Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 4699. .. .. .. • • RESOLUTION NO. 4699 ..., ,. .,. .. , ;.,_ " /~ I C r • ~ ·.. . " ' ~ ~ ' --• '· 'I' ,. ~ ' ..._. ~~ ~ ~ ·""-.,_ -':.-.. ~ ..... RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT REPORT, "PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING, 11 A PORTION OF THE JOINT CITIES- COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM OF THE PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY WHEREAS, a joint session of the PaJ.o Alto City Council, the Palo Alto Planning Commission, the Housing Advisory Committee, and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation was held on November 1, 1972 to hear the County's formal presentation of the draft PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING: and WHEREAS, consideration of said draft report by the Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County is scheduled for the Committee's meeting of January 25, 1973; and /• _, .' i. _ .. : ~-~ c • .. WHEREAS, comments from member cities have been solicited with regard to said report; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Planning Commission, the Housing Advisory Committee,_ and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation have each reviewed the said draft report and have submitted their comments to the City Council in the letters attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby gives its strong support to the concept of the general dispersal of federally-assisted housing throughout Santa Clara County and makes the following suggestions for improvements in and modifications to the draft report: 1. Although it is agreed and accepted that a significant need for assisted housing does exist, the methods and techniques used in calculating the need for new assisted units should be carefully reviewed. -l - • • 2. Some consideration should be given to alternatives to new construction, such as rehabilitation or direct subsidy. 3. Thought should be given to the disposition of the units that will be vacated by those who move into newly- provided assisted housing. 4. Data on the actual availability of vacant l.and in each community should be gathered for a "growth potential factor." This newly-developed criterion should then be given appropriat~ weight in the distribution formula for assisted housing. 5. In regard to the availability of vacant land, and in other respects as well, the report should be broadened to include unincorporated areas of the County. 6. Differentiation should be made between housing for the ., I o elderly and housing for families, because different needs are associated with the two groups. Differentiation should be made between housing needs for low income people and for those who qualify for the federally subsidized "235" and "236" programs. 8. Some consideration must be given to the overall position of Santa Clara County with respect to the Bay Area and Northern California in regard to the production and distribution of low/moderate income housing. SECI'ION 2. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto urges other ~ommunities in Santa Clara County to join Palo Alto in accepting responsibility for providing low/moderate income housing. SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto directs that this resolution and the accompanying reports from -2 - • • the Palo Alto Planning Commission, the Housing Advisory Committee, and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation be submitted to the Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County for consideration i•· review of the draft PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: January 22, 1973. AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, ~earson, Rosenbaum, Seman. NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ~,J·~ City Cle~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~ Attorney APPROVED: CRYMaii9ei APPROVED: ~ HIC / Dii'eCi'OfPfuning / -3 - . .. • ! a.an.a Jerome A. SDllt!t. S.• Clal'& Co•-&F Pl•••l•I Polley Coaunlttae 1ow. SeHlalStnel laa1e .. , CA ffllO .. ,. ' i J....-ry SI. l 97J .Attadtld tow ••...,..l lo tM Plew ... PollC., Commua.-tor ooulderatloa ~ 119 HYlew et the draft Pro .. ctl•• ~clhw• for AHldM a...a.a ie Palo Al .. c:aa, c-u•a .......... Mo. 4'99 ..... ....,...... "Jl9irtlt fna ... Pale Alie Piiie ... C.mma.n., .a ........ Ad9Mory C1...att•• ... U. Pale Al•.._ ... C.,.•tl•. '·,' Eacloeun .. _,' ,f • • 9 4 ~ G i January 18, 1973 TO THE CI'iY COUNCIL: The Planning Commission has reviewed the draf~ PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING, a portion of the Joint Cities-County Housing Element Program of the Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County, (referred to hereafter as "the report") as presented to the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and interested citizens at a joint session held November l, 1972. The Planning Commission wishes to take this opportunity to thank the Ad- visory Committee on Housing of the Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County and the staff of the Joint Cities-County Housing Element Program for their work in the formulation and presentation of the report. We found the document itself and the presentation both interesting and thought-provoking. More importantly, the Commission wishes to com•ey its strong endorsement of the concept of dispersal of federally-assisted housing throughout Santa Clara County. Both through support of this concept and actions in welcoming such housing to Palo Alto, we continue to accept our responsi- bility in this field. It is interesting to note that Palo Alto has led the County during the past two years by a wide margin in assisted housing authorized as a percentage of total residential units authorized. We earnestly urge other cities in the County to likewise accept their respon- sibilities. Only through the concerted efforts of all will the goal of "a decent home and a suitable living enviror.ment for every American fam- ily" become a reality. Within the overall cont.ext and as commentary on the re- port, we wish to make the following additional comments: 1. Aithough we realize that a signitlcant nead for assisted housing does exist, we are not persuaded that the 36,000 units set forth as the goal in the report are required. It would appear that several factors have not been given complete analysis. For example: a. No consideration is given to alternatives to new units such as rehabilitation and Section 23 leased units. b. It seems doubtful to us that the construction of new owner- occupied units will solve the problem of the estimated 11,200 hc;>meowners whose income is too low to sustain maintenance. A direct subsidy for maintenance of existing homes would seem a better solution. We would thus suggest a dj~ferent approach to deterndne the need for assisted owner-occupied units. • • Page Two c. In analyzing the need for new units, we would like to see a study of what will happei'l to the units vacated by those occupying the new assisted housing. d. Consideration should be given to the "need11 which would occur if it was assumed that 30% of gro is income was to be spent ,)l'\ hous- ing rather than 25%. We are i1formed that the 30% figure more closely approximates the experience in 235/236 assisted housing. 2. Responses to the need for additions to the housing stock must recog- nize overall population objectives of the County. We believe that the formulation of such population objectives should be a high priority item for the County. 3. Although we recognize that establishing the criteria for precisely pinpointing a city's ability to absorb assisted housing is a diffi- cult, if not impossible task, we believe that additional work is necessary on at least three criteria: a. b. c. Land availability must be taken into account. 'nle use of build- ing permits issued in 1970 and 1971 is not an acceptable substi- tute for determining this "growth potential" factor. The place of employment of those who would occupy the assisted housing and the means of transportation for them to reach such employment toust be considered. We assume that the "comparative school factor" will be revised t.c reflect the school financing law recently passed by the legiela".'.'.'. .-· ture and signed by tr.e Governor. j: The extent to which the criteria are used must also be studied in re- lation to implementation costs ~nd the desires of the consumers. It might be useful to formulate scme tests which atten1pt to determine wnether the chosen criteria acci;ally do provide a v·alid pattern for distribution. 4. The unincorporated area:B of the County should be included in the . study. ·· s. Differentiation sh&Uld be made between assisted housing fLr senior citizens· and assfifred family housing. We believe that there are &.i.g- nificant dif feI"~ces bet~een the two types that should be recognized if proper planning is to take place. We believe that additional work is necessary to determine the magnitude of the need for such housing in the County and the criteria for allocating to each coumnm.ity its fair share. However, in conclusion, the Planning Commission li.tr,esses its endoraeMnt of and commitsnent to the concept: of i • • Page Three dispersal of federally-assisted housing throughou~ Santa Clara County. We hope that the proposals we have made above will be given considera- tion in the final report to be presented co the Planning Policy Commit- tee. MG/bah . cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk. Director of Planning Housing Advisory Committee Palo Alto Housing Corporation - -ltespectfully submitted, PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSION . '. ,, • December 28, 1972 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California • • ~ ; .. -' Santa Clara Collll.ty Planning Policy C0111Dlittee'a PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING Members of the Council: The Rousing Advisory Committee is pleased to transmit to the Comicil the following comments on the draft PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING pursuant to the action taken at the November 1, 1972 joint session held on the subject at which time "It was agreed that the Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Committee, and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation will transmit any comments and recoun:nendations to the City Council by December 15, 1972." The Housing Advisory Committee strongly endorses the efforts of the Santa Clara County Planning Policy Coumittee to provide a rational basis for the dispersal of low and moderate income housing throughout the county. The committee's enthusias- tic approval of the concept of housing dispersal both within the cot.mty and within our own community overrides concerns expressed by ~~ committee members on specific methodological points. The Housing Advisory Committee bas itself grap- pled with the problems of ·.•vising a law/moderate income housing dispersal strat- egy for within Palo Alto and fully appreciates the difficulties inherent in such an undertaking. We feel that the County Planning Policy Committee hu done an admirable job in bu8hcing the interests of the different cnnummi ties in the county. The Housing Advisory Committee makes two suggestions with respect to the report on production objectives, howewtr. l'irat, the Committee suggests that vacant land data be used for the "Growth Potential Factor" as soon aa it becomea available. We have found the relative lack of vacant land in Palo Alto a severely constrain- ing factor in devising our plant1 for low and moderate income housing. Second, the Committee questiOD9 the wisdom of specifying the need for low 8nd moderate income housing in DWl!l!rical term. · lt 1e our experience that it is virtually impossible to come up with • widely acceptable "need" figure. and that categories of need can be explained fully enough to establish a greate~ housing need thaii current Federal programs are likely to meet under present ~w:uling practices. The argument over a specific need figure tends to divert attention from the more important consideration of the dispersal concept and strategy. - --· ... ·~ ' . \ ---•--• Page Two The Housing Advisory Committee hopes that the City Council will endorse PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING as a signal that Palo Alto is prepared to do its share in alleviating the low/moderate income housing shortage in the co~,ty. We feel such action may provide encouragement to other communities in the county to assume their share of responsibility as well. Respectfully submitted, HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ' ~~~:!'~~a.- Suzanne MacPhersan, Chairman ~&-~.., Martha Blair, Drafting Committee SM/MB:bab cc: Planning Commission Palo Alto Housing Corporation .. . • • , • PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION HONORABLE CIT! COU?~CIL City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, California '· O. IOX 11021. STATION '"A" PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94306 December 11, 1972 Subjects "PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR ASSIS'IED HOUSitc-< Members of the Council• As suggested in Mr. Knox's letter of October 18 to the Cou.?tcil, we are pleased to submit our comments on the Santa Clara County Planning Policy OOllllli ttee's August 1972 draft report, "Production Objectives for Assisted Housi~"• Ve moat assuredly support the PPC's efforts to promote countywide development of assisted housir.g. Extensive experience has demonstrct.ted. that concentration of low/mod.era.te income housing apart from the rest. of the COllJlunity will not work, whereas such housing ca.n be readily assimilated When reasonably dispersed. While we believe the preliminary methodology and analysis of this report can be improved upon, we feel strongly that any weaknesses or shortcolllings of this first report. should not be used. simply as delaying tactics in getting on with the essential purpose of the study. There 1s in our view an uxgent. need for seMible and equitable guidelines for the d:ist1:1but1on of assisted housing, not only throughout Santa Ch.ra. County, but throughout the entire Bay region as well.· Such guidelines ca.nnot by themselves prevent 1.mpa.ction or achieve opti.J:lal dispersal. of subsidized bousirg throughout the County, but they are an essential element in reaching that goal. Ve would like to see the studies continued, and particularly to include further work to cover the ·areas of shortcollli.ng and weakness we observed. in atw:Q-1.ng the dra.f't.report, which we outline briefly belows 1. 'lbe oaission of employment levels s.•:.d. the present and fr· lll'e location of Jobs as another criterion for production objectives. 2. Soae of the techniques or aethodologies used in tJie ca.lculations can be sharpened. 3. 1'be rec~.1zed absence of data on land avaUab~ity in urban service areu. 4. '1'he exclusion of 11uch of County land f.roJI the allocat1:m im:>eess, 1fbereaa such land ma.y in tiJBe be prime locations for housing. · s. The lack of recognition of the ~ diff'erencee in the needs of and criteria for assisted housing for the elderly coapa.red with those for ;younger faailie&. 6. 'l'be eaphasia on new assisted housir.& to the exclusion of rebabill ta.t1on potentials and. Of diapoei tion of vaca tee.\ un1 ta. . Mlft DEC 14 1972 ~, TO courc ___ ...._ __ _ OAT£ • ·' • ..... I Our more detailed eo111JDents on the PPC's draft report are given in the attachment, a.nd we would of course be glad to discuss any of these points with interested parties, Ve hope our general and specific comments will be helpfhl in the continuing effort that is deserved by this very important subject, and Ne shall be pleased to provide any further assistance you may desire, cc -Mr. Naphtali H. Knox Director of Planning Sincerely yours, PALO ALTO HOUSm:a CORPORATION , ~/?.~k~ Louis R. Goldsmith, President ., •• • • • PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION ".O. IOX 11021, STATION "A" PALO ALTO. CALIF. 94306 Decuber 11, 1972 C011D1ents on the Santa Clara County Planning Policy Co~ttee's August 1972 Draft Report "PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES FUR ASSIS'IED HOUSOO"• !JlplO)'!!lent Levels and Job Location Whereas t.'1e report does not consider the question of present employment levels throughout the County and the present and probable future location of jobs that attract low/moderate income fa.milies, as well as the existence or lack of public transit from low/moderate incoae housing sites to job nodes, we believe these factors are vi tally important. Ideally, everyone should live close to his or her place of employment. If housing for low/moderate incoae people is located preferentially at sites far away from employment centers, we will be adding to the present traffic congestion, detracting frOll the quality of our environment, and reducing disposable income by the costs of longer home-to-work trips. It would appear logical to include consideration of job locations as another factor in the allocation of low/moderate income housing aJIOf\S the co"Ulluni ties of the County. Eatima.tion of Low/Moderate Income Housing Needs The estiJlation of need for assisted housing in the County, discussed in the Introduction, Section D and Appendix A of the report, is fundamental to the determination of where such housing should be located. Generally speaking, all concerned seem. to agree that there is presently a need for v-ery large mabers of assisted housing units, so that precise figures a.re not required. before getting on With the production of subsidized. liousirg. More exact dB.ta can be developed as production progresses. '1'he report an&l.yzes "need• in terms of faally incoae and ability to pay, which is appropriate, but we suggest a number of aodif1cations 1n the line of argument and conclusions, as follo11a1 a. Use of 2.5% of 1ncoae for rent as a determinant of low/aoderate housing need.a may give excessively hi8h results. Vbile we realize that this percentage is a federal guideline, we do not believe it to be a valid ratio 1il practice. SOM of U& 1n our professional pursuits are working on studies of low/aoderate incOM housing and an using a range of 20 to JOi' of incOH in eati•ting need and eligibility. Others believe that JS' 1a a realistic figure, since tb1a 1s pr JSently ~ maxiaua allowed ht' HUD, and in Colorado Park, for example, the actual ratio runs vel.l &bove ~ on the average. 'l'heae percentages are baaed on ad.Justed groea income (&fter aJ.l.~ved deductions), and the...,fore the percentage of 8!?18 income spent for rent. would be s011ewhat lower. We are not sure whether the needs calculation in the report is based on adjueted. groee 1ncoae or total. 1.ncOlle, but the f1iures used and the percen~e of 1.ncOM pa.id tor rent can infiuence thi calculation qUi te s1gn1f1cantly. b. Section 2J5 and 2)6 houairg can take care of only the higher-level inc~ groups who qualifY for su'braidised hous1cg. 'lboae having lower incomes aust qUi!Llify under SOM other aaa1atan.ce prograa. The nwaber · ot Section 2J leased WU. ta 1a &l•J'S l1a1 ted b7 HUD fUnding, and the ... • • Sant& Clara County.Housing Authority has limitations on its authority to build or buy housing. Qualification for Rent Supplement/2)6 units has been found to be very difficult for most of those in the low income range (except for elderly) because of the other restricting eligibility requinments under this program. It would be helpful i:f the need data could be made available :for closer scrutiny to determine more precisely for what income levels the housing shortage is most acute a.nd what programs will enable such needs to be met. c. It 1a evident that there are many d1.ffer6nces in the needs of housing for the elderly compared with those for younger families. 'lbe types of housing developments, the preferred locations, the effects on school · J:oads, the rieeds for parking on-site, the effects on traffic and especially peak-hour tr~ff1c, the permissible densities, the size of individual units, and a host of other variables need to be examined aepa.ra tely for the elderly and. for others. The report does not dra.w an,y distinctions in this respect, yet this could be one of the most important contributions if suitable data are availalal.e for analysis. d. The figure of 36,000 housing units now needed in Santa Clara County is probably reasonable when allowing for overcrowded and substandard units. However, it is not at all clear to us why this need "will continue to increase as the County's population increases". Moreover, there is no particul.ar evidence for the assuaption that six subsidized housing uni ts should or must. be bull t for each twenty non-assisted units built in the County. While this ratio was tM basis of the housing goals in the National Housing Act of 1968, it could doubtless vary rather widely from place to place and from ti.Jle to time. The a1apl.est formula derivable froa that same congressi.:mal act is based on population. If the total population of the c1tit1s in Sa.nta Clara County was about 900,000 as against approximately 200,000,000 in the United States in 1968, then this ratio of o.0045 applied to the 6,000,000 subsidized housing unit goal for the decat'.e 1968-1978 would represent 27,000 subsidized. units over the ~riod. (By the same formula, Palo Al to• s share would be about 1, 800 subsidized uni ts.) •• In measuring the "need" :for subsidized housing, ~ re~.,.j;{. does not indicate what would become of the hous1~ presently occupied by those ~ a1ght move into new subsidized housing units. S\lrely some of the p1'98ent. housi~ is 1n poor condition and would be deJ10lished, but · perhaps a high percentage of 1 t could be retained in the hoU311'.g 1.nventozy. · In this SaJle context, the report does not de&l with the question of rehabilitation of the County's existing lov/aod.erate incoae housing stock, as it concentrates on new unita. Ve believe serious consider- ation should be given to inventorying the atatua of the existing low/ llOdaJ:ate incOlle housing supply. Proposed Distribution of Assisted. Housing Inasmuch as virtually all of the -.jor subsid)r pragraas and finano!.al appropriations are federal, we believe it would be helpful if the report could g:;..ve additional background to support the probable level of HUD funding of subsidized housing in the County. At least it would be instruc~ive to relate the over-all production objective levels for the County to the Bay Area or to. ltortbarn California. or to the Whole eta.te. In this manner the County"s goals· could be seen. to be reasonable aa a fair ahare contribution to the whole taak. .. ~ ' • • • J • Regardless of .. :1ether the anticipated annual level of' subsidized housing production in the County remains at about the 2,000 unit level of the pa.st two years or increases to the J,000-4,000 unit level, the main thrust of' the report is to develop a formula f'or the equitable distribution of that housing within the ei ties of the County. .\.s the report ind.lea. tes, there are many ways to approach this allocation probl~m, and it f'ollows that there is unlikely to be any ideal method that all will agree upon. Nevertheless, we submit that a few points need further consideration, as outlined belowa 1. The availability of land suitable for housing (whe"lther subsidized or not) - is a· critical problem for Palo Alto, and may be serious elsewhere as well. While the report states on page 13 that "a measure of land availability in urban service areas will be included in future revi.Sions of the production objectives .. , it may be that the conclusions now being set forth are unduly distorted for lack of this factor, and that the necessary analyses of land availability should be carried out rapidly so as to be included in the :fina.1 edition of the report before issuance. We a.lso question the exclusion of land areas and population outside present city boundaries, inasmuch as a significant proportion of the land suitable for future housing may not yi:tt be incorporated. We wonder if it would not be poss1.ble to assign all land within the County to the probable city jurisdictions (per LAFCO) and to re-calculate the_ distribution parameters and. resultant allocations accordingly. 2. In the report both the •tower Income Households Factor" and the "Minority Population Factor" are calculated for convenience by a siaple formula based on subtracting the ac:tual present number of such units 1n each city from double the number of such units that city would have if it contained the present countywide average. While this technique us•J.al.ly results in a positive (rather than negative) nuaerical answer, it may b9 pointed out that a different level of allocations for each factor would result if the calculations were based on say 1.25 or 1.5 tilles the countywide average rather than 2.0 times. These lower ratios would result in negative values in the areas now having the highest concentration of low income or ndnority fa.allies. But such negative values would indicate that steps to reduce the concent.rat.ions in those areas could be a bet.ter solution to the iapaction problem t..'lan siaply to build greater numbers of subsidized units elsewhere. Of course, if suitable aubsidized. housing 1a bull t in the areas now obvic:nmly laoki~ a f'a.1r share of such bousi?g, it is reasona.ble to asswne that people now living in areas of high concentration of low income or minority faJDilies will aove to the new bous~, tbus tending to redress the li&ld.1.stribution. ). Again, the question of spec1al housing for the elderly needs to be - eDllSned critically. It 1B quite possible that a different distri- bution throughout the County would be desirable for subsidized elderly housing than for subsidized. :f'aa1l.y housing. As imicated above, a different set of pa.rueters aight be appropriate for the d1&tr1but1on of elderly housing. 4. A general ccmaent concm::ns the equal weighting given to each of the chosen fac'torll 1n arrirtng at the final d18tn.but1on f'iaurea· For euaple, the land avail.ability factor, aay deaerve to be given more we1gbt than sou others.