PC 022614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Seto stated that this can be clarified in the report to the City Council. She added that there is more language in that section about defining what is a substantial renovation, so staff will make sure that language is excerpted so when people read it, it is all together as it appears separated right now. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE- OPENED. Mr. Paxson stated that he wanted to make sure one other thing gets into the thinking: there is a new State law, SB1339, that is in the process of getting rolled out, which requires employers that have more than 50 employees to provide transit benefits to their employees. He indicated that there may be some good opportunities to tee off some of the education work that is getting done as that program gets rolled out that employers are going to have to comply with, to partner with some of the new regulations that staff is talking about. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Ritter inquired if the regulation being proposed is similar to what Hacienda already has or if the City is adding to that. Ms. Stern replied that it is similar in many ways. She stated that Hacienda's program also covers the commercial as well the transit incentive, and it certainly is a good question why the commercial would not be included. She added that Mr. Paxson also brings up another good point that the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, which is the result of SB1339, will actually require employers of 50 or more full -time employees in the Bay Area to offer their employees one of four different benefits to encourage transit, one of which is to exclude their transit or vanpool cars from taxable income, provide a transit subsidy, provide free or low cost bus, and so on. She added that the program is a mandatory program and will have a big impact. She noted that the proposed amendment was not going into that as it covered it. Commissioner Pearce moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Case P14 -0001, as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report, with the addition of language to include suggested amendments from James Paxson regarding equivalent incentives and location of parking. Commissioner Ritter seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Allen, O'Connor, Olson, Pearce, and Ritter NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None Resolution No. PC- 2014 -11 recommending approval to the City Council of Case P14- 0001was entered and adopted as motioned. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 26, 2014 Page 19 of 21