HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 6270~ . •
RESOLUTION NO. 6270
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY' OF' PALO ALTO
ADOPTING A 1985-2000 HOUSING ELEMENT AS PART OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, on February 2, 1981, the City CourlCil approved the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Pl~n including a Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, state law (Government Code Article 10.6) requires locali-
ties to adopt revised housing el~ments by July 1, 1984, in conformance
with new legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Com."Tlissicn and the City Council have con-
ducted a series of public meetings on the existing housing element and
the proposed changes;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the 1985-2000 Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that none of the provisions of this
resolution will have a significant adverse environmental impact.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 11, 1984
AYES: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy. Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon
Woo1ley
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: Ne ne
ABSENT: None
TO FORM: -~W
Attorney
HOUSING
The goal of keeping Palo Alto a fine residential community makes housing one of
the ioost important factors considered in the Comprehensive Plan. Housing is
important~ not only in its own right, but also because ft strongly influences
the size of the population and its distribution in age, background, and income.
Prolonged and continuing employment growth in Palo Alto and neighboring cities
has been a major factor fn dramatically driving up the price of housing in Palo
Alto. There are far 110re new jobs than new housing units. A 1979 Santa Clara
County forecast estimated that about 125,000 new jobs wf 11 be created in north-
ern Santa Clara County between 1975 and 1990, while only 19,000 new housing
units will be built. Hany people who work in Palo Alto cannot afford to buy a
home here, and this jobs-housing imbalance forces l'li!ny into long commutes.
This situation will get worse unless Palo Alto and other cities in the area
take corrective action, and even then, a very serious problem will remain.
Cftf zen Partf ctpation
In developing the 1985-2000 hous1ng element, the City sought public participa-
tion through di re ct 1nvol vement wf th loca 1 organf zatfons most involved and
interested in !'lousing and the housing need of lower-income persons, and at
several public meetfn;s before the Planning Con111issfon and City Council. The
input received at these meetings was critical in the development of the plan.
Palo Alto's Housing ObjectiYes
What directions should housing 1n Palo Alto take to mintain and enhance pre-
sent residential qualities? Four major objectives, ear,:h of equal importance,
are 1 dentf fied.
First, it is important to nafotafn the character and physical quality of
residential ne1ghborhoods. Palo Altans want to avoid drastic changes in neigh-
borhood tharacter. to reduce the intrusion of through-traffic into residential
neighborhoods~ to protect neighborhood quality, tc improve visual quality, and
to prevent deterioration.
Second, 1t 1s ifl1)ortant to Maintain a diversity of housing opportunities
especially opportunities for households with children. This means a variety of
housing types and sizes, a mfxture of ownership and rental housing, and a full
range of housing costs. This diversity of housing opportunities, available 1n
an atmosphere of open and free choice for all, w111 then acconrnodate the
desired population diversity-a variety of household sizes, all age groups, and
a wide range of income levels.
6/11/84
-1-
Third. in order to 1essen the jobs-housing imbalance. Palo Alto needs to
increase its housing supply, especially for low and ITK>derate income ind1vidua1s
and households with children. middle income hous~holds wf th children. and for
those who work here.
The Houstng Supply
In 1980. Palo Alto had 23,750 housing units, which is approximately one-sixth
of the h?using on the Mfdpenfnsvla from Redwood Cf ty to S~nnyva le. In addi-
tion. Stanford University provides housing for about 7800 of fts 13,200
students including 930 apartments for narrfed students. There are also 830
campus uni ts available for the 13,000 faculty and staff. These units are not
available on the open market. Nearly two-thirds of Palo Alto's units are
s fngle-famf ly homes. but about 20 percent of them are rented. Owners occupy
just over one half of all the housing units in Palo Alto. The percentages of
s1ngle-family uni ts and owner-occupied unf ts are similar to most other large
Mf dpeninsula comll'tlnit1es.
Palo Alto's housing is closer in age to the housing in San Mateo County than it
is to other comnM.mi ties in Santa Clara County. Almost 40 percent of Pa lo
Alto 1s housing was buflt before 1950. and another 35 percent between 1950 and
1960. Since 1960. while Palo Alto was constructing only 25 percent of its
housfny, the rest of Santa Clara County was building over 60 percent.
There is greater demand for housing 1n Palo A1to than can be met. This 1s
because Palo Alto 1s a desirable place to live., there are many jobs, and there
fs little land available for new housing development. This leads to high
housfng costs and low vacancy rates. In addf tf on, the lack of affordable
housing in Palo Alto creates a larger co11111.1ter population with fncreased energy
use. pollution~ and high conr.ute costs.
Census data indicate that the median value of a.1ner-occupied housing increased
339 percent from $33.900 'fn 1970 t!> $148.900 in 1980. By comparison, the
median value of a home in San Mateo County increased from $30,400 in 1970 to
$121, 300 1 n 1980 (a 299 percent f ncrease} and a home f n Santa C 1 ara County
increased from $27.300 to $107,700 (a 295 percent increase). In 1980. the
median California home value was $84,700 and for tne United States it was
$47,300. Inflatfon from 1970 to 1980. as aeasured by the Consumer Price Index
for the San Francisco Bay area, increased 113 percent. Home prf ces in Palo
Alto. therefore, were escalating at three t'f1t.:s the rate of inflation. The
average appraised value for three sample sfng1e-fami1y hemes fn Palo Alto
monitored by the Northern California Real Estat~ Council was $235.000 fn Aprf 1.
1983. This is up from $225,000 in 1981. $154.000 fn 1979, $72,650 in 1975, and
$41,500 fn 1970 (an increase of 466 percent from 1970 to 1983). Monthly pay-
ments plus taxes and insurance on ~ $180.000. median-priced house in Palo Alto
would be nearly n.soo (ghen a 30-year, 13 percent loan and assuming a
$36,000, 20 percent down payment). An annual income of $65.000 would be
required to qualify for financing such a house.
6/11/84
-2-
Renta'I housing has also been strained greatly by r1s1ng housing costs. Few
market-rate apartments have been built since 1972 and little new rental devel-
opment is likely because of high construction costs and the correspondir.g need
for higher rents required to ~eet mortgage payments. Some addf tional units are
added to the rental stock when condominiums are leased. Approximately 30 per-
cent of the 960 condominium units existing fn 1980 were rented. The rental
stock is reduced through the demolition of existing renta.1 units. These units
are often older. lower-priced units which are replaced by higher cost condomf n-
i um units. From 1980 to 1983 forty-seven 111.ll t1ple-fam1 ly rentals were lost
because of deroo1ition.
Median rent in 1980 was $348 a month~ a 115 percent increase from the 1970
median rent of $165. This rate compares with $311 a month in 1980 for San
Mateo County and $308 for Santa Clara County. The corresponding rate for
California was $?53 a mnth. and $199 for the United States. Rents have
increased substantially sfnce 1980. Informal surveys reveal rates for avail-
able rentals that generally range from $400 -$800 for a one-bedroom apartment
and $700 -$1200 for two and three bedroom units. Single-family homes general-
1y start at a renta 1 rate of $1000 per month.
Despite the hf gh costs. the vacancy rates for beth ownership and rental housing
have been ·stable at below three percent in recent years due to the strong
housing demand. In fact, the vacancy rate of rental apartments was • 7 percent
in November. 1983. and has been below 1.2 percent since April, 1976.
The federal Department of Housing and urban ~evelopment defines •shortage• or
•tight• market condf tfon3 as an overall rental vacancy rate of three percent or
less and a.n apartment vacancy rate of five perceut or less.
Lootf ng To 2000
If new building were 11m1ted to remaining residentially zoned vacant land a
totll of only 1,630 additional units could be built. This involves 1,570
11ultfple-fami ly uni ts and 60 sf ngle-famfly and duplex uni ts. Included in thf s
figure is a projection of 1290 units at the Stanford West and 1100 Weich Road
sf tes. There wi 11 be construction on other than vacant land, however. Some
new 11.1ltiple .. f&mi ly units will replace older s1ngle-falll11y units in areas
a1rea~ zoned for nultip1e-family use. Other units w111 be built on land cur-
rently fn commercial or industrial use. and additional units will be on surplus
schooi sf tes.
The residential redevelopment potential allowable fn J11Jltfple famf ly residen-
tial zones is 740 additional dwelling units. This assumes development to the
maximum density a.llowable~ and merger of lots where feasible. ln addftion.
approximately 620 res1dent1a1 units could be developed on vacant and surplus
schoo1 sites. 225 on vacant industrial sites. and 670 on redevelopable commer-
cial and industrial land. It fs highly unlikely that residential development
would reach these levels. A realistf c estf1nilte of development fn Palo Alto 1s
approximately 26.400 units 1n 1990 and 27.700 fn the ,year 2000. co""ared to
23,750 fn 1980. An inventory of vacant land is found on pages 42~43.
6/11/84
-3-
Only upper-income households w111 be able to rent or buy new llll1tip1e-fam11y
units. unless efforts are made to make some units available to low-, iooderate-
and 111i ddle-fncome households. The new sfngle-faini ly uni ts will be so expensive
that only high-income households will be able to afford them. At the same
time. the City's present supply of lower-cost housing will be reduced through
continued price escalation and removals to make way for the new construction.
The Californ'f a Oepartinent of Housing and Ccll'ITIUni ty Development provides these
deff ni tions:
o Very low income -below 50 percent of the median income of the county.
o Low income -50 to 80 percent of the county median.
o Moderate income -80 to 120 percent of the county median.
o Middle income -120 to 150 percent of the county median.
1983 median household incomes are shown in the table included in this section.
Decent, Safe, and Sanitary
Not all units in Palo Alto are decent. safe. and sanitary. Nearly three per-
cent of Palo Alto's housing was substandard fn 1980. Estimates made for Palo
Alto's Housing Assistance Plan state that there are 331 owner units and 274
rental units whf ch are substandard. These unfts do not neet Federal Section 8
Quality Standards or the more restrictive City code standards but are consider-
ed to be suitable for rehabilitation.
Original quality, level of maintenance, perceived redevelopment potential. and
ownership are important in predicting future housing quality and neighborhood
character.
Neighborhoods wfth a high percentage of rental properties and where original
quality and the level of maintenance are 1o-.. llBY get worse without remedial
action. Absentee owners are not wi 1 lfng to invest in expensive repairs and
improvements and tenants cannot be expected to do so. Absentee ownership fs
prevalent and profitable in many single-family areas because of Pa lo A 1 to 's
tight housing market.
The 1978 Zoning Ordinance, based on Housing Program l, reversed nJch of the
trend toward declining housing quality near Downtown by rezoning some of the
multiple-family areas to single-family and duplex. This brought an increase in
renovations of single-family homes in this area.
Housing units which are overcrowded also fail to meet accepted standards of
decent housing. There are 325 1Jni ts fn Palo Alto with more than 1.01 persons
per room.
6/11/84
-4-
The People
There are 55.225 people 11vfng fn Palo Alto. and about 11.000 living on the
Stanford University campus. ~alo Alto's population fn 1980 was down 1.5 per-
cent from 56.000 f n 1970. This decrease understates the real net loss fn
population. sfnce Barron Park, with 3,400 persons, was annexed fn 1975.
The 1980 U.S. Centus showed that the average age of Palo Alto's population 1s
rfsfng. Persons 60 yea"rs and older made up almost one-fifth of Palo Alto 1s
residents. This population increased from 7,980 fn 1970 to 10,170 fn 19BO. a
27S increase. One of the hf ghest concentrations ofe seniors in Santa Clara
County is found in the Downtown area of Palo Alto. ~t the same tfme, the per-
centage of children fn Palo A1to fs decreasing.. Chf ldren under 10 decreased
from 7500 in 1970 to 4750 in 1980. a 37 percent decrease. Children under 18
made up 20 percent o -,alo Alto's population 1n 1980.., co111>.::red to 38 percent in
Santa Clara County as a whole. Enrollment 'fn the Palo Alto Unfffed School
District has been declining stead;ly in recent years because of the drop fn the
birth rate and the tight. high-priced housing market which causes nnst families
wfth young children to seek housing elsewhere. This declining enrollment led
to the closing of nine elementary and two secondary schools in Palo Alto from
1976 to 1983. Student population in the School District has gone from 15.380
1 n 1967 to a 1983 enrollment of 8090. a 471 drop. A student population of
6.350 f s projected for 1990 by the School District. after which the school age
popu1at1on 1s e~pected to stabilize.
In 1980 ethnic minorities lllilde up almost 14 percent of Palo Alto's population.
This fs not an appreciable change from 1970. Persons of Spanish origin com-
prised 27 percent and blacks 20 percent of the minority population. Persons of
Chinese and Japanese ancestry co111prised nearly 35 percent of the minority popu-
lation. Between 1970 and 1980 there was a 60 percent fncrease in the Chinese
population. from i.001 in 1970 to 1.608 in 1980.
Data on the handicapped population in Palo Alto indicates that there are 439
residents aged 16-64 and 948 over age 64 who have physical dfsabiltfes that
limit use of public transportation. The U.S. Census also indicates that there
are 2,108 Palo Altans wfth work disabilities. 815 of whom are prevented from
working.
Of the total 23,041 households fn Palo Alto fn 1980. sfngle-parent households
total 1,640. fncludfng 1.361 households headed by females and 279 by males.
The rnedian family income fn Palo Alto grew from $15.036 fn 1970 to $31.796 in
1980, a 111.5 percent fnc"rease. A comparison with Santa Clara and San Mateo
Counties reveals that incomes followed similar patterns fn these two counties
wf th inedian family income 1n Santa Clara County increasing by 114.0 percent.
fro11 $12.456 to $26.662, while in San Mateo Cou!'lty 12dfan family income
increased by 106.l percent from $13.222 to $27,279. The median California
family income fn 1980 was $21,537. and $19,917 for the United States.
6/11/84
-5-
Median household income in Palo Alto was $24, 743 1n 1980. Household income
f ncludes households coq>rised of a group of unrelated individuals or persons
lh1ng alone. This is lower than median family income because of the large
nu~er of lower incor.e senior and sWdent households in Pa lo Al to. The 1980
Census indicated there were 3,248 persons in Palo Alto below the poverty level,
a 12.3S drop from the 3.703 persons below the poverty income level in 1970.
Changes in population characterfstfcs go along with changes in the housing
inventory. The average household sfze will continue to decrease as families
mature and older children leave t'lome, as young married couples have fewer
children, and as the proportion of one-and two-person households f ncreases
along wHh the increase in ll'Ultfple-family units. Palo Alto's population will
continue to rise in average a~.
Average Palo Alto income is likely to increase faster than the Bay Area avera~
because of higher income required to afford new housing units and the increas-
ing costs of existing housing.
6/11/84
-6-
O'I ....... I ......,. ....., ...... I ......_
00 ~
PALO AL.10 POPULATION
2.000
-
PALO ALTO HOU5'~ ~\T5
MJL..TI -FAMI L...'(
5t~-f:"AM\L'(
2.7,700
2.000
6/11/84
-8-
75+
S-17
o·'t
ML.O ALi"O AGe O\&T~\ el'TI~
6/11/84
~9-
O'! I -...... ............ 0 ....
I -...... ~
PALO ALTO ETH~\C 0\6~\euT\OJ-l%Q
WMlTE-~l&H 2..C:,'1
51..ACK Z.t,.
OTHe~e z.i%
e
"75 lC}TT
6/11/84
-12-
•
PO\:SI \'AL\1£
lait.ial Costs ( 20'iO Dow.T&pt )"IMSlt
ead Oosms Cost1)
U0111JIJ)· Cons:
l'l)'JMDI on
JO \'-.r llortpfe
TPl!tl
18'Yflll ct
l<IS
s 171
104
JS
I l,017
$ J..0$J
SK.ill
1HE rosr OF ll "YING A HOt:SE
1125,000 1150,000
s 2'1.076 s J2.913
us. 169' l~ u~
s 1.106 S l.:MS $ 1,053 s J.327
1!)4 J04 12.S 125
15 JS 42 42 --
I l ,.145 s J,484 ~ J.%20 S J.4M
,
S 3,7JS s 4.452 s 3"60 s 4,412
$44,llO lSJ.424 IM:UlO $53,114
1200.00(1
s 44.646
16'1 ·~ 13'.l 16'l
I 1,614 s l.404 $ l.1'70 s 2,3$2
ll.S J67 16' 167
4l 56 56 56
s 1,711 s 1.627 s 1'93 s 2,375
s ~.Jo s 4,8'!1 S S.979 S 7.l!S
164,116 sn.s'I: r 1,?48 sa~ .soo
In 1980. fllOSt houses in Palo Alto cost between $125.000 and $200.000. This
chart assumes that one-thirJ of household income 1s avai 1ab1e for lll>rtgage,
tax. and insurance payments even though sorl'le financial institutions do not
a11ow these payments to exceed 25 to 30 percent of income. Increasing interest
rates raise monthly housing costs substantially. Utilf tfes and maintenance add
substantially to the-monthly cost of owning a house. but are not included in
this table.
6/11/84
-13-
PALO ALTO HOUSEHOLDS BY S OF CO~NTY MEDIAN INC~E
1980 CEHSUS
S OF COUNTY MEDIAN INCOME I OF HOUSEHOLDS S OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
Less than SOS so-soi
80-100%
lOC-120:
120-lSOS
Over 1502:
2.804
2.704
2,119
1,953
2,910
10,541
l2.2S
ll.7S
9.zi a.si
12.6S
45.8S
COMPREHENSIYE PLAN DEFINITION (S OF HOUSEHOLDS IN CATEGORY)
Very Low Income -below SOS of median County income (12.2S)
Low Income -50 to SOS of medfan County fncone (ll.7S}
Moderate Income -80 to 120% of median County income (17.7S)
Middle Income -120 to lSOS of median County income (12.6S)
6/11/84
-14-
. . ;
I
1
l J
t l I I I! i I
:i
: 1
l • ' .
I i
• ! • I
.~"'"" ~~~UN~
J J. ~
i
LOW-INCOME HOUSING SUPPLY*
12/1/83
ASSISTED TYPF. Of
PROJECT {DATE COMPLETED) TENANCY UNITS ASSISTANCE
Stevenson House (2/68) Senior 118 Section 22l(d )3
Sect1 on 8
Colorado Park (6/72) Family & Senior 60 Section 236
Section 8
Palo Alto Gardens (9/73) Famf ly & Senf or 156 22l(d)3 rent
supplement
Arastradero Park (7/74) Family & Senior 66 Section 236
Section 8
Lytton Gel.rdens I (4/75) Senior 218 Section 236
Section 8
Webster Wood (8/78} Famf ly 58 Calif. Housing
Finance
Sectf on 8
Lytton Gardens II (2/79) Senior 100 Section 202
Section 8
Sheridan Apartments (5/79) Senf or 57 Section 8
Elm Apartments (1/82) Family or Senior 9 Section 8 Mod.
Rehab.
Section 8 (existfng-1/83) Famf ly & Senf or 93 Section 8
TOTAL ASSISTED UNITS 935
SCHEDULED
Birch Court (3/84) Family 5 Palo Al to
Hcusing Corp.
Subsidy
Terman (12/84) Famf ly & Sen1 or 72 Sectf on 8
* Per HUD definition --households having 1ncones below 80 percent of the
county med fan 1 ncome. or the Sect'f on 8 1 ncome standard.
6/11/84
-16-
DEVELOPMENTS WITH BMR UNITS
1/1/84
UNITS OCCUPIED
YEAR OF
DEVELOPMENT FIRST SALE
Foothill Green 1974
V111as San Alma 1975
Greenhouse I 1975
Greenhouse II 1976
Channing Place 1976
410 Sheridan 1977
Villa Las Plazas 1978
Vf sta Town Houses 1979
San Antonio Village 1979
Barron Square 1979
Palo Alto Greens 1981
Colorado Place 1981
SUBTOTAL
UNITS APPROVED BUT NOT YET OCCUPIED
Oregon Green
Redwoods
Park/Calf forr.f a
El Camino Way
Lot Q Afr Rights
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF UNITS
4
8
14
10
2
5
4
2
2
6
4
2
63
1
12
17
6
9
45
108
6/11/84
-17-
PERSONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
APRIL. 1983 FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
INCOME LIMITS
MEDIAN SANTA CLARA
COUNTY INCOME FOR
PURPOSES Of 801 1201; l50S
HOUSING ASSISTANCE MEDIAN MEDIAN MEDIAN
$24.300 $19,450 $29.150 $36,450
27,750 22,200 33.350 41.600
31.250 25,500 37,500 46,850
34,750 27,800 41.700 52,100
37.000 29,500 44,3CO 55,500
39,050 31,250 46.900 58,550
41,250 33,000 49,500 61,850
43,400 34.750 529100 65,150
200%
MEDIAN
$48,600
55.500
62,500
69,500
74,.000
78,100
82,500
86,800
Palo Alto's Below Market Rate Program is for households having incomes betl#een
80 percent and 120 percent of the County medf an. In 1983. under conventiona 1
financing terms, virtually all f1rst time buyers with incomes less than 200 percent of the rnedian were excluded from the local housing nerket.
6/11/84
-18-
HOUSING COISTRAINTS
The effort to provide affordable housing fs constrained by a variety of factors.
These constraints include market forces and governmental regulatior..
Market forces. which often cannot be addressed by local government. include the
cost of construction, the cost of financing, and the cost of land. Current con-
structf on costs vary w1dely depending upon type of construction {wood frame or
steel and concrete), parking requirements (undergrour.d parking greatly increases
costs), degree of amenities, and other factors. Excludf ng land costs, construc-
tion costs for a unit developed under a lower cost scenario wou1d range from $75
to $85 a square foot. These costs escalate up to and above $100 a square foot
wt.en factors such as underground park ir.g are included. A modest 1, 000 square
foot unit, excluding land cost. therefore. could cost $100,000 in construction
cost alone.
The cost to the buyer of h~using 1s greatly impacted by the avaf lab le interest
rate and terms of finanting. Interest rates increased rapidly during the early
1980's and have only moderately declined by 1984. Real interest rates. which
considers the difference between the current interest rate and the inflation
rate, remains high. Economists predict that these high rates are not likely to
decline substantially in the foreseeable future. Palo Alto has assisted in re-
ducing financing costs through participating in mortgage re~enue bond programs.
Land cost fn Pa.lo Alto constitutes a major component of overall development
cost. Residentia 1 developers pay between $10 -$25 a square foot for land in
Palo Alto depending upon the location and development potential of a parcel.
This cost alone can add $20,000 to $50,000 a unit in development cost. The City
in the past has used local and federal revenue sol.irces to reduce the cost of
land for the development of low and moderate income housing.
Governmental constraints that impact the cost of housing include building codes,
fntrastructure requirements. and land use regulations. The City uses the
Uniform Building Code to insure safe housing through minimum building standards.
Applf cation and building fees currently are about the sa.me, 1f not lower than~
surrounding comioonities. A 1982 survey by the Association of Bay Area Govern-
ments (ABAG) on local development fees listed Palo Alto as having among the
iowest residential development fees in the San Francisco Bay Area. For single-
famf ly housf"g units, only 25 percent of Bay Area conmunfties had lower develop-
ment fees. and for P1.11t1p1e family housing unf ts only 11 percent of Bay Area ·
colllftlnities had lower development fees. These fees are periodically reviewed to
insure that they ire equitable, and are limited to the cost of providing build-
ing services. The City on an ongoing basfs is atte~ting to iq>rove and expedite its permit processing procedures. Currently, a one-stop information
center is befng fmplemented, along with a computerized data infornation system.
6/11/84
-19-
Utility hook-up fees for new developrients are lower than lllOSt communities
becaiue of the Cfty ownership of utf Htfes. fncludf ng sewer. water. ~.s, and
electrical. These fees are reevaluated at least every two years. There are no
unusual or extraordinary site improvement or special fmpact fees f111>osed by th~
Cf ty.
Zoning and densf ty limitations by their nature limit the allowable development
on a sf te, which my increase the cost of developinent. The specific zoning
applied to particular areas of the Cfty reflects tne overall objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. including the housing element.
The following section includes speciff c policies and programs whfch seek to
overcome some of t:iese constraints, and to provf de various incentives to reduce the cost of housing.
6/11/84
-20-
H1>USil6 l&Ef.DS, POLICIES AMO PROGRAMS
Mafntaf nf ng Palo Alto's resi dentfal qua lf tf es is uppermost in most people's
minds. Because Palo Alto f s a ffne res1dentf al community, some Palo Altans see
no need for any futher city involvement in housing. But staying the same often
requires more fnvoivement than letting unwanted change occ1•r.
The following policies and programs have been developed to deal with the need
for attention to neighborhood character. housing quality. new housing. and
diversified housing opportunities. Residential anienf tfos sueh as schools,
parks. and city serv1ces. which are not directly related to hDusing, ~re not
discussed in this section.
le1ghborhoods
Protecting existing neighborhoods fs an important elerent of Pa lo Alto's
housing policies because Palo Altans want to maintain the residential character
that marks much of the City~
Polf c:y 1: Maintain the general low~density character of existing sfngle-fam11y
areas.
Policy 2: Preserve older sfng1e-fal!lily homes and small apartment buildings.
Ir. single-family zones, which are over 90 percent of Palo Alto's residentially
zoned land, these goals w111 not be difficult because 1fttle new construction
wf11 take place. New single family homes will be built on the few remaining
vacant sites scattered throughout the areas. Because of the scarcity of vacant
land zoned for 11111tfple-famf ly use, however. new multiple-fa111ily constructf on
wt11 often replace older homes on land zoned for mitiple-fanri ly 1Jse. Some
sfngle-famfly and 1111ltiple-family development will take place on surplus school
sites.
To reduce the changes in neighborhood character created by this redevelopment~
the 1976 Coq»rehensfve Plan called for the retention of some af the older homes
which were in danger cf demo11tfon, especially 1n downtown P~lo Alto. These
older homes were usually less expensive per square foot than the new llllltiple-
fallli ly units. Thfs allows their prices to reain 1n the lower range of Palo
A 1to 's housing 111rket. Unfortunately. even these older homes have become so
expeni1ve that 1110derate-1ncome buyers can no longer afford them.
6/11/84
-21-
The RMD(NP), Neighborhood Preservation. zone was created to reverse this trend.
It 1s a n11t1 p1e fam1 ly zone which permits a second dwel 11ng unit to be bu11 t
on a site while preserving the existing older un1t. Otherwise. maxf111Jm
development \/OUld result in the loss of the older house, often loss of rental
stock, and a changed neighborhood character.
Several specific pr?grams hne been developed to preserve older single-family
houses and small api\rtment bt.!ildings. The specific agency or department with
the lead responsibility for implementation of each program is identified.
Program 1: In areas adjacent to the Downtown shopping area,. mfntain sfn9le-
farnily and duplex areas and have multiple-family close to shops and
offices.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Program 2: Continue using minimum lot-size standards for single-family neigh-
borhoods to discourage splitting of larger lots.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
In most sfngle-family areas, the splitting of larger lots will have an adverse
effect by gradually increasing density and traffic. The Zoning Ordinance con-
tains six single-family zones, ranging from minimum sizes of 6,000 to 40,000
square feet. These zones have been applied to minimize the amount of lot
splitting.
Program 3: Continue the cottage-provision in R-1 zones insuring that new
development fits in with existing single-family properties.
~rogram Responsibility: Planning Division
In response to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, fo 1982 a cottage prevision was
placed in R-1 zones allowing a second residential unit on lots which exceed the
mfrti111.1m lot size by at least 35 percent. Ten new unf ts were approved in the
first year under thfs provision. In 1983 the regulations were amended to limit
the second units to a maxin.1m of 900 square feet.
Policy 3: Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto's neigh-
borhoods especially desirable.
E/11/84
-22-
Program 4: Use the Zoning Ordf nance, other codes. and specfff c plans to main-
tain high-quality neighborhoods.
Program Respons1b111ty: Planning Division
The Zoning Ordinance and Map set broad standards for how structures relate to
one another. the street system and public facf lfttes. T~e Architectural Review
Board applies design standards to irultfple-family and all nonresidential
development. Maximum privacy, natural light, and outdoor space and mfnfmurr1
undesirable contacts with traffic are the desired results for individual units. The Plan encohrages low-density imJltiple-family areas. Wfthfn 111.1ltfple-famfly
areas. the zoning nap has higher density zones located farther from single-
fami ly areas. On larger sites undergoing development, densft1es can be varied
in relation to distance from nearby single family areas.
Two special zones have been used to accompHsh this goal of maintaining hfgh
quality neighborhoods. The RMD{NP), Neighborhood Preservation, zone was
developed for part of the College Terrace neighborhood. This zone lfmf ts the
development potential in a nu1t1p1e family zone while allowing a second
dwelling unit to be bt:flt on lots over 5,000 square feet. The zone allows
flexibf lfty of sfte development regulations for development of the se~ond unit
when the existing older unit fs preserved. The T-Combfnfng District has been
used as an overlay zone on 111.11 tf ple family res'f denti a 1 di strf cts to 11mf t
building h~fght to two stories, providing a better transition between a single
family and adjacent l'llJltiple family zone.
Serious conflict can arise between residential &nd adjacent non-residential
actfvf ties. Development in such areas should be designed to f!lfnimf ze the
potentially noisy and bothersome effects of air condftfonfng and heating tqufp-
inent, parking lots. loading docks, and refuse contaf nment areas by buffering
them or designing them to be quiet, attractive, and unobtrusive.
Building Code enforcerrent ensures that structural qualfty remains hfgh and also
helps nafnta1n high-quality nef ghborhoods. Code enforcement applies quality
control standards systematically to all new housing construction. Enforcement
of the Housing Code, which sets standards for existing housing, fs now volun-
tary or handled by coq>l1int.
Policy 4: Support locally assisted housing rehabilitation with publi1: and
private ffn&ncf ng.
Certa1nly not all older houses fo Palo Alto need rehabi11tatfon; many have been
wel l1111ntafned over the years. However, there are sections of the connmity
that may begin to turn downward unless the norml processes of deterioration
are reversed.
6/11/84
-23-
Rather than start a program of nandatory code enforcement, the City Counc11 9 1r.
May, 1974. voted to establish a V•Jluntary. locally assisted rehabilitation
program to aid present code enforcement.
Program 5: E~coarage housing rehabilitation in residential areas by continuing
the C1ty wide inspection and enforcement program.
Pragram Responsibility: Planning Division
The Ci·?:y fs promoting code inspection as a service to residents and as a deter-
rent tc ~e1ghborhood deterioration.
Program 6: Provide rehabilitation assistance to low-income household~ in Palo
~, 1 to.
Program Respons1bf 11ty~ Planning Division
A housfng rehabilitation program established by the City in 1974 relies on
Federal ConmJnfty Development Block Grant funds. The program provides low-
interest 1oans or deferred loans. Since it began. the program has loaned over
$2.350~000 to 259 homeowners 1n Palo Alto, 92 percent of whom have low fncomes.
The majority of loans are going to seniors and female single-parent households.
At first., the program concentrated on two target neighborhoods, but rooved City-
wide in 1978. with loans reserved for only 10\lf income households. Although its
funding has been reduced because of reduced federal funding and other urgent
needs. the program is still m~eded, and there is a continuing high demand for
1 oans.
Rehab11ftation 1s expensfve. and present occupants. especially renters and
senior cit1zen$ with limited incomes., may not be able to afford the additional
costs unless they have ff nancial help. The Senior Home Repair Progran: .. which
f s administered by the Senior Coordinating Cound 1 and partially funded by the
Cf ty, pro vi des subsidized home repair servf ces to assist senf or homeowners.
Over 350 subsidized se~v1ces are performed annually.
Rental prop~rty owners can contract with the Santa Clara County Housing Author-
1 ty to provide federal rent subsidies. Unfortunately. private landowners have
few incentives to make their units available for these federal assistance pro-
grams. With the lfmited supply of rental housing, owners have little problem
renting their units.
The Cost of Housf~g
State and federal policies call for comnmfties to provfde housing for all
1neome groups. and Palo Alto has attempted to see that there are housing
opportun1tfes for people with a wf de range of fncomes. The trend toward ever-
escalating housing costs continues .. however. Housing costs have risen due to
6/11/84
-24-
1nf1at1on fn materials <ind labor. and continuing Mgh interest rates. Addi-
tional local reasons for the increase are the hfgh demand for housing in Palo
Alto. i,,hich .fs heightened by the scarcity of land a't'ailable for new housfng
development. the large number of Jobs. and the demolition of lower-cost unfts
to make way for expensive new construction.
When the prfce of housing goes up, large segments of tl'le population gradually
beCQme unable t~ compete for housing fn Palo Alto:
o Middle-and mderate .. f ncome house?holds. particularly those with children.
who cannot afford to buy a home 1n expensive housing areas.
o Seniors on limited incomes, such as pensions and Social Security.
o Households with low-paying jobs or on public assistance who cannot afford
hf gh rents.
Students also generally have limited financial resources. Those "ho do not
want to 1fve on campus or who cannot be accol!ITIC\dated there because of lack of
space 1n the campus housing system, hOwever. may be able to compete fn the
housing narket because they are wfllfng to share units with others.
There is no way to estilflilte the number of households who, although they want to
1 he fn Palo Alto, live elsewhere because they cannot afford to live here.
Others with strong enuugh reasons do dE'cide to live 1n Palo Alto no matter what
the costs. The costs include not only payfng more than they want to pay for
housing, but also living in units which are structurally inadequate or over-
crowded.
In 1980. 7.400 Palo Alto households, over 35 percent of t~e total households.
were paying over 25S of their monthly income on housing. Forty-nine percent of
all rer.tars (5,130) were paying over 25 percent of their f~come on gross rent.
Over 20 percent of homeowners were payf ng ioore than 25 percent of their income
on ownership housing costs. Almost one-half of the households paying over 25
percent of their gross income for housing are very low-and low-income house-
holds, with incomes less than 80 percent of the County medfan. Nearly 3.ooo
renters. and 630 homeO'tlners. fell into this category.
Seniors are particularly susceptible to tlie hardships generated by rapidly
inflating housing costs. Although 111>st seniors now lf vfng in Palo Alto would
like to stay, 111any are finding the expenses of increased rent or naf ntenance
costs mre and more difficult to sustain. Housing complexes for senfors of
low-and l!k)derate-f ncome have so many requests that some have stopped takf ng
names fer waiting lists.
These ff gures are based on the housing situation at any given time. Annual
estimates of housing need are included in Palo Alto's Housing Assistance Plan,
which is required as part of Palo Alto 1s annual application for the Conroonity
Development Block Grant Program.
6/11/84
-25-
It should be recognized that as Palo Alto is r:e.de an even more desirable place
to live, demand for housing will increase, pushing up purchese prf ces and rents
even further. Increased housing costs ne.ke ft even more dffffcult for low-and
moderate-inco~ households to make ends neet in the Palo Alto housing mrket.
Thf s llllkes it even aore fmportant to have public policies which encoura~ hous-
f ng which can be afforded by low-and rn:>derate-fncone households.
Wf thout such poHcies and programs the supply of lower-cost housing wil 1 con-
tinue to <Mfndle and low-and nl)derate-f ncome owners and renters will continue
to be pushed out of Palo Alto by redevelopment, conversion, and rising tents.
New residents wf 11 be only those with higher incomes.
Pr1orftfes For Increasfng Housing )upply
The c:haracter of a cf ty is determined by the type of peop1e who live in ft as
well as by the quality of life. amenities, and services that the city can
offer. Many Pa lo A 1 tans. not only those on the verge of being squeezed out,
!re concerned about the loss of the diversity and balance the conmm1 ty once
had. To assure that housing opportunities are available to a broad spectrum of
househol~s. ne~ flllltfple-famf ly housing should result in significant amounts of
housing that households earning 1°"-· mo~erate~. and middle-incomes can afford,
'1hfle ma1nta1nfng those qualities which rrake lffe so attractive fn Palo Alto.
Special attention should be given to housing for households with cflfldren dnd
for people who work in Palo Alto.
Wh!n work began on the 1976 Palo Alto Coq>rehensfve Plan fn the early-and mid-
1970's, housing policies a~d programs reflected the assumptions that:
o Federal subsidy programs would provide housing for those households with
f ncomes less than 80 percent of the County median.
o The Below~arlcet-Rate program would offer housing for those households
with incones between 80 and 120 percent of the County median.
o The private 111arket would provf d~ housing for those households with
1ncones above 120 percent of the county median.
However, by 1980 virtu11ly all first-tiine buyers with fncomes less than twice
the median were excluded form the local housing market. An income of nearly
$65,000 ts needed in order to purchase a $180,000 house, the 111edian price home
f n 1984. Such high-priced housing 1s not •affordable• to many households. As
used in the Coq>rehensive Plan, affordable housing fs that whf ch can be pur-
chased or rented by households whose incomes do not exceed 150 percent of the
median, and who pay no mre t.ian 30 percent of their gross fncome for thfs
housfng ..
There 1s a continuing substantial need for affordable rental housing 1n Palo
Alto. However~ reyenues from market-rate rental units, ~ven with low land
co!;ts, tend not tc cover the costs of constructing and f1nanc1ng new rental
6/11/84
-26-
housing uniess such costs are reduced through subsidies or significant
innovations in financ1ng developments.
In order for the City to 1TBke progress 1n providing affordable housing. a wide
array uf programs and activities 111.lst be pursued.
Policy 5: Increase affordable housing supply through better use of ex1stfng
housing.
Better use of existing housing in Palo Alto provides perhaps the best opportun-
1 ty to increase the supply of &ffordable housing. A variety of creative
programs have recently evolved wh1 ch increase the number of available 1i ving
spaces. Shared housing programs t1th1ch m tch home providers wf th home seekers
are currently offered in Palo Alto.
Other creative methods of better using of the existing supply should be invest-
1 gated. Thfs might f nclude changf ng the rules limiting second k f tcnens.
thereby allowing some large hones to be occupied by more than one family.
Program 7: Continue support for Shared Housing Programs.
Program Responsfbi11ty: Plann·fng Dfvfsfon and Social and Coltll1llnity
Servf t:es Department
Shared housing for seniors and single-pare"t household ~re current1y supoorted
through the Comn11nf ty Development Block Grant program. Approximately 50
matches are successfully 4rranged each year.
Rent& 1 Hou sf ng
Polfcy 6: Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental units
while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing.
Program B: Continue the adopted condominium conversion ordinance.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Most of the lower-cost housing 1n Palo Alto is rental housing. Between 1968
and 1974, nine apartllent projects containing 231 units were converted to condo-
miniums. threatening to reduce t~ rental hous1og supply substantially.
Conversfons fn Palo Alto had a displacement rate of 82 percent. according to a
6/11/84
-27-
---~---------------------------.
B74 s•~rvey. Most tenants were forced out because of hf gher costs, because the
monthly carrying cost of a condomfnfurr. is almost always Mgher than rent on a
comparable un1 t. A few tenants moved out because at that t1me they wou1 d
rather rent than own. A 1974 condomfnfum conversion ordf nance greatly reduced
the number of conversio~ applications until two large applications were
received and approved in 1980. Neither of these two projects, however, were
ultimately converted. The 1974 candomf nfum conversion ordinance was replaced
in 1981 by a new ordinance wh1 ch al lows an app11 cation for conversion to be
filed only ff there 1s a City-wide rental vacancy rate which exceeds three per-
cent, or regardless of the vacancy rate, 1f:
o One below-market-rate rental unit is provided for every two non-below-
market-rate uni ts to be coJJverted.
o The tenants of at least two-thirds of the rental units consent to the
convers1on.
There have been no condominium conversions since this ordinance became law.
Program 9: For any residential development in 1T1Jltiple-family zones which
causes the loss of rental housing units, subdivision approval
(1 ncluding condomi nfam maps) may be granted only if any one of the
foll0111ing four circumstances 1s met:
o The project will result in a sign1f1cant net gain to the City housing
supply (de ff ned as 100 percent l'fl>re unf ts than those previously ed stf ng
on the site) and 0:0111>lY with the City BMR program (broadened to include,
in this case, projects with less than 10 units); or
o The number of rental units to be provided by the project is at least equal
to the number of existing rental units (defined as all units past one fn
any project); or
o Not less than 20 percent of the unfts provided are BMR unfts (minimum one
BMR, no in-lieu fee); or
o Not less than 50 percent of the unfts shall be marketed to households of
middle incomes (proportionally d1strfbuted among households within the 120
to 150 percent of the County medf an income range) and sha 11 have deed
restrictions to assure continued affordability with resale.
Program Responsibility: Planning Divf sfon
This program establishes an acceptable tradeoff between the number and type of
new unf ts fn a condomfniurn subdivision and the 1oss of rental units. The first
condition provides only for redevelopment within existing zoning levels. The
intent of this condition 1s to discourage demoli tfon of rental uni ts where
there f s an fnsfgnfff eant net gain in units.
6/11/84
-28-
Affordable Ho1sfng
Policy 7: Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing
units affordable to low-, ftW.'.>derate-, and middle-income households,
especial~y those households with children. These units, for either
ownership or rental, should be dispersed throughout the City.
Program 10: Continue support for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 1n the
provi s'fon of low-. moderate-. and mi ddle-1 ncome housing, w1 th
primary emphasis on the low and IOOderate income sectors. Insure
that the housing provided, including middle income housing, rema.fn
affordable over time.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
The P.e.lo Alto Housing Corporation was established in 1969 to encqurage and
develop low-and moderate-income housing fn Palo Alto. It fs an fndepenctent,
non-profit organization whose board members serve without pay. In addition to
its development activities. the Corporation has provided consulting services on
housing to the City under contract since 1970. Administration costs of the
Corporation have been funded by the City's Co!m'tunfty Development Block Grant
Pro grain.
The Corporation has sought to use every means to produce housing at lower costs
without sacr1f1 cing qua11 ty. Construction and permanent financing at lowest
available interest rates. reduction of land costs through landbankfng or other
means, and development by experienced non-profit housing organizations can
combine to yield affordable housing.
Projects developed by the Corporation include Colorado Park. Webster Wood,
Birch Court, and the Terman Apartments scheduled for occupancy by early 1985.
The Corporation also owns tnd operates the Elm and Ferne Apartments.
Program 11: To make J!llltiple famfly housing attractive for families with
chi 1 dren, such housing should provide suitable open space areas
for children's play.
Program 12: In ~ousfng developmeilts of 10 er mre uni ts, not less than 10
percent of the units shou1d be provided at below-mrket rates to
low and 1110clerate f ncome famf lfes. For each BHR unf t prov1 ded, a
de ve 1 op er sha 11 be perm1 tted to bu i1 d one additi ona 1 market rate
unit up to a 1111xian11 unit increase over the allowable zoning of
15 percent, and consistent with all other zoning requirements.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division. Palo Alto Housing
Corpora tf on
6/11/84
-29-
The City of Palo Alto's SMR Program is intended to increase the housing supply
for fndfvf duals and families who have 1ow and moderate incomes. Since the
beg1nning of the program in 1974, 63 uni ts have been occupied, and another 45
have been commf tted ta the program. The prfmary objective 1s to obtain actual
housing units rather than equivalent cash. Occupancy of BMR units is deter-
111fned according to Cfty Counci 1-est.ablistied guidelines from those on a numbered
wafting 1ist mafntafn~d for the City by the Palo Alto Housing Corporatfon.
The initial selling price of BMR units is based on what would be affordable to
families whose incomes are no higheT than 120 percent of the median income
related to family size, as established from tfme to time by HUD for Santa Clara
County (BMR Income Guildelfnes).
Before acceptance of plans for re-vfew by Palo Alto City staff, a developer of a
complex of ten or mre residential units should agree to one or a cori>ination
of the following alternatives that are listed in order of priority. Provision
by the developer and acceptance by the City of the BMR arrangement will be part
of the application for development.
On-Site IMR Unfts
For each ten units developed. not less than one of such units sh~Jld be µro-
v1ded as a. BMR U!'tit withfl'l the development. The price for ~uch BMR units
should be established at the time of approval of the tentatf\e subdivision map
by the City. The price should be based on the estimated d'h ect construction
and financing cost of the BMR unit {excluding land cost. RP.:-:.eting cost. off-
site fmprovements and profit). but in any event should be consistent wfth the
prf ce ranges allO'lfed by the BMR Incone Guidelines fr effect at the time.
Fractions of required BMR units should be handled ~!' equivalent in-lieu pay-
ments.
For each BMR unit provided. a developer shall be permitted to build one addi-
tional market-rate unit. However. fn no event shall the total number of units
1 n a development be mre than 15 percent over the number otherw1 se a 11 owed by
zoning.
Off-Sf te BMR Units
Prov1 de on or before coll\)let1on of any development of ten or ioore uni ts not
less than one BMR unft elsewhere in the City for each nine units developed.
These units may be new or existing and 1M1st be approved by the City. taking
into consideration such fact~rs as size. location. amenities. and condition.
ln-Lfeu Pay11ents BaMd • Sales Prfce
The City will consider an in-Heu payment alternative to actual units only if
the developer substantiates that the df rect construction and financing costs of
6/11/84
-30-
the BMR uni ts (excluding land cost, mrketi ng cost, off-s1 te f mprovements and
9rofit} exceed the selling prices a~towed by the BMR Income Guf delfnes.
The fn-lfeu paym!nt fs to be 3 percent of the actual sales price of each unit
sold. The paymer.t will be n.de to the C~ty upon the sale of each un1t in the
subdf vis ion.
In-lieu payments for fractions of BHR units will be determined:
o Disregarding any bonus unfts.
o As 3 percent of sel 11 r.g prf ce of each of the un1 ts for whf ch no BMR unit
is provided.
If the developer retains any coq>1eted unf t as a rental, either for its own
account or through subsfdh.ry or affiliated organizations. the fn-lieu payment
for such unit should be negotiated between the developer and the City.
EqutY1lent Alternatt.es
The City may consider reasonab1y equivalent alterntaives to these gu1delines.
Sites larger tllan F1ve Acrei
Deve1opers who build on sites larger than ffve acres are expected to provide
more than 10 percent BMR units or to set aside land for assisted housing to be
built by others~ Approprfate BMR contributions fn such cases sha11 be fndivf d-
ually negotiated be~een the developer and the City.
Below-Market-Rate guf de1fnes for rental housing developments should be adopted.
The BMR program guidelines have been developed for sale housing. Gu11de1ines
should be developed for rental housing developments in the event that a ll'Brket
rate renta 1 project is prDposf:d.
Program 13: Encourage the development of Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Housing cooperatives are recef v1ng mre attention in this area as a practical
way to reduce housing costs. Cooperative housing is a form of home ownership
which is jointly owned by the people who live in the development. L1mited-
equfty cooperatives are generally targeted to low and mderate income persons.
A cap 1s placed on the allowable equity build-up of 1ndf vidu&t ownership which
insures continued affordability. City support fn the form of land acqufsft1on
and financing assistance should be considered for 11mited--equfty cooperative
noustng whose occupancy is primarily people of low to noderate income and fn
keepfng with other City policies_
6/11/84
-31-
Program 14: Provide zoning f1ex1b111ty to encourage the development of smal-
ler unfts affordable to low-and !!Dderate-income persons.
Program Responsibility: Planning Div1s1on
Many niltiple family 11nits now being built in Palo Alto are over l,200 square
feet in size, and are prf ced beyc.id the reach of low-and n:iderate-income
households. The private sector may be able to provide affordable units if high
land costs could be spread over more units and the construction costs lowered
by reducing the size of the units.
In order to encourage smaller. affordable housin:J in 1M1ltiple famfly, commer-
cial. and industrial areas, the City will consider planned co111t1Unity develop-
ments which lfmft building size to that established by the standard zoning of
the area but allow the number of unf ts to exceed the number norrna lly al lowed
under the zoning of the area. Jn return for receiving a greater number of
units• the developer shall provide a mecl'lanfsm to assure that the units gained
wf 11 be affordable to low-and 111>derate-income households. The site develop-
ment standards of the planned communf ty district sha11 adhere to those of the
zo"ing applied prior to the establishment of the planned cot1111.1nfty distrfct.
In con sf de ring such developments. the City st.al 1 assure that the number of
units allowed will be coq>atible with the surrounding land uses. that traffic
and public services will not be adversely i~acted,, and that the development
will not result in adverse off-site parking impacts.
Program 15: Study surplus sc~ool sites to determfne possfbf lf ty of 111>re
affordable housing.
Program Respoi1sfb1lf ty: Planning Division
A to~l of ten surplus school properties are currently being leased for a vari-
ety of interim uses. Each of these sites should be evaluated before rezoning
to determine ff affordable housing beyond the Below-Market-Rate requirement fs
approprf ate.
Program 16: Evaluate commercial and industrhl properties w1th the intention
of rezoning to housing where appropriate.
Program Responsfbf lity: Planning Division
Program 17: Consider new 111.11t1ple family zoning fn whfch the number of unfts
allowable fs a function of their affordabf 11ty.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
6/11/84
-32-
Zoning for affordability 1s a new concept that would -establish flexible zon1ng
density levels for specific s1tes. allowing a greater number of total housing
units, depending upon the number of lower cost units provided by a developer.
Program 18: Continue to require developers of emplcyment-generating co11111erc1~l
and industrial developments to contribute to the supply of low and
moderate income hous;ng.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Commercial and industrial developments generate added emp1Qyment fn Palo Alto,
thereby incre(t.sfng the demand for nx>re housing in Palo Alto. A certain per-
centage of these employees r.eedfng more housing will be low-and l'll'Jderate-
income families. Developers whQ contribute to the current jobs/housing fnt>alance and the concomitant incr,easing shortage of low-arwd rooderate-incorre
housing should be required to assist the City in solving the hous1ng problem.
One way Palo Alto has obtafned ioore housing for low-and moderate-income
families has been to require. th~ough the Ca11fornia Environmental Quality Act.
large eqlloyment-generati ng developments to contribute funds to City programs
set up to construct or acquire housing for low-and moderate-income fam11f es.
Thh program should be continued pursuant to an ordinance that specifically
S'!ts out the housing contributions required of commercial and industrf al
developers.
Policy 8: Encourage and partfcfpate fn low-and moderate-1ncome housfng
programs financed by other levels of government.
Most city housing programs have aimed to 1111ke federal and state assistance pro-
grams mre effective here. In 1981, wf th the passage of the new State Housing
Element law. a new Nfair share• h~using need method was established. This law
provided guidelines for local Council of Governments to determine reg;onal
housing needs and applicable City and County shares of such needs. The Associ-
ation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) deterarined that Palo Alto's projected
1980-1990 need fs 2,441 addf tfonal housfng units, fncludfng 1,318 unf ts ~hf ch
w111 be affordable to low-and mderate-1nccre households. As required by the
new law. the housing need should be projected over a ff VQ-year period {19 per-
cent of the total units to very 1<*' fncone households, 15 percent to 1ow-
i nco11e households. 20 percent to moderate-income households).
IMCOME CATEOGRY
Very Low (0-501 of Median Income)
Other L~er (501-QOS)
Mo~rate (80S-120S)
Above Moderate
TOTAL UNITS
1985-1990 FIVE YEAR HOUSING NEEDS
232
183
244
562
1.221
6/11/84
-33-
It fs unlikely that Pa.lo Alto can provide that many units for lower-income
households because of limited federal resources and lack of land. But the City
will use public and private resources to nake a good-fafth effort to provide as
many un1ts as it can in meeting its required need. A housing action plan set-
ting forth the City 1s ffve-year goal for housing assistance is found at the end
of the housing element.
Program 19: Contf nue the Land Bank Program.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
The Land Bank Program provides for City purchase of sites primarily for resale
to developers interested fn provf ding rental housing for lower income house-
holds. The ccnstruction of this housing is impossible without both a land bank
program to make the land available and federa 1 assistance to lower housing
costs. Since 1976. funds for thfs program have come from ConrniJnity Development
Block Grants. Beiow-Market-Rate program in-lieu funds, environmental mitigation
payments. a~1d City capital improvement funds. The program has assfsted in the
development of Lytton Gardens Phases I g II. Webster Wood, The Sheridan~ Birch
Court, and the Terman Apartments.
Program 20: Reinstate the local ~ent supplement (Piggyback) program upon
availability of appropriate federal ho~sing programs.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Palo Alto's Piggyback program was created fn 1974 when it became apparent that
maxitlllm rents payable by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority under the
Sectf on 23 housing assistance program were too lm.i to make the Housing Author-
ity a real competitor for un1'ts fo Palo Alto's tight housing narket. Until the
Sectfor. 23 program was terminated by the federal government fn 1982, the City
provf ded subsidies to the Housing Authority to help lease up to 20 units
annua 1 ly.
Similar rental assistance programs are being considered by the federal govern-
ment which may need local rent supplements. The City should reinstate the
Pf ggyback program 1f a rental assistance program becomes available.
ProgTam 21: Support the Rental Housing Acquisition Program under which the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation acquires* rehabilitates if neces-
sary .. and operates existing rental housing pri mr11y ior low and
moderate f ncome persons.
Program Responsibility: Planning D1vf sfon/Pa1o Alto Housing
Corpora ti on
6/11/84
... 34-
The ~ousing Corporation's Rental Housing Acqu1sftfon Program helps provide and
preserve low-and nnderate-1 ncome rental housing 1n Palo Alto. The Housfng
Corporation operates City-wide to acquire, rehabf litate ~here necessary. man-
age~ and rer;t rr:sidential properties to provf de housing at the lowest possible
cgst whfle nafntafning a financially self supporting program.
Coll!llJnfty Development Block Grant funds have been used to acquire two proper ..
ties under this program, the 12-uni t Elm Apartments and the 16-unf t Ferne
Apartments.
Ffndfng satisfactory properties which can be affoi'"ded by the Housing Ccrpora-
tfan Ul'lder thfs program has been difficult. The City should investigate dif-
ferent financing mechanisms which nrlg~t reduce the cost to purchase properties.
One potential mechanism to be explored is the establishment of a non-profit
entity directly controlled by the City which could acquire properties througt-
prolllf ssory notes, the interest on which is tax-exempt. Sellers would be will-
f ng to reduce their prf ce because of the tax-exempt nature of the payments.
Management of the units would be by the Housing Corporation.
Program 22: Maintain the high priority for housing programs in the alloca-
tion of Colll!llir.f ty Development Block Grant Funds
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
The P11o Alto Colftlnfty Development Block Grant three-year plan (1982-85)
estabHshes a funding al location goal of at least 80 percent for housing
related actfvitfes, a level which has been exceeded in recent years. This high
level of support to housing should be naintained.
Policy 9: Encourage i"novat1ve housing ffnancing techniques to nake 11Dre
housing affordable.
lnnovathe ffnancing techniques have been developed that reduce the costs of
owning new and existing housing. An exa~le 1s Stanford University's cofnvest-
.ent (COIN) program that provides subsidized second lll)rtgages to the homebuyer.
This progra111 fs now being replaced by the .. Ten-Thirty Program", which allows a
hOflebuyer to defer part of a nonthly payment obligation for up to ten years on
a thf rty-year convent1ona1 loan. Star.ford wi 11 guarantee repayment of the
deferred interest obligation.
Another ex1111>1e f s equity sharing, in which a homebuyer and an investor form a
p1rtnershtp that share 1 n the downpay111ent, RK>nthly pay•nts. and the equity of
the property for a lhrf ted tine. The homebuyer saves on down payirent and
aonthly P11•nt costs and can obtain tax deductions and other advantages of
hat1t ownership.
6/11/84
-35-
•
Proqram 23: Use mrtgage revenue bonds to !"educe the cost of housing finance.
Program Responsfb1lfty: Pl1nnfn9 Divfston
The City should use funds from the$e bonds to provide lower interest, long-term
mortgage loans to buyers of below-market-rate housing for bufldfrtg or buying
federa1 ly or state assisted housing for low-and moderate-incnne households.
Palo Alto, as a participant fn the County of Santa Clara Mortgage Revenue Bond
Program, has received bond ffnancfng for buyers of 83 new owner-occupied homes
1n Palo Alto11 and for construction and permanent financing of the 92-unft
Terllliln Apartments.
Policy 10: Increase fanding sources used to provide affordable housfng.
Program 24: Oe-ve lop ways to obta 1n greater contri butfons frcm corNnercfo 1 and
industrial developers.
Program Responsibflfty: Planning Division
Program 25: Develop local revenue sources to address funding for affordal>le
housing.
Program Responsfbf lfty: Planning Division
The development of affordable housing has relied predominantly fn the past on
federal funding sources. For th~ rnost part, these sources are no longer avail-
able. Cf ties 1111st look to new and df verse sources of funds fn order to con-
tinue the production of affordable housing.
Policy 11: Support the m1xfng of resfdentfal uses fn commercial and industrial
areas.
Mixing residential uses in commercial areas offers promise of increasing the
housing supply. Residences can be built over store$ and offices. and in Palo
Alto's attractive industrial areas. This could aho reduce conwnute costs and
help employers re1:ruf t employees to the area with imre affordable housing. The
housing would also i~rove the urban design quality of the city's cormiercfal
dfstr'icts by adding nrfety and pedestrian activity to shopping streets. These
gaf ns would be mde at the cost of some additional trafff c congestion. Since
1980, seweral large mhed use projects have been built in Palo A1to. A 117
unit condo1R1nfum and 40,000 squ~re foot connercfal complex f s currently being
developed in the California Avenue Shopping area.
6/11/84
-36-
Program 26: Evaluate existing incentives for encouraging residential use on
land zoned for commercial and industrial use to determine ~hether
i ncentfves implemented to date are effect he and should be llllf n-
tai ned. and determ1 ne wtJat new f ncentf ves should be provided.
Evaluate any dhincentfves which discourage resi dentiai use on
lar.d zoned for connercial and industrial use. and ff necessary,
eliminate or mitigate suth dis1ncent1ves.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Program 27: Continue to consider development of residential units on air space
over selected public and private parking lots.
Program Responsfbf lity: Planning D~visfon/Real Estate
Some assessment distr1ct and private off-street par~ing lots can be put to nK>re
effective use by allowing and encouraging housing over the parking areas. The
City has developed procedures for considering air rights projects for assess-
ment dfatrict lots. One .application for forty residential units and parking
has been appr-oved. The City will evaluate this project to determine how
successful the afr rights concept f s fn application.
Program 28: ijork with local employers to encourage the development of housing
for persons working fn Palo Alto.
Program Responsibility: Planning Division
Primary objectives for new housing are that low-, moderate-. and m1ddle-1ncome
househQlds can afford it, and that it be occupied by people e~loyed in Palo
Alto. It would be very difficult for the City to require that prhate housfng
be occupied by individuals who to1ork here. However, the City can encourage
local employers who partf cipat~ in the development of new housing to give first
priority to those who work nearby. Thfs occupancy pattern could help e~loyers
recruit. reduce travel costs for employees, and reduce com111Jte traffic.
Ope1 Chof ce
All of Palo Alto's efforts to provide a diversity of housing opportunities
would be neaningless 'ff that housing were not available in an atmosphere of
open and free choice for all.
Policy 12: Work towards the elimination of df scrfminatfon based on race.
re11 g1on. national origin, age, sex. mar1 tal status. or physi ca 1
handicap. and oth~r barriers that prevent choice in housing.
6/11/84
-37·
Programs to accornpli sh this polf cy are:
Pro~ram 29: Seek better state and federal enforcement of fair housing laws.
Program Responsibility: City Attorney's Office
Program 30: Continue to contract with such groups as Mi d-pen1 nsula Citizens
for Fair Housfng to provide fair housing servf ces.
Program 31:
Program Responsibilfty: Planning Divfsfon/Department of Social
and Community Services
Continue the City-supported Rental Housing Mediation Task Force, a
program of the Human Relations Conrnission, to prevent or remedy
conditions which lead to problems between landlords and tenants.
Program Respons1b1lfty: Plannfng Division/Department of Social
and Comlflun1 ty Ser·:i ces
Program 32: Contfnue the efforts of the Human Relations Commission to combat
dhcrim~nat'fon in rental housing.
Program Responsibf 1i ty: Department of Social and Colll!IJni ty
Services
Program 33: Work to effecf tvely carry out the intent of the adopted age
discrimination ordfnancce.
Program Responsfbilfty: Cfty Attorney 1s Office
Energy ProY1sfons
California's new housing element law requires that opportu111t1es for energy
conservation in resf dential development be analyzed as part of the housing
element.
Policy 13: Continue efforts whf ch re-duce the cost of housing by promoting
energy efficiency and conservation for new and ex1st1ng housing.
By owning and operating fts own utilities system, the City fs corr.mf tted to
offering its residents a high quality of utilities services at the lowest
6/11/84
-38-
possible cost. The Uti11ties System atteq>ts to fnvest fn a mf x of new energy
supply pro~cts, operating efficiencies, and custoirer-or~ented conservation and
solar services which together will enable local residents to lll!et their energy
needs at a lower cost than fn neighboring communities.
Current residential utilities rates are approxfmately SO percent lower than
neighboring c1t1es for electricity. 20 percent lower for water, 30 percent for
sewer, and equal for gas~
Program 34: Contf nue staff support and techni ca 1 assfstance in energy conser-
vation to architects and developers.
Program Responsibility: Utilities. Resource Planning Dfv1sion
Conservation and Solar staff of the City's own utilities system (electricity,
gas. water:. sewer utilities) have an active role in design review for all new
construction, excluding individual single·fami ly horr.es. Through this design
review process, the staff assess the building structure and systems fn terms of
energy efficiency. Certain measures are required of all projects (solar water
heating/heat recoY~ry. solar p1umbfng and storage provisions fn certain build-
ings, solar pool heating, and window shading on air conditioned buildings) fn
Palo Alto. Beyond these requirements. staff works on a voluntary basis with
architects. developers, and buf lders to review bu1 ld1 ng plans and suggest
addf tfona1 opportu!'!fties to fr.corporate energy efficiency features in project
plans.
Individual sfngle-famf ly home new construction fs not required to go through
the City's design n~iew process outlined above. However. conservation and
solar staff are available to assfst property owners, architects and builders to
evaluate building plans and make reco111nendatfons fo:-1;r.p;ov1ng energy
efficiency. These services include: orientation of a building on its lot for
inaxf111.1m passive solar utilization; advice on glazing and thermal mass
requirements for passive heating/cooling; and review of furnace size
requirements, and optional heating system!.
Program 35: Continue City conservation, solar, weatherfzation services and
loans.
PTogram Responsfbf lfty: Resource Planning Divfsfon
The Uti 11 ties Conservation 1nd Solar programs offer extensive assistance and
services aimed a.t reducing the costs of ut111tfes. Among the services provided
are; on-sf te energy audf ts of s1 ngle-fami ly and iwl tf ple-famfly dwe1 lings;
installation services 1nc1uding tontractor-1nsta1lat1on and a local youth-
program service 1nsta11fng low-cost conservation products; and law interest
loans by the utility to residents desiring a loan payment plan to avoid a one-
time cash outlay for conservation/solar products.
6/11/84
-39-
-----~------------------------------------------
Two programs are specially oriented toward lower-income households:
o The •cttallenge M1cnaeP program places an interactfve micro-computer fn
public locations (e.g., banks, senior centers, retail stores) to reach
specifica11y l«*er-income senfcrs and single-parents who might not other-
wfSe knew about Pa lo A 1 to' s conserva tfon servf ces. at1d/or how lllicn lll>ney
can be saved wf th home energy conservation.
o The R.l.C.H. program (Rebate for Investment in Conser~ation for the Home)
f s operated under a pflot federal/state grant to target low income house-
holds -and seniors fn particular. This program allows households at or
below 80 percent of median inca112 to pay only 50 percent of the costs for
home weather1zation fmprcvements.
The City Council has established a comn1.1nity goal of 3.ooo solar installations
by 1986. A comprehensive program of services ar.d activities has been developed
to achf eve this:
o Technic!l assistance, both on-site and in-office .. to assist residents to
determine their potential to use solar energy techniques, and to design or
select the property for solar energy use.
o A wf de array of solar fnformatfon materials from educational handbooks and
fact sheets to contractor lists~ sizing guidelines, and installation
specf fi cations.
o Evening and weekend workshops for residents to learn about solar, tour
existing solar app11catfons. and l!leet with solar contractors.
I) City-assisted group 11eetings where residents collectively choose systems
and negotiate discount prices ~1th participating solar contractors, resul-
ting in 10-20 percent reductions in the pr1ce of solar systems.
o LDW interest loans (cur~ently 10 percent interest, with a variety of maxi-
mum loan amounts and repayment periods) to assist residents who want to
purchase a solar system, but either lack the cash or cannot take advantage
of conventional ffna"cfng terms. The utfltfes loan attempts to achieve a
•break-even" cash flow between utf11ty bf 11 savings and solar loan pay-
ments, whf ch a~erage $20-$24 per month.
o Electricity utility bill discount of 10 percent to residents w1th qualify-
ing solar systems.
The Desired Resalt
The policies and programs set out in the preceed1ng pages are the framework of
Palo Alto's housing program. Together these policies and programs will help
Palo Alto to continue to provide a high-quality residentia1 environment for the
diversity of people who make up the Palo Alto comnMJnf ty.
6/11/84
-40-
lousf Rg Actf on Plan
The 198C-1990 housing need projection for Palo Alto 1s 2.441 un1 ts, and 1.221
for the 1985-1990 fhe--year fn!plementat1on period. At this time there are
suff1 cf ent sf tes to accomn>date these uni ts, but not necessar1 ly at prices and
rents that neet affordab111 ty target income fig1Jres. (Nineteen percent very
low, lSS low, 20S moderate income households). Projecting accurately the number
and type of housing f s coq>licated because of the uncertainty of market forces
and the avaf labf lity of state and fede1~a1 resources. Over 2,650 new units are
projected for the 1980-1990 period. including approximately 2,000 units pro-
jected for 1985-19900 This forecast assumes a Stanford 'Hest/1100 Welch Road
development of 1290 units. From 1980 through 1983 there were 628 new housing
units added to the housing stock. including 563 multiple family units and 65
single family unit~. Accounting for demolitions, in this period there was a net
addition of 545 u~its to the housing stock.
Three tables are presented below, including a current land inventory, a housing
unit forecast for the 1984-2000 period, and a table providing the City goa1s for
hcus1ng assistance to low and mderate income households over the 1985 to 1990
period.
6/11/84
-41-
RESIDEITIAL DEVELOPMENT LAND IMVEMTOIY
(JAIUARY 1. lt84)
An inventory of land suitable for residential development. including vacant
sites a11d sites having a potential for redevelopment 1s a requirement under the
new housing element law. This should include sites not presently planned and
zoned for restdentfal use, but otherwise suitable for residential development.
Thfs table surveys najor parcels of vacant residentially zoned land and other
potential sites for residential development. Dwelling unit capacity 1s also
provided. Re<Jfdentially zoned parcels have an assumed housing yfeld equal to
the maximum al lowed by the zone, e;ccept for the Stanford West and 1100 Welch
Road sf t~s. which are calculated at less than the maxinx.1m allowed by the zoning.
The City currently has sufficient overall capacity in the utility system (water,
sewer, gas, and electricity) to acconrnodate new development. Indfvidual sites
may require upgrading of utility lines serving a specific site. T~ansportation
and street improvements may be required as part of project approval for some of
the sites.
ZON I twG/S ITE
Multiple Family Zoning
Stanford West
1100 Welch Road
San Antonio and Nita
Clemo Avenue
725 Loma Verde
Other Multiple Famf ly
Single Family and Duplex
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
Industrial Areas
Page Mf 11 Between
Hansen and Hanover
1050 Arastradero
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
ACRES
45.20
4.20
3.00
1.80
1.30
4.50
30.00
90.00
8.2
5.9
14.1
POTENTIAL DWELLING
(A::TUAL SUB-
DIVISION PROPOSAL
OR MAXIMUM TYPE
ALLOWED BY ZONING)
1,140
150
106
21
27
126
60
1,630
164
59
223
6/11/84
-42-
ACRES COMMITTED ESTIMATE
Surplus School Properties
De Anza (Rezoned for Housing) 5.2 19
Hoover (3.47 Acres Rezone~ 6.2 99
for Housing)
Ortega (Rezoned for Housing) 5.7 25
Oh lone 5.6 55
Cubberley 35.4 147
Green dell s.o 25
Terman (4.35 Rezoned for 20.9 92
Housingi
Garland 5.0 25
Crescent Park (Rezoned for 4.9 25
Hou sf ng)
Ross Road 4.9 21
Mayfield 4.2 84
TOTAL 103 182 435
Addi ti ona 1 housf ng unf ts can be expected through redt ve 1 op men t of ex'fstf ng
resf dentfal and connercf al areas. Current zoning would permit a nBxfmum of 738
addi tiona 1 uni ts through redevelopment of exf stf ng re sf dentf a 1 areas. This
development can be expected to take place over many years. Redevelopment of
conaercfal areas, such as the Urban Lane and Haxfmart sites, could yield over
650 units.
6{11/84
-43-
-------~-----------------
PALO ALTO IEW HOUSING UNIT FORECAST 1984-2000
(JANUARY 1. 1984)
1984 -1990 199G -2000 SINGLE Ruln.
FAMILY FAMILY
Vacant Residential 20 1,400
Vacant Industrial 80
Commercial and Industrial
Redeve l opmer.t 250
Residential Redevelopment 160
Surplus School Sites 50 170
TOTAL 70 2,060
~MLE
FAMILY
40
90
130
MULTI.
FA1'ULY
180
140
420
160
300
1,200
6/11/84
-44-
1985 -1990 IMPLEMENTATION GOALS
Increased housing opportunities for low-and lll)derate-f:".:ome househo'lds is a
major goal of the Housing Element. l111>lementatfon goals for programs which
attemp to increase and i~rove the housing suply for this population are
outlined below:
New Constr-uction
Program 3 -Cottage Un1 ts
Program 11 -Below Market
Rate Uni ts
Program 12 -Limited Eq.
Coop
Program 13 -Bonus Unit~
Program 18 -Co~lete Terinan Development
Program 18 -New Development
TOTAL
Ellisting
Program 6 -Housing lJl11rove-
ment loans Program
Program 7 6 Shared Housing
Matches
Program 19 -Sect1on 8 Existing
or Voucher Recipients
Program 20 -Rental Housing
Acquisition Program
TOTAL
VERY LOW
RENT OllJl
20
25
45
15
100 100
10
10 -
120 115
INCOME
LOW INCOME
RENT ORN
10
72
82
40
20
20
80
20
5
25 -
50
135
40
175
MODERATE
lNC~E RENT OWN
15
20 155
20
5
25 -
35 205
15 15
15 15
6/11/84
-45-
' .
,-J ~--..-·
.....
VI 0 3 3
POINT
SIZE
4 • l' • ~I • '),• : -•
6 Hg471 W9~9 A7o7:::, Ge-9'2
8
2J<biy GmnOc
10 Y5o5o E119g
7n34a K2b8t
12 D6tmh 9ss9d
Wcuzl L lcdg
14 6Y3sl Okjdg
FU TU RA
NEWS GOTHIC
14
K2b8t OkjdB
4ef8k Gmn c
12 Zlo6x Ge92
7n34a 6Y3sl
VQr8j A7o7q 10 Oelvf 2xbiy
9ss9d Llcdg 8 33q7n Elt9g
6
4 ·'•.:.
POINT
SIZE
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-2)
~ 12.s ~ 1.0 ~ mi
~~ Ill &::.;
i.;. Ui.
i.:. I 2.0 lllllJ.I Lo. ~ ....
t ... ::
111111.
25
111111.
4
11111 !.6
, I , .. ,
... · 1 · ... . . . . ' ' ..
h~ c
U..."J
z~
/, ~ g 0
1..1.J co -~ ~ L ~ '-" c 0 3 r-Via:ioN LL I Q'.) ::::> " L u. ...., t--t :r a:: .,:, <( x 0 ::> <( w "' >-~ z x LL.. <t co CD VI r--Vl '" ~ :l:: .,, ~ CD l/) ~ "' LU N <l. ,
<l. 3: :I: L~ zl >: :I: ~ => ~ .,.. 0 :::> a:i z ::,: w < I "' _J ~ c a:i ff O' Lil v 2: .....
~ ~ x > >C) u t-w
00 ON :r ~N .:T '° ---o-,.., -0 ;;.., Xa..l/1
01 :_ i-N •"': ~ ..:.c: ·-,...--... ;;; ~ ;., "' ~ ~ ~ ;....; -0:
'" )': ~ ~~ ..J
-" ~ -to c ..J --~ --...... :::. ::.:' ~ _._ ~ ~ .-. ..... ~ 5$ -,, -
T
-., :;::: 0... ~ -~ =-~ ,.... ·'"' N ~ ... ..... tr'.I rJ) " ..... ~ < ~ -= ·~ .......... pQ ·-•-J'1 ~ ...c
-..,,i r--..___.
I-~
PHO'FOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION
770 BASKET ROAD
+ • ,. 4
P.O. BOX 338
WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580
(716) 265-1600
' •• t
'
. . . . , . . . . .. . .. -. -. . . . .. .. . ~ . . . -. . -... -
,. • • • • ti. ...