to the recreation in lieu fees. It's my understanding that the intent of these fees is when we add more residents to the community, we want to make sure that we have recreation facilities to provide for everyone. And as a function of that, We have various fees associated with adding more population. And therefore there are various fees that are associated with this. It is my assumption that that is not a direct cost that the city, a direct cost the city would be burdened with when it comes to either staff time or even budget, considering, let's say, this project didn't happen whatsoever, we wouldn't be getting these fees and we wouldn't be burdened with any form of costs there. And I believe the same is the case with the project being developed. So is there a reason why... at least the way that I'm conceptualizing things, there are direct fees, inspection costs, and something you literally have to pay someone to go out and be there. And then the in lieu fee, from my perspective, is something that is categorically different, which is something that everyone needs to generally contribute to, but isn't something that would necessarily negatively impact our fiscal budget. Is my understanding correct? And if so, is there a reason why staff didn't differentiate that type of fee with respect to this recommendation?

Thank you, Chair Silverstein. I'll begin and perhaps my colleagues can chime in. So the recreation in Luffy, as you mentioned, it's generally collected to pay for future needs like capital improvement projects, other things that are happening already. So in the sense that it's not a direct cost, I mean, these costs are happening and this would pay into a fund that pays for these things. So it does have an impact on our budget. With regard to credits for existing uses, so the standard recreation in lieu fee for multifamily is $78,400 per unit. And for this particular project, they were granted a credit for the existing two lots at $127,400. So it wasn't an exact entire collection of our normal fee. We did apply credits based on previous history of the site. Thank you.

I would quickly add, I don't know if what I heard you say or ask at one point was, is this a direct cost on what, you know, for parks and maintenance and things like that? Is that sort of, maybe I misunderstood.

What I was asking is, as a function of this project being built, would the city bear a cost as part of that? It's my understanding that an inspection, a required building inspection, is a cost that is required as a function of this project being built. If the project didn't happen, the inspection also wouldn't need to happen. However, if the project doesn't happen, we still want our parks. And so as a function of this project being built or not, is there a recreational burden, a financial recreation burden that the city either needs to bear or in theory gets reprieve from with the potential exception of like general wear and tear on the playground? Yeah. Yeah.

i would have to look into the details here and i know there there is a park land ratio and generally we can't you know the city can't impose fees if if there's no defensible you know relationship and so i don't i will i can look into those documents but uh but generally there is a parkland ratio and maybe uh maybe calvin can speak to it if he knows more um but yeah that's

Yes, that's right. So our general plan has a parkland ratio and where that's our plan to obligate, you know, to uphold that and continue to work towards that. So these fees help for that.

Thank you. Commissioner Eric.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be relatively quick. First of all, I'm so excited about this project and really grateful to Habitat for Humanity and everyone who's worked on it. And I hope progress in the future goes faster than what has happened in the past. But I'm very happy we're here today. Just a quick note on the fees, since that seems to be a focal point. I echo Vice Chair Beruzzi's comments that I think it's pretty hard for me personally, and I think for this commission to sort of weigh it. Normally when we weigh trade-offs of density and privacy versus new housing, those are all things that fall under our remit. And so we're holding both sides of that trade-off. Here, the budget doesn't really fall under our remit. I don't feel like I know a lot about it. I'm pretty, I'm like not that comfortable making a strong recommendation. I sort of think it's for city council, but to the extent that it's come before us, I guess what I would say is the reasoning presented by staff is we've already given this project a lot of money. And so we shouldn't give it more money. But the way I think about it is we've given this project a lot of money because we really want this project to happen. And so it feels weird to not grant the waiver because we so desperately want this project. It would be like paying someone to build me a house and then insisting that they pay for the building materials. It's just like, it feels weird to me. So if I'm forced to make a choice, I would recommend the fee waiver, but it does really feel like a decision for city council.

Commissioner Farrick.

I'll just chime in at this point because my sentiments are really similar. I don't want this, you know, it's a very exciting project. We're delighted to see it finally come to this point. I don't feel like the commission is the right body to make a definitive decision on that piece. You know, there's lots of analogies that we can make. You know, you send your child to college and you generously pay for that education, but they don't quite finish in four years. So what are you going to do? Like not get, you know, not do that last semester. So, you know, there's just a lot of ways to look at it. I understand from the fiscal responsibility of the city, cities around the state are looking at major, challenges financially. So I guess my, so I concur, I guess my one kind of curiosity slash question is, it's not really hindsight, but like, it was a unique decision to have given the first few million as a grant rather than in any other form. It sounds like it was because it's such an exciting project. So I guess then, if you were to, if you knew that, you know, if you could see the future, would have you done that differently? Would have been in the form of a loan? Or like, how would that have changed the where we are today? Or if at all? You know, if you'd have given that support and not the grant, but in some other form?

Thank you, Commissioner Farrick. I'd like to invite management analysts to Adam Patterson, who worked on the BMR agreement, as well as a NOFA. He might have some additional insight to share with the Commission this evening.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Adam Patterson, management analyst to the Housing Division. I might defer to the applicant a bit on this. I think that It's the typical Habitat model for these to be in the form of grants. I mean, it's part of a negotiation essentially between the city and Habitat. I don't know. I mean, I can't speculate on whether any decision would be different or whether we would consider a loan. I'm not sure Habitat would even does part of their model even allows for that. So, yeah, again, I don't want to speculate, but I'll defer to Felix there if he wants to talk a little bit more about that.

Thank you. I think I'll actually draw on my rental background and talk about the soft loans that are provided for rental projects. Rental projects typically come with a 55-year regulatory period, and there have been history of... less than good actors that have waited out that period and then converted their affordable housing into market rate housing, effectively ending the affordability of the projects. And I think for that reason, it's wise for a public jurisdiction to make the contribution into those projects as a loan. so that there's some control downstream and that they can recover their funds when those projects sell if they convert to market rate. What is different about the Habitat model is we are able to keep these homes affordable in perpetuity because our model requires that when a homeowner is ready to sell, we have to write a first repurchase. Habitat does. So we go back and we pay out the principal that they have invested in their home. The homeowner essentially gets a lot of equity out of their tenure in their home. And then Habitat retains control of that home and then sells it to the next buyer that has another 99-year term on their contract effectively that when they... transact their home, they sell it back to Habitat again. So what the city is investing in the form of a grant is really a permanent affordable housing home. And for that reason, I see the difference between why it's a grant versus why it's a loan. And then technically speaking, because the home buyer is buying the home, we don't want that loan to essentially get burdened onto their property and become a part of their title. And hence that grant allows us to kind of have them be free and clear. And then we take care of the affordability restriction piece of it.

Thank you. And that helps also from the standpoint. The other unique thing here is that it's not normal, affordable housing rental. It's purchased. So that makes sense. Thank you.

Commissioner Eric. Sorry, I realized I wanted to ask this question and I did not. I have a question for staff, which is, I guess, why wasn't the issue of fees discussed during the negotiation over the funding? It seems like maybe that would have been as part of funding the project, we would have discussed the fees as well.

I see Adam jumping online. I'll defer to Adam to begin.

Yeah, thank you for the question. Again, I would ask for Habitat to also perhaps speak to this. As part of the pro forma that was presented at the time of funding, fees were included as what are the uses of funds and the Sources of funds that were proposed at the time, which did include that Stanford Affordable Housing Fund, which was referenced, did cover the costs associated with the project. So I think it was not raised at the time because it was part of the pro forma and appeared to be covered, I think, from our perspective. But I'll let, again, Felix, you can chime in.

Yeah, I, again, feel privileged I have more history here. So when MidPen purchased the properties, MidPen actually first submitted to the city's NOFA for a funding request to support the project as a rental housing project. And as a rental, I think we were prepared to do a much denser project with a lot more units. And hence, the request on a per unit basis did not seem as kind of out of sync as it currently is. But when the community gave us feedback that they wanted more affordable homeownership instead of rental, and the conversational habitat happens. Effectively, we asked the city to transfer our award to habitat and allow them to proceed with their affordable housing projects. And in their study, observing the height limits, observing the neighborhood's character, and then the size, the bedroom counts that ultimately came, they ended up with the eight townhouses that are in front of you now. But that funding grant traces back many, many more years to ANOVA that was many years ago. So here we are, you know, things cost a lot more. The project's smaller than expected. And, you know, these fees are a part of the stack or part of the uses. And if they remain in place, we just have to raise more money on the sources side.

Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, Chair. I share the enthusiasm of many of my fellow commissioners for this project, just because of the strength with which it supports our goals, the city's goals of affordability. And it also, I particularly like the fact that it's got family-sized units as well. And hearing the story tonight about how feedback from the Belle Haven community was incorporated and how the project pivoted, It was additional color that felt really important to me and builds on my appreciation. We know affordability is one of the top priorities for the city, and I think it shows through in the staff report. It shows through in the financial proof point about 450%. thousand dollars per unit approximately is what's been invested. Like many of my fellow commissioners, I don't feel like I have enough insight or responsibility for the rest of the city's budget to say it's worth another $50,000, $100,000, $250,000 per unit. But I do hope that the city will carefully consider This because it is a priority we spend money on our priorities, but when I thought of I also am aware again trying to sort of look at the big picture that our city has recently been through an exercise in increasing costs. And fees that are paid by. a number of different stakeholders and residents in the city and that the city specifically said it was trying to align fees more closely with actual costs because it promotes fairness by ensuring that those who directly benefit from services bear the expense while preserving general fund dollars for broader priorities like public safety and infrastructure. So to me, this a little bit aligns with a line of questioning that I believe our chair sort of brought up, which is what's a direct cost? What's sort of a broader investment fund, if you will? And I think the QMB fees or the recreational fees kind of in my brain are more of an investment thing versus an operating budget. Yeah. I would like to encourage, in encouraging the city council to try and find additional funds, offer the following thoughts. I do think it is a poor outcome if we end up making a bunch of ad hoc decisions on a project by project basis or a developer by developer basis. I think it could lead to inconsistent levels of financial support behind different affordable housing projects. um so to the extent that city council is is going to move forward i think there hopefully that they would find a way to do it with some um predictability and transparency um and if i were going to suggest an area in which to make a change make a sort of a systematic change that was predictable and transparent um i would lean into some of the points that some of my other commissioners have brought up here which is on the community fees, on the recreational fees. I do think there's a mathematical way we could do this. I'm gonna use, I think of it as a discount for the recreational fees, in lieu fees associated with affordable housing. That's at least in the project that we reviewed in today's staff report. Those were the biggest piles of expense and feel like they could most logically be discounted within the city's value structure. So I'm not comfortable making a recommendation one way or the other to city council, but I would encourage city council to very seriously consider the request and try and find a way to, but try and find a way to make it predictable and transparent and aligned with our values, the city's values of affordable housing. So that's it.

Thanks, Trevor. Easy.

Yeah, I'll just say one more thing about this, and I support exactly this direction. I was reminded when you were speaking of a CalMatters article from last year that I read that described how much more expensive it was to build affordable housing in California than market rate housing, and also how much more expensive it was to build here than it is in other places. And it described development fees to local governments as a very large soft cost difference. And I think it's already so hard to get affordable housing built here. So I would just echo Commissioner Schindler's excellent comments and suggest that anything council can do to be creative and yet fairer. and not disincentivize affordable housing developers from being able to deliver homes to people in a timely manner and have enough money left over to build more homes would be my recommendation.

So bringing this back to a potential vote, other than the question of fees and what this commission's potential recommendation or non-recommendation might be, do any commissioners have any objection to the other items as part of this agenda item, the commission's BMR agreement, the use permits, the 12 waivers, and anything else? I haven't heard any, so I'm assuming. Okay. So I'm assuming that a motion made on those elements would pass with flying colors. And then to the fees, there's been some expression of an unwillingness to make any recommendation to city council, which we're certainly not obligated to do. does any commissioner wish that we do make a formal recommendation to city council with some of the elements of, hey, consider this, or please don't charge these fees. The alternative option being that as part of the staff report, we could say the commission deliberated on a recommendation and abstained to do so and left it in the hands of city council to do what they wish. I will say that with a caveat that I imagine the staff recommendation would probably stay the same. So staff rec staff's recommendation would be not to waive the fees and this commission's recommendation would just be null in that regard.

So I'm thinking if I was on city council, I would welcome some thoughts from the planning commission about how to proceed. So I would like to see us do something, take some kind of action that can go along with the staff recommendation.

And if I may add to that, you should make a recommendation one way or the other. I hate to be like a stickler about the government code, but it does say that the planning commission, there are certain things that are within the planning commission's recommendation purview. And so you do have to make it. So I think abstaining maybe makes it a little less clean than I would expect. want it to be going to, you know, so you could say we recommend, and I think there's the tentative map, there's sort of other portions. And so obviously that, if that's how you're, you know, moving, you would recommend to approve all of that with a recommendation to try, you know, however you land. But I would advise some kind of recommendation maybe. Yeah.

And that recommendation is allowed to stay neutral on the topic or should we deliberate amongst ourselves to have a motion that passes with a affirmative recommendation either to waive or not to waive said fees?

I think maybe we should toss out some options of how that would be phrased and then I could decide or we could discuss.

Fair.

Could I ask a process question?

Yeah. I also might have a process question, but Commissioner Ferrett, go ahead.

Is it an option to propose like a middle ground? Like we recommend waiving 50% of the remaining fees or something like that? Yes. Thank you.

Okay. I'm confused as – well, I'll just put a general comment. I'm confused as to why we wouldn't be able to exercise our rights to not have an opinion on something as opposed to being mandated to. But I am not an attorney, and so we'll leave it at that.

I can look into it more. It's never – you know, we tend to advise that you have to make some kind of recommendation, whether it's yes or no or, you know, modified or something. But – If you don't, I just haven't, I can look into it. I haven't encountered sort of total abstention. I know that's also a lawyer answer to say I can look into it.

That's fair. It's also a lawyer answer to say that just because we haven't encountered it doesn't necessarily mean that it's point blank. But I am sure that we can find some middle ground among the six of us here. Commissioner Bruzee.

I really like what Commissioner Schindler said about precedent and consistency and fairness. And so I'm hoping that whatever recommendation that we make could be encouraging council to not be considering this as a one-off, but to consider it as a potential precedent-setting decision. I'm looking at the city attorney who's looking quizzical.

Yeah.

You can add that to your recommendation. I mean, you know, we still have to evaluate case by case and it's, you know, for different projects. But if you want to add that to your recommendation, I mean, feel, you know.

So I'll kick it off and just say I liked the idea of separating out the QMB fees from the fees that basically cover the costs of our staffing. And I wonder if there's appetite on the dais to potentially recommend either a steep discount on Quimby fees or waiving Quimby fees. Particularly, I mean, if I had to come up with a case... Yeah, no, I'll stop there.

I will say I came into this with the a priori preference of... Extracting those out and recommending a waiver of the in-lieu fees and a charging of what I'm calling the direct fees, but essentially the fees that are incurred as a function of the actual development of the project, as opposed to the general long-term infrastructure costs of having more residents in the neighborhood. And... If I were to make a recommendation from us to city council, it would be to do that. It would be to charge all of the fees that we have to charge as a function of running the city government and charge none of the fees as a function of requiring that we're able to recreate in our community.

Could someone, just as a matter of process point, are you looking at page 13, the fee list, just so I'm looking at the right numbers?

Yes, this is table 5, the SDBL concession request. And then it is item number 5 that it says development impact and permitting fees per the city's master fee schedule. And then there are a number of different line items within that that total to a sum. Among those line items include... Building construction street impact fee, improvement plan reviews, major encroachments, water efficient landscape plan check, stormage drain connection, and one of those is a recreation in lieu fee. My recommendation would be to not charge any recreation in lieu fee. And going back to kind of principle and consistency, specifically the way that I'm seeing this and the way hopefully we could recommend it to city council is as a function of, because of this development, our staff needs to do various things and needs to incur certain costs to make sure that it happens safely and properly. And the recreation lieu fee is not one of those whatsoever. It's certainly a cost that we bear over a long period of time, but not, related to this project itself. Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you. I think this commission has been very good about, we use the phrase sometimes not designing from the dais when we give feedback on projects, presuming that we are neither architects nor engineers nor the homeowners or whatever. So I'm gonna try and apply that principle in this case as well too, because we are not the city, I'm not an accountant. I don't think any of us are, but I'm not sure. We're not accountants. We're not the city's financial analysts. We're not sort of aware of the cash flow concerns. So if I were going to phrase what I hope city council does, and I can't quite put this into a resolution yet, it's that I would hope city council comes up with additional funding for this project in a way that is consistent, predictable and transparent. Because as has been pointed out, this is the first time, okay, maybe it's the second time from the other agenda item, but we haven't been getting these requests previously. And I think whatever we do is likely to set a precedent or what city council does is likely to set a precedent. So I would say city council, try and find additional funds. It could be in one of these categories listed as fees. It might also be in our BMR fund, right? So the original source of financial support for this project may or may not have the opportunity to be where the money comes from for the next tranche of support. So I think, okay, so with that said, right, please find more money, figure out how to do it in a way that is transparent and predictable and fair and forward-looking. and make sense with the rest of the city's priorities. But I guess if I were going to put that in the form of a resolution, I would say accept the staff recommendation. Like the staff recommendation is to decline what's been proposed. So I don't think this is the right answer. I don't think this is transparent, predictable, consistent with the future and something we would not want necessarily to be out there. It feels ad hoc. But please find something else, something better.

Too long. I think I disagree with that entirely. Quite literally, these fees are a function of our master fee schedule. It is very transparent. It is very predictable. Anyone can look at it. We've redid our master fee schedule. You could go through and you can estimate out exactly what the fees would be and exactly what you're charged for. And that is the definition of transparent, predictable. And it's not on an ad hoc basic basis. And conversely, the recommendation to find more money and please support these types of projects, which I very much support, is ad hoc. And it is saying, hey, please find it in your hearts to support these types of projects and please find some money here or there in order to make sure that it happens. And there's no way that we could enumerate that. that in order to set any form of precedent and there. And so I think that by grounding it in a fee schedule, either saying, hey, with 100% BMR housing or with affordable ownership or whatever it is, we should have a categorical policy to waive fees or we should waive certain fees or we cut them half or something there. That to me is something that someone would be able to look at. They'd be able to say, okay, they did it before, therefore they'll do it again. But if we give this project another million dollars or another $20,000, neither of that is going to give any inclination to a future applicant of what might happen in the future. At least, I don't think so. I'm going to give you the chance to respond and then Commissioner Lee.

Sorry. I think, thank you. The feedback sort of and the response gives me an opportunity to refine what I may have, to refine some of my intent. So I think... the simple waving of this, right? Because it's the first one to come up or because it's like the waving would be ad hoc, right? I do believe that there isn't like an equation that we could come up with that could say, for example, the quimby fee is halved under the following circumstances. And that to me would meet the consistent and predictable and transparent descriptors that I was using. I also know that the BMR, the funding process already has a very specific process documentation that would be consistent and transparent and fair. And if the city said, we want to come up with a way to provide additional funding, let's do it through the existing transparent and fair process of the BMR. That's what I'm implying here. So creating process. to find creating a process that would that would find more money, essentially, I'm not certainly saying as saying, let's pick a number and deliver it. Let's create a process that has that outcome for this project, and perhaps for others, in a way that's transparent and predictable.

Mr. Hadley.

So I'm in support of the city collecting fees for the direct costs that will be incurred through this project. I was thinking about how we price, we have the hyperlocal pricing, which is a 35% discount for folks in Belhaven to participate in like city classes and a 35% premium if people who are not residents in Menlo Park wanna participate. So I'm thinking something like this, like for the, say the recreation and lieu fees. So anything that's not a direct cost, but if we say there's a 35, maybe we recommend like the hyperlocal discount, a 35% reduction in that. And then they would have something at least to work from on the dais and they wouldn't have to, you know, spend all the time that we are spending thinking about it. They would have something at least to respond to.

I have a through the chair, I have a process question for staff, what is the process between here and a recommendation coming to city council, including the timeframes.

Thank you, Commissioner Schindler. So following this evening, if the Planning Commission acts on both resolutions, staff will be scheduling the meeting with the city council for hearing for the major subdivision. And at the same time, we'll bring forward the recommendation from staff as well as the Planning Commission on the fees concession request.

Just real quick, tagging onto that question, if that's okay. Because of their very different votes that we'll take, are we, could we vote separately on the whole first set of resolutions and then a separate motion and vote specifically on the fee waivers?

Yes, that is staff's recommendation. Please have a motion and a vote for attachment A, which is everything that the Planning Commission has discretion over. And then attachment B is everything that the Planning Commission has recommending power over.

Thank you. I guess then I would say maybe that would be a good first step is if we got that first part done.

That's great. Does anyone have any motion they'd like to make regarding attachment A? Commissioner Schindler.

I move that we adopt the resolution in attachment A, approving the use permit, architectural control permit, and BMR housing agreement, which is inclusive of the 12 waiver requests and the concessions one through four. I can second.

We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Farrick. Commissioner Farrick. Seeing no further discussion on the motion, I will call a vote. Vice Chair Beruzzi.

Yes.

Commissioner Herrick.

Yes.

Commissioner Ferrick. Yes. Commissioner Headley. Yes. Commissioner Schindler. Yes. And I vote yes. The motion passes unanimously. And remaining would be a second motion potentially on with respect to attachment B and the planning commission's formal recommendation to city council regarding both the subdivision map as well as the fee waiver.

Is anyone else in line?

No. Go ahead, Commissioner Farrick.

Great. I guess my thought process as I listen to some options and thoughts around the fees, there's not been a project like this that's all affordable for sale. And so it's kind of unique in that regard. And I guess in my view, I'm thinking I would rather lean toward subsidizing it more than other types of development including rental affordable because of its unique nature and so um I feel like there needs to be more incentives for projects like this uh or you know for uh you know, the ability to buy and build equity and have it be affordable. And so I guess, you know, where my mind is leaning is toward, you know, more waivers than not waiver. And so I guess, you know, I kind of like Chair Silverstein's consideration of the in lieu fee, since that's a pretty substantial chunk of the fees, but it's certainly not all of them. And it's, so I guess I'm sort of, you know voicing that i i think that's a good way to do it where it is still clear fair transparent makes sense and it's a bigger waiver than i would likely support in a different kind of project because it's a for sale so that's like you know in terms of setting precedents unless it's a for sale situation it's not the same i have a question to the city attorney's office

There is a very explicit statement that any variance, by definition, does not create any precedent among the city. Is that explicit nature of precedent-setting the same for these types of recommendations? Or if we do make a recommendation and the city council ends up adopting it, would someone be able to point to that and say, hey, you did it for these guys, you have to do it for us. And if we didn't, in a future example, would that be cause for consternation or raise some issues of fairness?

Not to my knowledge. I mean, it's all case by case. So it just depends on how you frame this. But I can look into it too. I am looking into the process question right now, by the way, with no recommendations.

It sounds like we're having a great discussion here.

If I may, through the chair, I wanted to note another thing that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the staff report, but in terms of we're discussing waivers of fees, this project being 100% affordable, it has already, because of the nature of its project, also received a $40,000 discount for the transportation impact fee, which is essentially $5,100 per unit. So that is something already not collected and that's explicitly already council mandated as something that is intentional for 100% affordable projects just like this one.

I don't want to push this through any commissioners who aren't comfortable with it. But given that Commissioner Farrokh and I have kind of expressed an interest in the framework of what I've called direct fees versus in lieu fees, do any commissioners have any kind of competing proposal that I would be able to weigh against that that was more concrete? We could say, hey, that sounds like a better or worse idea. And something, I mean, I know Commissioner Cerny wanted to articulate something. And I was wondering if you have a kind of a more succinct articulation that we'd be able to potentially give to city council if we so choose and anyone else is also free to apply.

And still processing. I mean, I'll just say I trying to come up with the response that is the equivalent we often give when we're not designing from the dais. Right. So we will often say that to an applicant, right. We encourage you to, you know, try and achieve the following goal, for example, privacy. And then we list a bunch of examples about how they might accomplish something. And I don't quite have a set of wording, but if other commissioners do, how we might accomplish that, how we might accomplish more funding without explicitly telling them how.

To rephrase your concern with this potential proposal is that it is too specific as a recommendation to city council because city council is the body that owns the cash flow of the city. And therefore, we have certain goals that we as a commission would want to achieve, but we don't want to design the ways in which these goals are achieved to that level of specificity. Am I understanding that correctly?

Thank you, Chair. That's exactly it. I don't think that we necessarily know the unintended consequences or impacts of different piles of money. And therefore, for us to describe which flow of funding is best here feels...

I will let Vice Chair Bruzy talk. I don't disagree with any comments that many commissioners have made around the fact that we don't own the budget. I will just... devil's advocate counter to say that we are potentially required to give a recommendation to city council on this and the law or process says that this is something within our purview to recommend what recommendation we choose to do is up to us, but that at least indicates to me that there's some aspect of fee schedule and the waiving or non-waiving of fees that we ought to have a potential perspective on. Vice Chair Bruzee.

That was going to be my point, actually, that I think it's as weird to weigh in on the staff recommendation in some ways as it would be to propose an alternative. But more relevantly, I think when we're designing from the dais, we're prescribing things to somebody who, like we're the last station. And we're not the last station here. All we're doing is giving the city council our thoughts. And so for me, I had an instinctive reaction when Commissioner Headley said 35%. I'm like, huh, I don't know, 35%, 25%, 45%, who knows? So I get what you're saying, because I don't know whether 35% is better than 50% or 100%. But I think that what I keep coming back to is we've been asked for an opinion on this. We've sort of collectively coalesced around the idea that maybe we shouldn't be charging quite as much to people who are building purely affordable housing, especially if it's for sale. And so I don't think it's crazy for us to say, hey, council, play with this idea. consider this as an alternative, knowing that they will have the benefit of getting to work with staff accountants and budget managers and that they have the bigger picture in mind.

Thank you. I like the direction in which this is going, which requires me to go back and ask a clarifying question of staff. So I had asked about the process and what comes next. If The commission makes some specific suggestions to council, whether they're specific fees or specific concepts. Would staff be able to invest in fleshing out those proposals prior to a city council meeting?

I would love to jump in just first. First to say that I looked into it, and the requirement for a written recommendation is actually attached only to legislative actions, which is zoning ordinance amendments, general plan amendments. So this potentially falls outside of that government code. So if you were so inclined for a motion that says no recommendation on the fee waiver issue, that might be fine. I still think it's good to... you know, approve or deny. Uh, but I just wanted to answer that. And then to, um, your question commissioner Schindler, uh, As I understand, you were asking about if we develop sort of a large, or if you brainstorm some larger frameworks for how these fee waivers could work in the future, what would that look like to invest staff time? I would say that might be outside of the scope of this particular item. I think you can talk about this item and sort of add a general recommendation that maybe we want the fee waivers when they're as part of concessions to be treated, you know, Similarly, but developing more specific frameworks of what fee waivers for a concession might look when they're asked for as a concession that feels unless it's applicable to this project, then it would, you know, that would be outside the scope. So if you were developing just general frameworks for how we deal with these concessions, that seems outside the scope of this particular project.

I believe I'm understanding. And I think the intention of my question was very much specific to this project. So if, if the commission came back and said, we don't support the staff recommendation of denial of the fees. And as an alternative, the commission believes that there should be some fee concession that is Totally fine. Yeah. But and so if we said no more recreation in Luffy, no more Quimby fees, would staff do anything with that recommendation other than documenting it before city council meets?

So if the Planning Commission provided that recommendation this evening, I believe staff's next steps would be to modify the resolutions to reflect your intent. And then I don't believe that staff would change our recommendation prior to going to the City Council, but we would, in the staff report, definitely present the staff's recommendation as well as the Planning Commission's recommendation, also linked to today's meeting materials, meeting video, and so forth, and summary meeting minutes.

As a follow-up question, is it safe to assume, or if that exact scenario occurred, is it your understanding that staff would be prepared to answer an example question from a city council member that says, what would the impact of following the planning commission's recommendation be? If it's a question of how much or what happens to our budget or what do we lose otherwise, is that level of preparedness something that the city council would be able to expect when I imagine that that level of preparedness would very much be the case for staff's recommendation, because clearly in all of these various agendas packets, you have done a ton of research to put it together. And what I want to know is whether or not either a cursory or a thorough level of understanding would occur if city council wanted to follow the planning commission's recommendation if it differed from staff's.

Thank you, Chair Silverstein. I'm not sure if we would be able to provide an in-depth fiscal analysis, like what is the effect of not collecting $372,000 for this. That's something I would have to defer to our finance department to see if that's something that they would study, have studied. I'm just not aware at this moment.

fair one of the concerns i have in general is if city council were weighing two different options and one option was very thoroughly researched and everyone knows exactly what's going to happen i and i'm not necessarily talking about like a specific number and then the other option was well you know planning commission said it but we're going to throw our hands up and we have no idea what would what's going to happen if these things occurred From a city council member's perspective, I would be more reticent to go in one direction versus another because I might feel unprepared of what the ramifications of my vote might be. And I'm not asking staff to do a thorough analysis. We haven't even made a motion here. But that's at least... I don't know if that was Commissioner Schindler's intent of her original question. That is what my concern might be if we ever gave a recommendation that differed from staff's is if... City council might not see those as equal recommendations from a level of their understanding of the problem or of the solution. I don't think I had a specific question, but I wanted to express a concern if we did have a differing recommendation, is that it'd be harder for a city council member to adopt a recommendation that isn't researched versus one that is, even if they were leaning in that direction or were so inclined.

Yeah, actually, I have a question for the city attorney. It looks like Governor Newsom just signed a bill today that might prohibit or strongly encourage cities to waive impact fees in exchange for... It seems like there's a carrot stick approach, like we might not have access to things. Can you... Opine on this.

I cannot. I'm actually aware of what you're talking about, but I have not looked into the details of it at all.

This may shape city policy more than whatever we're coming up with right now. It looks like it might apply to these and Luffy's that we're discussing. I'll just throw that out there. Maybe we shouldn't belabor this point too much more.

And through the chair, I also wanted to add, I mean, we certainly take... This discussion seriously and we can't we don't know at this point We can't say for sure what our recommendation would be to City Council.

So I mean we take everything into consideration We're hearing tonight there and there is an possibility for staff to change their recommendation in between this meeting and Presenting anything before City Council.

Yeah, that could certainly happen based on the discussion.

Thank you Commissioner Schindler I hijacked your question. Did that answer what you were curious about? I

yes i mean the direction in which you are asking the questions um because what i'm trying to wrap my own head around is whether or not i would like to make a recommendation to city council that is based on management principles and reflecting the city's values um And then in my perfect world of resourcing, they would be able to allocate some number of resources to finding a solution that is different than the standard fee schedule, that is transparent and consistent and reflects the values and results in an outcome of reduced fees, but probably not zero. I'm concerned that that won't happen. The resources won't go against that. And that city council will need to make a specific yes, no decision in that moment. And I don't want to send something back to a discussion and an iterative drawing board. So I think in my mind, it's a delay, which is a bad thing if city council says, go find a different way of calculating fees. And it takes another three months. so I think where I land with all of that is that it is better to put something that is specific but directionally aligned with values out there and then hope that all of this discussion is synthesized and represented back to city council with some of the aspirations that went with it so I think what that looks like is rejecting the staff recommendation for the second part of B and offering an alternative that some of the fees be waived. Did anybody follow that? Because I'm not even sure I did.

I did. Do you have a perspective on what some means in the context of your statement?

because the point is to be specific and give them something to react to, I'm going to say completely waive it.

The Inlufees.

Sorry, and I think that's probably worth me being very specific. I know from reading and doing research, recreation Inlufees are also named Quimbyfees in other places. So that's what I meant when I say Quimby, the Quimbyfees.

Yes, I would support that. I think that makes sense to me. I can elaborate on that, but I've been doing some Googling about which cities in California do this, and I think it's not, we wouldn't be alone in this front. I think it's more common for 100% affordable developments. Another thing that I learned was that this can actually provide disincentivize family sized units from being developed because the fees per unit, uh, you know, somehow the mass gets more complicated. So I think for that reason too, and actually I think, uh, Habitat had alluded to that, um, that if, when they were looking at a mid pen type development, the fees didn't seem so onerous, but because of the reduced density and the higher bedroom count, um, which is needed in this community, um, the fees really start to add up.

Okay, I believe that we have potentially coalesced around a formal recommendation. Commissioner Headley, before anyone makes a motion, I know that you suggested a 35% waiver, or a 35% discount, and there's also been discussion on entirely waiving the said fees, and so we'd like to give you the opportunity to... Opine if you care to do so about the difference between waiving them entirely versus 35% off. And if you don't, then that's fine.

Thank you for the opportunity. I think that's something city council could come to if we made the recommendation to waive that fee entirely and they could decide if they want a 50% or whatever. So I'm fine with the coalescing that's happening. Okay.

Yes. Commissioner Frank.

Thanks. I would just add that I think it's strong. It sends a good signal of what our intent is, is to like substantial fee reduction, not, not I, you know, like, I think it's more clear that way in terms of let's get this project done. Let's make sure they have the funding and also recover the, you know, like the direct minimum costs that are needed to keep the city moving forward.

Okay, so I have... Commissioner, do you have something you want to say?

I appreciate all the conversation here and agree with a lot of it, so I was just over here trying to write a motion, which I'm happy to state. Go for it.

I was about to read a lot of Attachment B, and so if you already have something, go for it.

Okay, I'm not tied to this. I was just, you know, trying to help us coalesce. I move we recommend to City Council to reject staff's recommendation and instead recommend to either waive or substantially reduce in lieu fees for this project, specifically as a recognition of both the value and uniqueness of affordable homeownership projects.

Can you please add that we also move to approve the vesting tentative map for a major subdivision because that is also a part of our recommendation to city council that has to come through this motion. If you go to page 528 of the overall agenda packet, we need to do both recommendations as part of one resolution or one part of one motion and resolution.

Through the chair, could you read, once you're done typing, the last part about the recreational in lieu fees? I didn't hear the word recreational in lieu fees.

No, I just stated to reduce the in lieu fees. I couldn't tell if there were other in lieu fees or not.

I don't think there are, but I didn't see any others in this one. I don't know if there are other in lieu fees that we charted.

Yeah, I think just because there are other in-lieu fees.

Was transportation impact analysis in-lieu or was that a direct cost? I think that was a fee. No, I don't think that was in-lieu. They had to do the transportation analysis.

It's not in here. It's not in the table. I intended it as recreational in-lieu fees, just to be clear.

And if I can chime in too, I thought it wasn't a reduction, it was...

I wrote to either wave or substantially reduce.

Sorry, does anyone have strong feelings about language of or to substantially reduce? Great, go for it.

Is there any way to put it in a way that becomes consistent and transparent for future decision making?

One moment.

Commissioner Schindler, was the intent of your question to give more clarity as to why we would differentiate an in-move fee versus the other impact fees? Or like a level of consistency that we're going for?

I think what we're putting in this language essentially will require a city council to make a numeric decision, or a yes-no decision, and then a numeric decision. Yes, do we waive the fees or not? And if we waive the recreational and loo fees, what percent do we waive? So there's a decision-making process. And I ask that whatever that process is, for whatever process they go through, we consider the the equitability against future projects where this question will come up. That it be predictable and transparent in a way that future developers and future projects can understand and anticipate.

And anticipate makes me nervous because that implies that they should expect a waiver when they come before us or the city council. And I wouldn't want, I would hope that we would do what we can to support these types of projects. I would be reticent to use the language anticipate when it comes to the waiver of anything, particularly because like city councils change and yeah, that makes me nervous.

I absolutely agree. And that's why I think there needs to be a clear thought, think through of what the number ends up being and how it's reached and how it gets communicated.

I was going to suggest maybe it could just include the phrase, consider the policy implications.

I think that works for me.

So to repeat the motion that I believe is...

Sorry, I'm going to... Great, perfect. I will read. Okay. I move we recommend to one, approve the vesting tentative map for this project. and two, reject staff's recommendation to deny the fee waiver and instead recommend to either waive or substantially reduce the recreation in lieu fees for this project in a manner that considers the policy implications for future projects and that specifically recognizes both the value and uniqueness of affordable home ownership projects for Menlo Park.

Do we have a second?

Any of us? Go for it.

Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second and seeing no further commission discussion. I will call a vote. Vice chair. Yes. Commissioner Eric. Yes. Commissioner Farrig. Yes. Commissioner Headley. Yes. Commissioner Schindler.

Yes.

And I vote. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you everyone.

Okay. Congratulations. And we look forward to the project.

I wanted to, before we move on to item F5, I wanted to take the time to acknowledge a raised hand of a member of the public in the audience. While we absolutely love and appreciate any member of the public giving public comment and opining on any of the items that we discuss from an issue of equity and fairness, we're only able to take public comments today. During the public comment period, there are potentially some members of the public who either might have left or are online who don't necessarily have that same opportunity to raise their hand. And as such, we are actually not allowed to ask for secondary public comment. But thank you all for being here. With that, we can move on to item F5 regarding Everyone okay with us powering through without recess? Great. Item F5 regarding a development agreement annual review at 1300 El Camino Real and 550 Oak Grove Avenue. At this public hearing, the Commission may consider and adopt a resolution to determine that Presidio Bay Ventures has demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement for the period of April 2025 to March 2026 for the Springline project at 1300 El Camino Rail. Ms. Sandmeier, are there any updates to the staff reports on this project?

There's no updates, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do any commissioners have clarifying questions for the applicant or staff before we move to public comment? Seeing none, Ms. Roy, can you please open item F5 for public comment?

Thank you, Chair Silverstein. At this time, if any member of the public in the council chambers wishes to provide a public comment on item F5, please provide me a comment card from the back table. If you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button, or if you are calling in, please press star 9 on your keypad and you will be notified of your desire to speak. This will be the final call for public comment on item F5. And I'm seeing no comment cards and hand raised at this moment. Chair Silverstein, you may continue with the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. We can move this to commission discussion and ultimately a motion. Do any commissioners have anything they would like to comment on regarding the development agreement annual review for Springline? Seeing no comments. Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you. I just appreciate this is a recurring event that we get an opportunity to look at the status of what I at least continue to consider to be a successful project. I appreciate that in addition to the requirements, the development agreement, we often get a chance through this letter to just learn about the status of the BMR units and their renting, how the wait list is being managed. and to get a brief update from your perspective on the restaurant and retail space. I appreciate getting that component from the letter, while it is not necessarily an official part of the annual check-in. So thank you. I'm glad to... Just keep our finger at least a little bit on the pulse of a successful project. I have no concerns or further commentary about the state of the terms of the development agreement or any of the other components of the staff report.

Vice Chair Bruzee.

Through the query, I just have a question for Presidio Bay. I'm curious about a couple of things. One, this has been such a great addition to our community. And I know for you, it's been a learning process. You've had things that worked out well and businesses that have come and gone. Is there anything that you would like the Planning Commission to know what works, what's worked well, what you might choose to do differently in 2026 or 2027 that we could be applying as we're reviewing other projects or use cases downtown, for example.

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Bayer-Rizzi. It's a great question. And candidly, I think one that few developers and cities get to engage in the conversation with productively, just given the nature of development. And so similar to Commissioner Schindler's comment, we appreciate these check-ins as well and to have this conversation. we have found a number of sort of lessons I would say over the last few years. And really it ties to the basic premise of the designation of uses and the more rigid definition of uses in the planning code that don't necessarily always evolve as the market evolves and as our, you know, behaviors and uses of space evolve. And so it's, Thinking ahead and thinking about, for example, our project that we're pursuing at the moment at the former USGS site at 345 Middlefield, one of the conversations we've been having is around sort of a more expansive or flexible zoning approach. use definition you know that allows for flexible uses or or multiple uses um and this stems from sort of what we've been doing it at springline so i'm not sure if the commissioners have visited uh coswells that uh opened not too long ago but as an example um that coswell space um it that was in the former canteen space is the only designation that's technically retail, but clearly through the demand that we've seen for the restaurant and that the restauranteurs wanted, we sort of devised this more hybrid use for what's otherwise our residential lobby. And so in the afternoons and evenings, it actually serves this dual purpose of being residential sort of communal space and an F&B space. And in the evenings, it's more clearly F&B. In the mornings, it's more clearly sort of residential lobby. So just as an example, something that we're seeing more and more of is this sort of multiple uses within the same space. And as we get to do more dense sort of urban development and want to be more efficient with use of space, sort of having more flexibility in some of our use definitions would be helpful. And obviously recognize that it will require a broader sort of revisiting of what that means for downtown. But I certainly know it's something that we've been discussing with staff and something we can do a lot more easily or introduce a lot more easily in a in a development agreement type project but hopefully something that can maybe be a takeaway for for more of downtown as well just so that we we aren't stuck in one definition that you know then you know the the sort of market dynamics and demand shifts or moves past it and then we're stuck with vacancies and so on so

Can I ask a quick follow up? Talk about the parking. So I feel like if you were developing this today, first of all, you probably wouldn't be required to include nearly as much parking given state law evolution. Is it consistently full? Is it not? Are there ways that the city could be partnering with you to help you with that cause?

A couple things. Actually, ironically, the parking, the way the parking was sort of negotiated and that the city facilitated with Springline, you know, itself as a standalone project. was to actually have the parking not be assigned to particular uses. So it was sort of anticipated at a peak sort of utilization, and that's how the number of spots came about. We actually, I don't think anyone who's on this commission was there at the time, but five, six to five years ago or so, we had to come back and reduce a reduction of about 10% in the parking to accommodate for back of house uses. Obviously, the city and the planning code and state laws come a long way since then. You're spot on. We would not be building this many parking spaces today if we were to rebuild this project. The question as to what that utilization looks like. We've only just, as of a month ago or so, reached 100%, you know, occupancy and operation of our F&B spaces. So we're still evaluating what that looks like going forward and sort of the need for that plus or minus 30 or so thousand feet of space. of F&B and what its needs are going forward. But certainly as it stands, we have an abundance of parking and not something that we would replicate if this project was to be rebuilt today.

Thank you. Seeing no further commission discussion, would anyone like to make a motion regarding the approval of the development agreement annual review? I'm happy to do so. I would love to move to approve to adopt a resolution to determine that Presidio Bay Ventures has demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of their development agreement.

Second. I don't know. Commissioner Schindler.

We have a second. Commissioner Farrick. Seeing no further commission discussion, I will call for a vote. Vice Chair Bruzy. Yes. Commissioner Eric. Yes. Commissioner Farrick. Yes. Commissioner Headley. Yes. Commissioner Schindler.

Yes.

I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, commissioners. Have a great evening.

Thank you. And with that, we can move to item G, informational items. Ms. Sandmeier, does staff have any informational items they would like to share?

Yes. So the next meeting will be July 27th. We have two items on that agenda. One is use permit revision and architectural control revision for 123 Independence Drive. And the second is an architectural control revision for 1540 El Camino Real. That concludes my updates, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

I would like to note that I will be out of town on that date. I still haven't determined whether or not I will call into that meeting remotely. And do any other commissioners have any informational items or questions to staff, Commissioner Eric? I will be absent for the August 10th meeting. I will also be absent for the August 10th meeting. Summer vacation, guys. Seeing no further informational items, I'm happy to adjourn this meeting at 9.25 PM.