Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-06-04 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Conference Room June 4, 2014 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 June 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Call to Order Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 1. Approval of Letter Regarding Santa Clara County Transportation Project Sales Tax Increase (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2014) 2. Council Direction to Staff on Potential Housing Site for Inclusion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and on Submittal of an Administrative Draft for the State's Initial Review (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2014) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. RHMC Draft Motions May 8, 2014 2 June 4, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information City of Palo Alto (ID # 4873) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Recommendation on Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax Draft Letter Title: Approval of Letter Regarding Santa Clara County Transportation Project Sales Tax Increase From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation The Policy & Services Committee recommends that Council review and approve the attached draft letter regarding the proposed Santa Clara County transportation tax. Background Over the past few years, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) has been exploring a transportation tax initiative to improve and expand existing transportation infrastructure in Santa Clara County. On April 24, 2014 the Silicon Valley Business Journal published an article titled Poll finds 73% would support new sales tax to fund transportation projects in Silicon Valley. In this article, SVLG President & CEO Carl Guardino referenced exceptionally high polling figures and stated that due to these high results the SVLG may accelerate its push for a Santa Clara County transportation tax initiative from a November 2016 election to a November 2014 election (which is less than six months away). Even more crucial is that little time would be available for City and public input into the design of a measure, given the deadline for submission of any ballot initiative is less than three months away. According to the article, “The Leadership Group tested both a hypothetical ballot question and more specific questions about particular types of transit improvements in order to capture voter sentiment.” The article went on to give a brief rundown of the findings: 73% of 600 likely Santa Clara County voters support the idea of a 30-year, quarter cent sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements to area City of Palo Alto Page 2 roads and some public rail services; 67% support phase two of a planned BART extension from San Jose's Berryessa district to downtown San Jose and the City of Santa Clara; 73% support increased Caltrain commuter rail service from Gilroy to Palo Alto; 87% support street maintenance and pothole repairs in Santa Clara county's 15 cities; 82% support easing congestion on all eight county expressways; 88% support improved safety for walking and biking near schools; and 86% support increased transit service for seniors and the disabled. At the May 19, 2014 Palo Alto City Council meeting Guardino presented to the Council on the proposed tax measure. During his presentation he estimated that a county-wide quarter cent sales tax increase would generate approximately $3.5 billion dollars over the 30 year life of the tax. Under his current proposal one-seventh of that $3.5 billion in revenue, or $500 million, would go towards Caltrain improvements with the remaining funds going towards other improvements such as roads, freeways, highways, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and other transportation improvements. The following evening, on May 20, 2014, the City’s Policy & Services Committee made recommendations for what the City should request in order for Palo Alto to support the proposed tax measure. The key recommendation, as identified in the attached draft letter (Attachment A), is that the proposed tax measure should be increased from a quarter cent to three-eighths cent with the additional one-eight cent going exclusively towards Caltrain modernization including grade separations. The Policy & Services Committee felt that under the three-eighths cent proposal the funding for BART and Caltrain would be much more equitable and balanced, recognizing both systems play a critical role in the public transportation ring around the Bay. Attached to support review of the draft letter is a copy of the City’s most recent Rail Committee Guiding Principles (Attachment B), a summary of the 2004 San Mateo County transportation tax measure (Attachment C), and a summary of the 2000 Valley Transportation Authority transportation tax measure (Attachment D). Council may also want to consider recommending an extension of the term of the sales tax increase from 30 to 35 years and/or sending the attached draft letter in conjunction with other Northern Santa Clara County cities that also depend heavily on Caltrain to meet transportation needs. Attachments: A - Draft SCC Transportation Sales Tax Initiative Letter_6-2-2014 (PDF) B - Rail Committee Guiding Principles_6-24-2013 (PDF) C - San Mateo County Measure A Transportation Tax_11-2-2004 (PDF) D - VTA Measure A Transportation Tax_11-7-2000 (PDF) June 2, 2014 DRAFT Mr. Carl Guardino President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, CA 95110 Re: City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the Proposed 2014 Santa Clara County Transportation Sales Tax Initiative Dear Mr. Guardino: Thank you very much for taking the time to come and speak to our City Council regarding the proposed 2014 Santa Clara County transportation sales tax initiative on Monday, May 19th. Your presentation provided us with the necessary information to begin forming a policy position on the issue. At our June 2nd Palo Alto City Council meeting, at the recommendation of our Policy & Services Committee, we voted to recommend that the proposed sales tax initiative be increased from a quarter cent to three-eighths cent for 30 thirty years with the entire additional one-eighth cent going towards Caltrain modernization including grade separations. We particularly want to stress the need for funding of grade separations. Without them increases to Caltrain capacity may be negatively offset by increased auto traffic delays at Caltrain grade crossings. Additionally, this increase would allow the $500 million currently allocated for Caltrain to go towards other county transportation needs. Caltrain is critically important to the overall success of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) by helping complete the regional public transportation ring around the Bay. Caltrain provides essential service to Silicon Valley, the economic heart of the Bay Area. Under the present quarter cent proposal a significantly higher percentage of funding would go to BART, rather than Caltrain. Under the three- eighths cent proposal the funding for BART and Caltrain would be much more equitable and balanced. The three-eighths proposal would fund Caltrain projects needed to enhance operations, service, capacity, and performance which would benefit all systems and users. The high costs of grade separations would not be covered by $500 million in funding over 30 years especially when factored in among other Caltrain needs. The City of Palo Alto also stresses the importance of outlining a clear process for project fund allocation while providing some flexibility within each category in case that is needed. The 2004 San Mateo County transportation tax (Measure A) provides a model for how such a tax could be structured. In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto feels that a three-eighths cent sales tax increase would provide the most benefit for Santa Clara County and the entire Bay Area, an objective I know we are all trying to achieve. Thank you for your time and effort and we look forward to your response. Sincerely, Nancy Shepherd Mayor, City of Palo Alto c: Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Manager Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Metropolitan Transportation Commission Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Valley Transportation Authority Peninsula City Mayors PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES Background (not shown in redline format, as Background section was completely revised) In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right-of-way and track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains, partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated. The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition 1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and environmental review of the HSR system. Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex, blended San Jose to San Francisco segment. Guiding Principles The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the actions of the Committee: The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following reasons: 1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated fares. The voters also required that HSR could operate without a subsidy and that funding sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment. 2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California. The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR, however, that have not yet been studied or decided. Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR: 1. The City supports a non-elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies. 4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR. 6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review Committee authorized by AB 3034. 7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision. HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA. 9. The CHSRA should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions. 10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts. 11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or improved levels of service. 12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. However, whether the City supports electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied and suitable mitigation measures are implemented. 13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain corridor. 14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium. 15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding sources. 16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1) exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2) reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently required by law. 17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for HSR operation in the corridor. 18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain ridership. Additionally, such revisions should be made at or prior to a ballot measure seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one occur. 19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails. Last updated: June 24, 2013 Previously updated: December 19, 2011 October 12, 2011 May 17, 2010 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 1/13 This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sm/ for current information. League of Women Voters of California Education Fund San Mateo County, CA November 2, 2004 Election Measure A Transportation Tax County of San Mateo 2/3 Approval Required 147,234 / 75.3% Yes votes ...... 48,227 / 24.7% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures Results as of Dec 15 1:37pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (522/522) Information shown below: Yes/No Meaning | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text Shall San Mateo County Ordinance No. 04223, THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SAFE ROADS, TRAFFIC RELIEF AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEASURE be approved: To repair neighborhood streets; expand senior and paratransit services; improve Caltrain; construct bicycle/pedestrian paths; support existing BART service; assist water transport; reduce congestion; shall the Transportation Authority extend the current 1/2 cent sales/use tax for 25 years, implement the County Expenditure Plan and issue limited tax bonds not exceeding proceeds, with no increase in taxes, and with citizen participation and annual audits? Meaning of Voting Yes/No A YES vote of this measure means: A "yes" vote on this measure would continue the existing onehalf of one percent sales tax for an additional 25 years up to December 31, 2034. The proceeds of the tax shall be used for highway and transit improvements as set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. A NO vote of this measure means: A "no" vote on this measure would not allow the continuance of the existing one-half of one percent sales tax past December 31, 2008. Impartial Analysis News and Analysis San Mateo County Times Title of article: Future of County Transportation 09/04/04 Search Google News for Measure A Partisan Information in favor :http://www.YesOnMeasureA.com Suggest a link related to Measure A Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 2/13 Impartial Analysis In 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure known as "Measure A," which increased the local sales tax in San Mateo County by one-half of one percent with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan, that included a provision for the creation of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. "Measure A" provided that the additional sales tax would be imposed for a period not to exceed 20 years, ending December 31, 2008. This new measure proposes to continue the sales tax for an additional 25 years up to December 31, 2034. In order to continue the local sales tax, a new Transportation Expenditure Plan ("Plan") must be developed and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority has prepared a new Plan, a copy of which is in the sample ballot materials. This Plan provides for a program of transportation projects and includes implementation guidelines to meet current and future transportation needs. This Plan reflects input from the public, elected officials and technical committees. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, all the cities within the County and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have each approved the Plan. The Plan authorizes the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to issue bonds not to exceed the total amount of the sales tax proceeds. State law requires that the continuation of the one-half of one percent sales tax be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. The proceeds of the tax shall be used in accordance with applicable law and solely for the highway and transit improvement projects and purposes set forth in the Plan. A "yes" vote on this measure would continue the existing onehalf of one percent sales tax for an additional 25 years up to December 31, 2034. The proceeds of the tax shall be used for highway and transit improvements as set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. A "no" vote on this measure would not allow the continuance of the existing one-half of one percent sales tax past December 31, 2008. This measure passes if two-thirds of those voting on the measure vote "yes." Arguments For Measure A Arguments Against Measure A We urge your YES vote on Measure A. For 16 years, San Mateo County residents have supported local transportation and road improvements Measure A is an irresponsible and irrational tax. Its proponents claim that it is a reauthorization of the 1/2 cent sales tax approved by county voters in 1988, but the two have little in common. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 3/13 through a 1/2 cent sales tax. Those funds have been used in every city and community for traffic relief, to fix local streets, improve highways, provide paratransit service for seniors and disabled, and support shuttles and Caltrain. Measure A renews this 1/2 cent measure. It will NOT increase taxes. A YES vote on Measure A will raise $1.5 billion to fund pothole repairs in your community, improve Caltrain, maintain existing BART service, relieve traffic congestion on highways, streets and roads, improve transit services for seniors and disabled, and build new bicycle and pedestrian paths. Measure A funds will be leveraged to generate an additional $1.5 billion in state and federal dollars for transportation in San Mateo County. o This plan requires 22.5% of the funds, over $337 million, to be distributed to every city in San Mateo County for local streets and road work. o Transit improvements, including Caltrain and existing BART services, receive $420 million. o Highway improvements for traffic congestion relief on 101, 280, 92 and local roads receive $412 million. o Caltrain grade separations for pedestrian safety and traffic flow receive $225 million. o New pedestrian and bicycle paths receive $45 million. o Water Transit service to take cars off Highway 101 receives $30 million. Measure A requires the involvement of a Citizens Committee and annual public audits to ensure adherence to the voter approved Plan. Measure A has the support of every City Council, the Board of Supervisors, League of Women Voters, Committee for Green Foothills, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA), San Mateo Labor Council and hundreds of local Under the new tax, millions of dollars will be siphoned away from desperately needed projects to support a proposed ferry service for two county communities and to subsidize the San Mateo County BART extension. Compared to the few dollars required for every new bus passenger, the boutique ferries will serve a small number of commuters and cost in excess of $22 per person based on MTC projections. The BART subsidy included in the measure will cost taxpayers $30 million over the life of the tax to support a service that was never supposed to require additional funding. Since its opening in June 2003, the BART extension has consistently lost money and cost county taxpayers up to $30 million according to Samtrans. This irresponsible diversion of local tax dollars will not buy San Mateo County a seat on the elected BART board. Voluntarily submitting to taxation without representation, and thereby forfeiting control over local money, is simply irrational. Proponents of Measure A are squandering an opportunity to make wise investments in local transit with a poorly constructed tax plan. This new version will also extend five years beyond the original for a total of 25 years, locking county taxpayers into a bad deal far into the future and burdening the next generation with this reckless tax. Our investments should result in the largest increase in transit rider ship and the most congestion relief for the smallest cost. This irresponsible tax does not come close to meeting such a standard. Join environmental and taxpayer groups, transit advocates and community leaders in voting NO on MEASURE A. /s/ Matt Grocott August 10, 2004 Citizens for Better Transit, Chair /s/ Louis J. Papan August 10, 2004 Retired State of California Assemblyman 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 4/13 residents and business owners. Please join us to keep San Mateo County moving. Yes on Measure A. /s/ Onnolee Trapp August 9, 2004 Transportation Director, League of Women Voters of San Mateo County /s/ Michael D. Nevin August 10, 2004 Member, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors /s/ Lennie Roberts August 9, 2004 Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills /s/ Arthur D. Levinson August 12, 2004 Chairman and CEO, Genentech /s/ Deborah Wilder August 10, 2004 Chair, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Rebuttal to Arguments For Measure A will waste scarce taxpayer dollars by diverting funds to support new transit services while existing services continue to be cut. Proponents ignore the fact that the old tax funded only capital improvements to existing and proven transit systems. The new measure allocates $30 million taxpayer dollars to fund a BART extension that has lost money since it opened. In addition, $30 million will be diverted to support a new ferry service catering to the pharmaceutical companies in South San Francisco at a cost of $22 per new ferry passenger. Year after year, the county bus service has been reduced to pay for the expansion of low-use systems such as BART, isolating residents who live on the coast side, as well as county youngsters and students, senior citizens, and low income residents. San Mateo County taxpayers deserve well maintained highways, grade separations for Caltrain to improve pedestrian safety, and consistent investment in existing transit options that serve a range of needs. But this /s/ Chris Pallas August 9, 2004 Council Member, City of San Bruno /s/ Miles Gilster August 13, 2004 Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Central Committee /s/ Pam Rianda August 9, 2004 School Teacher Rebuttal to Arguments Against Measure A renews our funding source to fix roads, streets, potholes, highways, upgrade Caltrain, and provide shuttle service throughout all of San Mateo County. These funds are generated in this County and stay in this County for projects that have, and will, improve our transportation systems. Sacramento or Washington D.C. can't get their hands on these funds. Sixteen years ago, County residents approved this funding source. Unless Measure A is renewed, these critical voter approved funds will expire. Imagine the traffic nightmare without the $1 billion in traffic improvement projects made over the last 16 years! Imagine traffic in the future if Measure A is not renewed! Independent studies demonstrate that funded projects have relieved traffic congestion, reduced commute times, improved air quality and saved lives. But more needs to be done. Nearly a quarter of these funds will go directly to your community for road and street repairs. Highway projects, Caltrain, SAMTRANS shuttles, paratransit for seniors and disabled citizens, pedestrian and bike access, existing BART service, and water transit all receive an appropriate share. An extensive participation process involving the public and concerned groups helped craft the Plan embodied in Measure A. All 20 cities, including nearly 90% of our City Councilmembers in San Mateo County, approved this Plan. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 5/13 new, 25-year, tax will support a fragmented transit system and fund boutique, costly service for corporate interests. It is imperative that scarce transit tax dollars benefit the greatest number of San Mateo County residents by funding economically sound transit improvements and programs. This new irresponsible tax serves the fewest residents for the greatest cost. Measure A is opposed by transit advocates, local civic leaders, environmentalists, and political organizations. Join responsible taxpayers and transit advocates in voting no on Measure A. /s/ Matt Grocott August 23, 2004 Chair, Citizens for Better Transit /s/ Lou Papan August 23, 2004 Retired State of California Assemblyman /s/ Chris Pallas August 23, 2004 Council Member, City of San Bruno /s/ Miles Gilster August 23, 2004 Libertarian Party of San Mateo County Central Committee /s/ Pam Rianda August 23, 2004 School Teacher Annual public audits are required. Please join business groups, environmental organizations, labor representatives, large and small employers, County elected officials from Congress to School Board members and traffic experts in voting to renew this crucial funding. Yes on Measure A. /s/ Carole Groom Mayor, City of San Mateo /s/ Jerry Hill August 10, 2004 San Mateo County Supervisor /s/ James R. Pouliot August 19, 2004 CEO, California State Automobile Association (AAA) /s/ Dale Edwards August 19, 2004 San Mateo County Paratransit Coordinating Council Chair /s/ Mark Church August 19, 2004 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Chair Full Text of Measure A AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX, THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX BONDS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, ORDAINS as follows: 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 6/13 Article 1. General SECTION 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the "2004 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Ordinance." Such Authority shall be referred to as "Authority." This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Mateo, which shall be referred to herein as "County". SECTION 2. Purpose. Pursuant to Division 12.5 of the Public Utilities Code, San Mateo County Ordinance No. 03135, passed in 1988 and subsequently approved by the voters, created the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, imposed a one-half of one percent transactions and use tax for a period of twenty years, and authorized issuance of limited tax bonds to finance the transportation improvements set forth in the Transportation Expenditure Plan, and will expire at the end of 2008. This ordinance, if approved, would continue the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, authorize the Authority to extend the one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax for an additional 25 years and authorize the Authority to issue limited tax bonds to finance the transportation improvements set forth in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors and all of the Cities in the County. Hence, this ordinance is hereby adopted and should be interpreted so as to achieve the purposes set forth herein: a. to continue the San Mateo County Transportation Authority; b. to extend the one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax for 25 years upon the expiration of the tax pursuant to Ordinance No. 03135, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Revenue and Taxation Code section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Public Utilities Code section 131100 et seq., which directs the County Board of Supervisors to adopt this tax ordinance for voter approval, exercising the taxing power granted to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority in Public Utilities Code Section 131102 on behalf of said Authority; c. to adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation code; d. to adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes; e. to authorize administration of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance in a manner that will, to the degree possible, be consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance; f. to improve, construct, maintain, and operate certain transportation projects and facilities contained in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County and all of the Cities in the County, which Plan is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, as that Plan may be amended from time to time pursuant to the Plan and applicable law; g. to set a maximum term of twenty-five (25) years during which time this tax shall be imposed pursuant to the 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 7/13 authority granted by section 131102(c) of the Public Utilities Code; and h. to authorize the Authority to issue limited tax bonds, from time to time, to finance transportation projects in the 2004 Plan, provided that the maximum bonded indebtedness will not exceed the total amount of proceeds of this retail transactions and use tax, estimated to be $1.5 Billion (2004 dollars). SECTION 3. Continuance of Authority. Upon voter approval of this Ordinance, the Authority will continue to serve as the administering agency of the tax; be composed of seven members as specified in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan; have all of the powers set forth in Division 12.5 (commencing with section 131000) of the Public Utilities Code; have all of the powers set forth in the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan; and have all the powers incidental or necessary to imposing and collecting the tax and administering the tax proceeds and the 2004 Plan. SECTION 4. Contract with State. Prior to the operative date of the tax, the Authority shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this retail transactions and use tax; provided, that if the Authority shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date of the tax, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date of the tax shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. SECTION 5. Transactions and Use Tax Rate of One-Half of One Percent. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of this County at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this County on and after January 1, 2009. This tax shall be imposed for a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years beginning January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2034. SECTION 6. Place of Sale. For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 7. Use Tax, Rate of One-Half of One Percent, and Term. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after January 1, 2009 for storage, use or other consumption in this County at the rate of one-half of one percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made. This tax shall be imposed for a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years beginning January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2034. SECTION 8. Adoption of Provisions of State Law. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 9. Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of the Authority shall be substituted therefore. The substitution, however, shall not 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 8/13 be made when the word "State" is used as part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California; when the result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against the Authority or any agency, officer or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this ordinance; in those sections, including but not necessarily limited to, sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remains subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or; Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of that code; and in sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The name of the "County" shall be substituted for the word "state" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this state" in section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in section 6203. SECTION 10. Permit Not Required. If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this ordinance. SECTION 11. Exemptions, Exclusions and Credits. a. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any stateadministered transactions or use tax. b. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax gross receipts derived from: (1) Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government; (2) Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the County shall be satisfied; (i) with respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his principal place of residence; (ii) with respect to commercial vehicles by registration to a place of business out-of-county, and a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address; (3) Sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance; and 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 9/13 (4) A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), above, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract of lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. c. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property: (1) The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance; (2) Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; (3) if the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance; and (4) If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. (5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), above, storage, use or other consumption, or possession, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time during which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. (6) Except as provided in subparagraph (7), retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary or person in the County under authority of the retailer. (7) "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the County. d. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions or 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 10/13 reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transaction tax pursuant to Chapter 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property, the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. SECTION 12. Proposition. There shall be proposed to the voters of San Mateo County the following proposition: Shall San Mateo County Ordinance No. 04223 THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SAFE ROADS, TRAFFIC RELIEF AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEASURE be approved: To repair neighborhood streets; expand senior and paratransit services; improve Caltrain; construct bicycle/pedestrian paths; support existing BART service; assist water transport; reduce congestion; shall the Transportation Authority extend the current 1/2 cent sales/use tax for 25 years, implement the County Expenditure Plan and issue limited tax bonds not exceeding proceeds, with no increase in taxes, and with citizen participation and annual audits? SECTION 13. Authorization and Limitation on Issuance of Bonds. The Authority is hereby authorized to issue limited tax bonds, from time to time, pursuant to the provisions of Public Utilities Code Sections 131109 et seq. and the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan provided that the maximum bonded indebtedness will not exceed the total amount of proceeds of this retail transactions and use tax, estimated to be $1.5 Billion (2004 Dollars). SECTION 14. Use of Proceeds. The proceeds of the tax imposed by this ordinance shall be used in accordance with applicable law and solely for the projects and purposes set forth in the 2004 County Transportation Expenditure Plan, or as that Plan may be amended from time to time, and for the administration thereof. SECTION 15. Amendments. All amendments to Part I of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance shall automatically become a part of this ordinance; provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance. SECTION 16. Enjoining Collection Forbidden. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action, or proceeding in any court against the state or the Authority, or against any officer of the state or the Authority, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. SECTION 17. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 18. Operative Date; Period of Tax Imposition. This ordinance relates, in substantial part, to the levying and collecting of the Authority's retail transaction and use taxes and will become effective at the close of the polls on the day of election at which the Proposition in Section 12 is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the electors voting on the Proposition, except that the tax imposed under this ordinance, which extends the tax imposed under Ordinance 03135, will become operative on January 1, 2009 or upon the first day of the calendar quarter following the execution of a contract with the State Board of Equalization pursuant to Section 4 hereof, whichever last occurs. The maximum period during which the tax will be imposed is the twenty-five (25) year period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2034. ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2004 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 11/13 - Developed with extensive public input - Approved by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, each of the 20 cities within San Mateo County and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission SUMMARY Measure A: Effective and Essential The 1988 voter approval of Measure A, San Mateo County's half-cent transportation sales tax, adopted under provisions of the California Public Utilities Code commencing at Section 131000, has provided the County with a resource to meet its multi-faceted transportation challenges during the past 16 years. The measure also marked the development of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (hereafter referred to as the TA), the agency created to administer the sales-tax funds. Because the measure ends in 2008, its extension is at the heart of the County's ability to continue meeting its growing transportation needs. Growth in employment during the 1990s has increased traffic congestion along several highway segments in the County. Significant progress has been achieved in the County through investments in Caltrain and highway improvements; however, the task is not yet complete. As the economy rebounds and then continues to grow, we need to maintain our infrastructure to accommodate the accompanying traffic congestion in commute corridors and on local streets and roads. Continuing traffic growth also has underscored the importance of additional safety measures, particularly grade separations along the Caltrain rail line and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Local transit service, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities, has become increasingly important in communities throughout the County. The extension of Measure A will provide San Mateo County with the resources to continue shaping the transportation program to best meet the needs of County residents. In nearly 20 years since the drafting of the current Transportation Expenditure Plan, the County has seen the emergence of a new set of challenges, which must be met if the quality of life in the County is to be preserved. Developing the Next Transportation Expenditure Plan The Transportation Expenditure Plan for the extension of Measure A began with a blank sheet of paper and was assembled through a process which embraced the many and varied constituencies that make up San Mateo County. Beginning in the Spring of 2003, we embarked on a process that included melding technical evaluations with the feedback from the public and elected officials throughout the County. The TA provided an important forum for public input into the Transportation Expenditure Plan by sponsoring focus groups, three public workshops and hosting more than 30 outreach events to civic organizations, service groups and neighborhood associations. Through this public process, the TA gained perspectives of residents representing both the general public and groups with special needs. The opinions and suggestions heard at these public outreach events were evaluated by professional staff from the TA, cities and local agencies who worked together to recommend a program which addresses both current and anticipated congestion needs. While all projects were considered for the Transportation Expenditure Plan, not every project could be included because the total estimated cost of all the suggested projects was more than the current estimated income of an extended Measure A. The Transportation Expenditure Plan reflects programs and projects identified by cities and 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 12/13 local agencies plus additions from public workshops. When creating the Transportation Expenditure Plan, the TA focused on building a balanced plan, consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan, reflecting the wants and needs of the public combined with the recommendations of engineers and the support of elected officials. Plan Vision Through this multi-party process, a strategy has emerged. o Target key, congested corridors for highway and transit improvements o Continue to improve connections with regional transportation facilities o Enhance safety in all aspects of the transportation system. o Meet local mobility needs, especially those of seniors and people with disabilities o Meet the Cities' and County's unique local transportation needs o Leverage local, state and federal funds o Encourage transportation projects that support transit-oriented development These broad themes have been translated into a balanced plan which provides for the multi-faceted needs of San Mateo County. Specific programs and projects have emerged as components in a countywide strategy. Transportation Expenditure Plan Program Categories The Transportation Expenditure Plan provides for investment in six program categories. Each program category receives a percentage share of sales tax revenues, currently estimated at $1.5 billion (in 2004 dollars) over a 25- year period. Program Category Percent Share 25-Year Estimated Revenue 1. Transit 30 % $450 Million 2. Highways 27.5 % $412.5 Million 3. Local Streets/Transportation 22.5 % $337.5 Million 4. Grade Separations 15 % $225 Million 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle 3 % $ 45 Million 6. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1 % $ 15 Million Up to one percent of the revenues is allocated for TA staff salaries and benefits. Further detail on the specific program within each category is provided in the Transportation Expenditure Plan Summary and Project Description sections of this plan. 5/20/2014 Measure A: Transportation Tax - San Mateo County, CA http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/sm/meas/A/#analysis 13/13 Oversight and Administration The implementation of the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be the continuing responsibility of the current San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The TA is composed of seven elected officials representing the Cities in the County, the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Transit District. The TA will be responsible for developing and updating a strategic plan to guide allocation decisions. The TA will develop the initial strategic plan by December 31, 2008, and prepare and update it at least every five years during the term of the Measure. The Citizens Advisory Committee established under the original Measure A will continue to advise the TA. The TA also will work closely and cooperatively with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) on the programming of grant funding for Transportation Expenditure Plan programs and projects. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION on the TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN, see pages 33-54 of the Combined Sample Ballot for San Mateo County. That document may be reached via the link http://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/nov2004/documents/SampleBallot_Combined_All.pdf. San Mateo Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback Created: December 15, 2004 13:37 PST Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/> Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund http://ca.lwv.org The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4758) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/2/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Housing Element Update Title: Council Direction to Staff on Potential Housing Site for Inclusion in the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and on Submittal of an Administrative Draft for the State's Initial Review From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion: Council direction to Staff to 1) include the following residentially-zoned sites in the Administrative Draft of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement and provide a buffer likely to be acceptable to HCD (23 existing units at the Colorado Park development, 32 residential second units (i.e. small accessory or “in- law units”), 146 additional units at Fry’s site, 340 Portage Ave., and 168 units at the CS zoned San Antonio sites; 2) to submit the Administrative Draft to HCD for preliminary review by end of June; and 3) to continue to identify more transit-rich housing sites in downtown and the California Avenue area after HCD certification as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and consider exchanging sites along San Antonio and sites along South El Camino that are outside of identified “pedestrian nodes” for the more transit-rich identified sites after the City has met the statutory deadline for housing element certification. Recommendation Receive a summary of the State’s requirement that the City update its housing element by January 31, 2015, and the discussions and recommendations of the Community Panel, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) regarding: Housing sites from the City’s existing Housing Element that can be carried forward to accommodate an estimated 1,819 units, The estimated 369 additional units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s RHNA and provide a buffer acceptable to the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), The ability to use 23 existing units to meet a portion of the City’s RHNA and to get credit for 32 second units likely to be constructed during the planning period, City of Palo Alto Page 2 Additional sites that are already zoned for multi-family housing that could be included within the Housing Element Update to accommodate 314 additional units, Consideration of existing sites that could be eliminated and replaced with additional sites as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update following HCD certification of the Housing Element; and To provide direction to staff regarding sites that should be included in the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element for HCD’s initial review at the end of June and to provide comments and direction regarding the partial Administrative Draft of the Housing Element that was transmitted to Council on May 22, 2014. Executive Summary The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy and planning document for housing and is one of the seven mandated elements in a Comprehensive Plan; it is the only element that requires approval by the State. Under State law, the City must prepare an updated Housing Element for the period 2015-2023 and receive approval (“certification”) from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by January 31, 2015. The City faces significant risks and penalties if it does not receive HCD’s certification by this date (although there is a 120-day contingency period). The most significant risk is the potential loss of local control over zoning and land use decisions in the event the City is sued and a court assumes jurisdiction until the Housing Element update is completed. Luckily, the City’s current Housing Element was approved on August 15, 2013, and much of the City’s Housing Element Update for the period 2015-2023 can be based on the current document. Specifically, many of the identified housing sites, goals, policies and programs can be “carried forward” in the update, although some revisions and adjustments are required to bring the document up-to-date. The Housing Element Update process has been under way since December 2013 and staff meets monthly with the City Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) to review progress and receive direction. Staff has also convened a community panel which is meeting monthly to provide input from a variety of perspectives, and has received input from the Planning and Transportation Commission. In late April, the City also held two Community Workshops to discuss housing affordability and the many challenges and potential solutions for housing in the City. Identifying potential sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA is the most challenging part of any housing element update, particularly when there is a State-imposed deadline that constrains the City’s ability to undertake a more lengthy exploration of alternatives. Staff, working with the RHMC, Community Panel, and PTC quantified the need for up to 369 net new units to meet City of Palo Alto Page 3 the City’s RHNA and provide an ample buffer.1 The RHMC, Community Panel, and PTC each considered a number of potential options using an online spreadsheet tool and maps. A summary of the Community Panel’s suggestions is included in the Discussion section below, and informed a robust discussion at the RHMC where a motion similar to the Recommended Motion above failed to receive majority support on May 8, 2014.2 The Recommended Motion utilizes existing, residentially-zoned sites, and thus would not require any rezoning or amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It addresses suggestions that residentially-zoned sites along San Antonio and South El Camino should be eliminated in favor of additional sites in Downtown and the California Avenue Area by directing staff (and potentially the Community Panel) to continue an investigation of potential alternative sites as part of the Comprehensive Plan process after Housing Element certification. Alternative sites that have been suggested include City-owned parking lots, the 27 University site, parcels that are smaller than 10,000 (which was the criterion used in the 2007-2014 Housing Element), and more. A partial administrative draft of the Housing Element Update was provided to the City Council, the PTC, and the Community Panel and made available to the public on May 22, 2014. (The partial draft does not include the to-be-completed chapter on housing sites, pending Council direction this evening.) The RHMC, Community Panel, and PTC will have the opportunity to review and comment on the Administrative Draft over the next few weeks. Staff is also seeking City Council comments and direction on the Administrative Draft. The work plan/schedule developed in conjunction the RHMC calls for a complete, revised Administrative Draft to be submitted to HCD for their initial review at the end of June. The workplan is included as Attachment B. Upon receipt of HCD’s comments, another revised version will be circulated for public review, recommendations by the Community Panel, PTC, and RHMC, and consideration by the Council. Given the tight timeline, staff would appreciate an indication whether the Council would like to schedule another session to review the Administrative Draft on June 9 or 16, 2014 or delegate that task to the RHMC. Background The City of Palo Alto is required to update its Housing Element on a regular basis per State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.). Housing elements identify the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of a community, including the homeless and persons with disabilities, and promote a variety of housing types, including multifamily rental units, transitional and other types of supportive housing. Housing elements 1 The RHMC has suggested that the City’s initial submittal to HCD could include a smaller buffer in the first draft submitted to HCD, and provide a larger buffer in the revised draft if HCD requests one. This would mean identifying sites for somewhat less than 369 units. 2 No alternative motion was discussed. The PTC is expected to make a recommendation to Council on May 28, 2014. City of Palo Alto Page 4 also define the policies and programs that a community will implement to achieve the goals and objectives it develops and adopts to address housing needs. The State deadline to update the Housing Element for the time period 2015-2023, is January 31, 2015. For this update cycle, the State legislature has enacted legislation that imposes a strict penalty if certification is not approved by the deadline (although there is a 120-day grace period). If the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD’s) certification is not received on time, jurisdictions must update their Housing Element every four years instead of on an eight year cycle. In addition, the City risks potential litigation if it does not update its housing element on time and a plaintiff could request the court to compel the City to comply with the housing element statutes, and to retain jurisdiction over City planning and permitting until the City comes into compliance. This potential loss of local control over zoning decisions is perhaps the most significant risk of noncompliance, however the City would also be ineligible for certain regional transportation funding programs. California State Housing Element law requires each city and county to provide sites for sufficient new housing to meet their fair share of the regional housing need. As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, the City has been assigned an allocation of 1,988 units. The allocation is broken down by income categories as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 5 City of Palo Alto RHNA Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total 691 432 278 587 1,988 It is important to note that under State law, the City would receive a RHNA allocation and be required to identify sites to accommodate multifamily housing even if it withdrew from the Association of Bay Area Governments. However, Housing Element law only requires the City to provide residential zoning opportunities to accommodate its RHNA allocation. The law does not require the City to approve or construct housing, although there is a requirement that the City actively monitor housing production and implement programs to further housing objectives. In past housing cycles, the City has identified sufficient sites for its RHNA, but has never seen all of those units actually built. Discussion On August 15, 2013, the State Department of Housing and Community Development certified the City’s 2007-2014 Housing Element (HE) as compliant with State housing element law. Soon after, staff began discussing the HE Update with the RHMC, and issued an RFP for Housing Element consultants. MIG Inc. was chosen as the consultant and has prepared a first (partial) Administrative Draft document which includes every chapter except for the one about housing sites, which will be prepared following this evening’s meeting. Because the current HE was certified relatively late in that cycle, much of the current HE was used in the administrative draft. However, there were some areas of the current HE that required revisions. The majority of the revisions include updates to much of the data using more recent sources. Chapter 1, Chapter 2 (Housing Needs Assessment) and Chapter 4 (Housing Constraints) required the most updates. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) compiled a Housing Database with all the data required for all jurisdictions within its region. HCD has approved the ABAG methodology; the updates used in the Administrative Draft are from the ABAG Housing Database. The main sources of the ABAG data come from the 2000 and 2010 Census, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 3-year and 5- year data files, the State Department of Finance and HUD homeless data. Chapter 3 (Housing Resources and Inventory) requires Council direction, and Chapter 5 (Past Accomplishments and New Housing Goals, Policies and Programs) would benefit from additional input from the Community Panel, RHMC, PTC following site selection. 1. Identifying new housing sites to replace previously developed sites The City’s 2014-2022 or 5th cycle RHNA requirement is 1,988 units. (Please note that the RHNA cycle is from January 1, 2014 - October 31, 2022 and the Housing Element period is from January 31, 2015 – January 31, 2023). In addition, HCD routinely requires a surplus of units over the base requirement to insure that if identified sites are not developed with housing, the City of Palo Alto Page 6 jurisdiction is still able to meet its RHNA requirement. Staff anticipates that a surplus of about 200 units will be sufficient to secure HCD approval. Therefore, the City must include sufficient sites to accommodate a total housing unit need of approximately 2,188 units. (The RHMC discussed the potential for submitting an administrative draft to HCD with somewhat less than the 200 unit surplus, and suggested the City could then add more units if needed based on HCD comments.) Based on staff’s analysis, HCD will likely allow the City to “carry over” sites sufficient to accommodate 1,778 units from the previous 2007-2014 Housing Element. The 1,778 units represent 399 units in the planning/building pipeline and 1,379 dwelling units from the existing inventory of housing sites (i.e. sites that are still “available” for housing). A list of the existing sites are included as Attachment C. There are an additional 41 units that can be accommodated on sites that were not identified in the inventory, and therefore the City has a total of 1,819 units it can apply towards the 2,188 requirement. Thus, staff believes the City will need to identify additional sites for 369 units in its updated Housing Element. A summary is provided below. 2014-2022 RHNA Requirement 1,988 Required Surplus (Estimated) 200 Total Units Needed 2,188 2007-2014 HE Carry Over Sites (1,379) Units in Planning/Building Entitlement Process (399) Units not from previously identified sites (41) Subtotal of Carry Over Units (1,819) Total Units Needed on New Sites 369 Site Selection Criteria for Current Housing Element In 2010, for the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City Council provided the following criteria in identify housing sites: Sites should be located within one half mile radius of transit stations or within a quarter mile of El Camino Real if served by existing or future transit; • All sites should have mixed used potential, provide accessibility to services, neighbors, compatibility with existing neighborhoods, close to jobs and schools and accessible to transit; • A preference for smaller sized units for inventory sites and higher density development to minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities, including units for seniors, particularly for the two transit oriented areas (California Avenue and Downtown); City of Palo Alto Page 7 • Areas zoned for single-family or two-family uses should generally not be identified for new multi-family housing; • Do not allow rezoning of commercial sites to residential, but allow mixed use with no decrease of retail sites throughout the City, and • Authorized staff to evaluate the potential to allow limited exceptions for building heights in excess of 50 feet when proximate to fixed rail. Staff further refined Council direction to include additional criteria: Do not consider sites that have improvements that were constructed within the last 20 years; Consider sites with areas equal to or greater than 10,000 sq. ft. that could yield five units or more; Consider sites with an assessed valuation (A/V) ratios of less than 1.5, or with assessed value (A/V) ratios of greater than 1.5 that were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value (parcels under the same ownership for more than 10 years), with the assessed land value is far below current market land values. For example, if a property is assessed a land value of $1 million and the improvements on the property are assessed at $4.5 million, the A/V ratio would be 4.5. Therefore this means that since there are substantial improvements on the property, the owner is less likely to redevelop the property. In contrast, using the same property, if the assessed improvements were only valued at $1.25 million, the A/V ratio would be 1.25. The improvements on these lower A/V ratio parcels are much older and thus better candidates for redevelopment. Consider sites identified during a windshield survey of underdeveloped residential or commercial sites consisting of 1 or 2 story structures. Underdeveloped commercial sites were defined as Class B office space structures or older buildings with wood construction. The above criteria were chosen based on the types of sites that had been redeveloped with mixed use or residential projects within the past several years. With the above criteria, staff was able to identify sufficient sites to accommodate 1,680 units for the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Identifying New Housing Sites Since March 2014, both the RHMC and the Community Panel have been discussing new sites that could be identified to accommodate the 369 needed units. To assist the discussion, staff created a “Sites Inventory Tool,” which is an Excel spreadsheet containing seven possible categories or “tiers” of housing sites that could be selected to meet to accommodate the remaining 369 units. The tiers were selected based on the same criteria used to select sites in the current Housing Element. Based on RHMC and Community Panel input, the tool was modified to allow users to subtract and replace existing housing sites if needed, and to add their own “tier” (Tier 8) if desired. The Sites Inventory Tool can be found online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_2015_2023.asp City of Palo Alto Page 8 A summary of the tiers are provided below. A map of the tiers (with existing sites) is included as Attachment D. Tier 1 – 32 Residential Second Units: Over the eight year planning cycle, it is anticipated that 32 residential second units (i.e. “in law” or accessory dwelling units) will be approved. These units can be built “by right” in the R-1 zone on lots of a certain size. Because of the high rent levels in the City, these units would be categorized as moderate income or above moderate units. Tier 2 – 174 units – 340 Portage: Also known as the “Frys” site, this 12.47 acre parcel is zoned RM-30, which meets the State default density of 20 units per acre. Using the realistic capacity of 20 units per acre, this site could accommodate 249 units. 75 units have been applied in the previous cycle, leaving 174 units available to use for this RHNA cycle. (The Recommended Motion includes somewhat fewer units --- 146 units – based on discussions at the RHMC and the Council’s previously expressed concerns about densities on this site.) Tier 3 – 168 units - CS sites on San Antonio Ave: The 14 sites on San Antonio allows for mulitifamily residential development as part of a mixed use development. Exclusive residential development is not allowed. These sites do not include the CS zoned sites with an Automobile Dealership (AD) overlay, and based on a consensus of the RHMC, the Summerwinds nursery site was removed from this Tier and the number of units was adjusted from 195 to 168. Mixed use development are not allowed on parcels with the AD overlay. If included, these sites would require an analysis to demonstrate that this area is likely to redevelop to mixed use developments. Yields are calculated at 20 units per acre. Site Parcel Size Address Unit Yield Automotive Service 0.57 768,790,796A San Antonio Ave 11 Automotive Service 0.42 780 San Antonio Ave. 8 Automotive Service-Jiffy Lube 0.32 4201 Middlefield Rd. 6 Automotive Service, General Business Service 1.27 744 San Antonio Ave. 25 General Office 0.65 760 San Antonio Ave 13 General Business Service 0.65 748-750_San Antonio 13 Personal Service 0.43 808-810_San Antonio Ave 9 General Business Office 0.43 800-802 San Antonio Ave 9 Personal Service, Retail 0.43 792-796B San Antonio Ave 9 0.48 910 Charleston Rd 10 0.49 840 San Antonio Ave 10 0.44 824 San Antonio Ave 9 0.44 816-814_San Antonio Ave 9 General Business Service, 1.36 716-720 San Antonio Ave. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Light Industrial, Grocery Total 168 units Tier 4 – 60 units – California Avenue Surface Parking lots: Staff selected parking lots larger than 0.5 acre (three total sites) that produced a yield of 60 total units, using the realistic capacity of 20 units per acre. These sites were chosen because their proximity to the CalTrain station and could be included as part of the California Avenue Concept Plan. The sites are zoned Public Facility (PF) therefore a zone change would be required as multifamily uses are not allowed in the PF zone district. The three sites are: Site Parcel Size Address Unit Yield Lot C-6 1.22 acres 250 Sherman Ave. 25 Lot C-7 .93 acres 350 Sherman Ave. 19 Lot C-8 .79 acres 450 Sherman Ave. 16 Tier 5 – 37 units – University Avenue Surface Parking lots: As with the California Avenue parking lots, only those lots larger than 0.5 acres were included. Three sites were selected with a yield of 37 units. These sites would also require a zone change. Site Parcel Size Address Unit Yield Lot D .67 acres 375 Hamilton 13 Lot H .69 acres 530 Cowper St. 14 Lot O .52 acres 460 Emerson St. 10 Tier 6 – 68 units – Miscellaneous sites: Three sites are included under this category: Table 4: Tier 6 -- Miscellaneous Sites Site Parcel Size Address Zone Unit Yield YWCA 4.1 acres 4111 Alma R-1 22 Achieve School 1.9 acres 3860 Middlefield RM-30 39 Medical Office .48 acres 1515 El Camino Real RM-15 7 These have long term non-residential established uses on each site. However, because they are already zoned residential, if there was a change of ownership, these parcels could be developed for residential uses without a zone change. Tier 7 – 181 units – Increasing Yield on Inventory Sites: In calculating the yield for sites in the previous RHNA cycle, the realistic capacity of 20 units per acre was used on a majority of sites. However, many of the sites have zoning that allows for maximum densities higher than 20 du/acre. In using 20 du/acre, this represented approximately 67% of the overall zoning capacity of the those density. By increasing it to approximately 85% of zoning capacity in all zones, it could potentially generate an additional 358 units. However, a major issue is proving to HCD that the City has been approving projects at 85% of zoning capacity. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Additional Sites for Consideration Based on RHMC and Community Panel direction, additional sites were added for review. There has been some discussion about these sites but a recommendation has not been made. San Antonio Avenue sites with AD (Automobile Dealership) overlay - As part of the Tier 3 (San Antonio Ave.) sites, there were several parcels that included an AD overlay. An AD overlay does not allow for mixed used development. The following parcels have the AD overlay: Address Parcel size Realistic Capacity 762 San Antonio Ave. .93 acres 18 units 710 San Antonio Ave. .26 acres 5 units 4233 Middlefield Rd. .77 acres 15 units 4225 Middlefield Rd. .54 acres 10 units TOTAL 2.5 acres 48 units Therefore, by removing the AD overlay, another 48 units can be counted towards the RHNA requirement. Removal of the AD overlay requires a zone amendment. Arastradero Sites - At a RHMC meeting, a member of the public recommended several sites along Arastradero Road. The RHMC requested additional information and suggeested these sites could accommodate workforce housing. Located at 687-693 Arastradero Road, the proposal would require a rezone the four sites from R-1 (10,000) to RM-30. If rezoned, the sites would yield a maximum of 88 units. But using the realistic capacity of 20 du/acre, the yield would be 57 units. Below is a summary of the parcels: Address (Arastradero) Use Parcel size Max Density (RM- 30) Realistic Capacity (20 du/acre) 687 Parking lot 1.0 acres 30 20 689 Church .71 acres 21 14 691 Home .69 acres 21 13 693 2 Homes .51 acres 16 10 TOTAL 2.9 acres 88 Units 57 Units Since the sites are zoned R-1, the proposal would require going through the zone change process, which would be quite controversial given the location of the sites and magnitude of the change. The proposal is attached as Attachment B. 27 University Avenue - A number of Community Panel members suggested that this site be added to the list of housing sites. This site, at approximately 7 acres, has not been previously identified for housing and there have been no calculations of potential units that could be accomodated on the site. There are a number of challenges at this site, including: City of Palo Alto Page 11 The site would require a rezone from Public Facility (PF) to a zone district allowing housing development, There is a historical resource, the Hostess House (aka McArthur Park Restaurant), is located on the site, and The property is owned in Stanford University, and it’s unclear whether the university would support housing in any future development. Existing Units State law allows jurisdictions to meet up to 25% of their RHNA requirement using existing units. Under stringent rules, the law allows housing element credit for three types of programs: Conversion of existing market-rate apartments to affordable units: Preservation of existing affordable units at risk of loss: and Rehabilitation of existing units. Other requirements include: Commitment of financial assistance within the first two years of the planning period Existing rents must be higher than low or very low income rents Must include a program in the Housing Element Must have a 55 year deed restriction. If conversion, jurisdiction must agree to provide State relocation benefits. At the direction of the RHMC, staff contacted the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to see if they had any units that were able to meet the criteria. They were able to identify 23 units at the Colorado Park development. These 23 units will be applied towards the unmet need of 369 units. The units have been without a deed restriction since 2012 however they are still being rented out to low income households at low income rent levels. These units are voluntarily kept at low income rents. The Housing Corporation has requested financial assistance from the City for rehabilitation work in exchange for a 55 year deed restriction on the units. PAHC’s letter has been included as Attachment F. The PAHC request is scheduled to be heard by the Council on August 4. Community Panel Action In their review of sites, the Community Panel agreed that residential second units (Tier 1, 32 units) and the Fry’s site (Tier 2, 174 units) be included as housing sites in the Housing Element. They were not in agreement about the possible inclusion of Tiers 3-7 were appropriate as housing site although a majority of the panel agreed that sites along San Antonio warranted consideration, as did additional sites in Downtown, including parking lots, 27 University, and sites smaller than 10,000 square feet. A majority of the panel also agreed that sites along El Camino Real should be grouped within previously identified “nodes” of higher density, and not uniformly spread along the corridor. This suggestion would require eliminating some of the existing sites along El Camino, and finding new sites to accommodate more than 369 units. In an earlier Community Panel meeting, the Panel was presented with the sites criteria that the City of Palo Alto Page 12 Council provided in selecting housing sites in the current Housing Element. The Panel recommended including other criteria in selecting the additional sites. The additional criteria included: A high walkability score, as provided at www.walkscore.org; Housing sites near job centers (like the Stanford Research Park); Proximity to transit, and Minimal impacts on automobile traffic. The Community Panel will continue their discussion of sites and programs at their May 29 meeting and staff will report to the Council the results of the meeting. Regional Housing Mandate Committee Action At the RHMC’s May 8 meeting, there appeared to be agreement to use the 32 residential second units and to accept the 23 existing units at Colorado Park. But there was less agreement about which sites to designate to meet the remaining unmet need. Recognizing that the short update timeline, a motion was proposed to accept the 23 existing units at Colorado Park and designate Tiers 1, 2 and 3 with minor revisions to meet the unmet need of 369 units and to continue identifying more transit-rich housing sites after HCD certification as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process with the intention of possibly replacing the approved sites with the more recently identified sites at a later date. However, the motion did not pass. In lieu of a Committee recommendation regarding housing sites, the RHMC recommended that staff provide a recommendation to the full Council. As noted earlier, staff’s Recommended Motion is similar to the motion supported by a minority (two members) of the RHMC. Planning and Transportation Commission Action The PTC conducted a study session on May 14, 2014 about the HE revisions and potential sites. After a discussion of the potential housing sites, especially about the proposed San Antonio sites, the acting PTC chair introduced the failed RHMC motion in the form of a straw poll. There was PTC support for the proposed motion. Since it was a study session, no official action was taken however the PTC directed staff to come back to the PTC on May 28 with the proposed motion as an action. In addition, the PTC provided staff with other discussion items to include for the May 28 meeting. Staff will report to the Council on results of the meeting. 2. Revisions to goals, policies and programs based on achievement and effectiveness. Each Housing Element is required to provide a review of past accomplishments in light of the Element’s Goals, Policies and Programs. Based on our past accomplishments, staff has proposed to remove some programs, asthose programs have either been completed or are no longer applicable. The RHMC was presented the current Goal, Policies and Programs along with proposed programs to be removed. Below is a table of the proposed programs to be removed, the rational in removing the program and the RHMC response. The underline/strike-out indicates RHMC comment. (These changes were incorporated into the Administrative Draft City of Palo Alto Page 13 disseminated on May 22.) Program Reason for Removal RHMC Direction H1.1.3 Provide incentives to developers such as reduced fees and flexible development standards to encourage the preservation of existing rental cottages and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas. Very few sites to qualify Retain H2.1.6 Consider Encourage density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments consistent with the Residential Density Bonus Ordinance. Not adopted as part of Density Bonus ordinance Retain with proposed revision. H2.1.7 Amend the zoning code to develop a small residential unit overlay district to allow higher densities in areas designated Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD). PTOD overlay district already allows for 40 du/acre w bonus. Support recommendation for removal H2.1.10 Consider aAmending the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites, such as development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. Lot consolidation is occurring because of the market. Incentives not needed. Retain with proposed revision. H2.2.1 Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to promote more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that propose smaller units at a higher density, to encourage development of suitable housing sites currently planned and zoned for non-residential use with mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs. Adopted Support recommendation for removal 2.2.5 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the density of up to 20 units per acre on CN-zoned parcels included in the Housing Inventory Sites. Adopted Support recommendation for removal 2.2.6 Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning Lot consolidation Support City of Palo Alto Page 14 incentives that encourage development on and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. and redevelopment is occurring because of the market. Incentives not needed. recommendation for removal H2.2.7 Rezone property at 595 Maybell Avenue from the RM-15 and R-2 zone districts to the PC zone district to allow for development of 60 units of extremely low to low income senior affordable rental housing units and 15 market rate units. Adopted and rescinded by the voters Support recommendation for removal H2.2.8 To maintain adequate sites are available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City’s RHNA, on a project basis, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863, the City will monitor available residential capacity and evaluate development applications on Housing Inventory Sites in mixed use zoning districts. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower-income households, the City will identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall. With the proposed surplus of sites, staff will advocate for the removal of this program. Support recommendation for removal H3.1.10 Adopt a revised density bonus ordinance that allows up to a maximum zoning increase of 35 percent in density and grants up to three concessions or incentives. The density bonus ordinance will meet State standards for the provision of housing units for very low- and lower-income renters, seniors and moderate-income condominium buyers in compliance with Government Code Section 65915, et seq. Adopted Support recommendation for removal H3.3.8 Amend the Zoning Code to allow transitional and supportive housing by right in all multifamily zone districts Adopted Support recommendation for removal City of Palo Alto Page 15 which allow residential uses only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. H3.5.1 Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by right with appropriate performance standards to accommodate the City’s unmet need for unhoused residents within an overlay of the ROLM zone district located east of Highway 101. Adopted Support recommendation for removal The RHMC and the Community Panel will continue their discussions about programs in the upcoming months, and the RHMC has requested information about “workforce housing” to inform this discussion (see Attachment H). 3. Public outreach efforts The City has established the Community Panel consisting of housing stakeholders in the City. The Panel roster is included as Attachment G. The panel has been meeting monthly to provide recommendations to staff and the RHMC about site selection, programs and other items. The City also held two Housing Affordability workshops on April 28 and April 30 as part of the “Our Palo Alto” series of events. There were approximately 30 attendees at each workshop and they provided a number of comments about housing challenges and possible solutions. These comments will be integrated into the update in the form of Housing Needs (challenges) and programs (solutions). The April 30 workshop was video-recorded and is available for viewing. The full workshop can be found at this link: http://midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/April/PASM_043014.html A shortened version of the meeting will be posted on YouTube. Staff will notify the the Council when the video becomes available. The City is maintaining a website for the Housing Element update. The website contains information and schedules of meetings concerning the Housing Element update. The link to the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update website is: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_2015_2023.asp In addition to the housing feedback received at the Affordability workshops, the City wants to receive further input from the public. An on-line questionraire designed to solicit input regarding housing needs and possible solutions was prepared. The results of the survey will be included in the Update. Here is the link to the questionnaire: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PaloAltoHousingSurvey. City of Palo Alto Page 16 The survey has also been translated into Spanish. https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/CuestionarioPaloAlto 4. Updates to housing and demographic data based on new information such as the 2010 Census. ABAG has recently standardized the demographic data needed for the Housing Element for all the jurisdictions in the ABAG region by drawing the data from a number of governmental agencies. HCD has approved ABAG’s methodology therefore any jurisdiction using ABAG data to update their Housing Element is approved by the State. (Jurisdictions always have the option to add supplemental information.) The consultant has incorporated the updated demographic information into the Administrative Draft disseminated on May 22, 2014. Resource Impact Substantial staff time is necessary to update the Housing Element for the 2015-2023 period. Activities associated with the update include assembling updated data about housing and housing needs in Palo Alto, conducting required public outreach meetings, and preparing draft and final documents for review and adoption. Staff has executed a contract of approximately $57,000 with MIG Consultants to assist with the data collection and analysis, public outreach efforts, and preparation of the Housing Element document. The City Attorney may also have costs associated with retaining outside legal counsel with specific expertise in Housing Element law. The State and the region (ABAG/MTC) are continuing to place a greater importance on certifed housing elements and now require a certified housing element in order for agencies to be eligibile for funding. This year, the City received over $4.0 million in competitive and non- competitive One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) transportation funds. The City would have been ineligible for these funds if the City did not have a certified Housing Element. Policy Implications Cities and counties which do not meet the statutory deadline for the housing element update will be faced with the requirement to update their housing elements more frequently. Also, without compliant housing elements, jurisdictions may be faced with costly legal challenges pursuant to housing element law and/or fair housing law. Based on a legal challenge, a court may restrict local jurisdictions from issuing building permits and may assume jurisdiction over zoning and land use decisions necessary to bring the jurisdictions into compliance with the law. Also, if the City fails to identify or make available adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA assignment within a given planning cycle, the City may be required to carry those units over into the next planning cycle, thus increasing the number of sites to be identified in the upcoming cycle. Attachments: Attachment A: Partial 2015-2023 Housing Element Administrative Draft (previously provided to City Council on May 22) (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 17 Attachment B: Housing Element Workplan (PDF) Attachment C: List of Existing Housing Element Sites (PDF) Attachment D: Map of Proposed Site Tiers (PDF) Attachment E: Arastradero Sites Proposal (PDF) Attachment F: Palo Alto Housing Corporation Colorado Park Proposal (PDF) Attachment G: Housing Element Community Panel Roster (PDF) Attachment H: Workforce Housing (PDF) ATTACHMENT A PARTIAL 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT (previously provided to City Council, P&TC, Housing Community Panel and Libraries) 2015-2023 Housing Element Update Schedule Revised May 1, 2014 Date Task 1. December 2013 • RHMC HE Work plan presentation (Completed) • PTC Review of Zoning Update Package #1 2. January 2014 • Council Consideration of Zoning Update Package #1 and Density Bonus Ordinance (Completed) • Release HE Consultant RFP 3. February 2014 (Completed) • Feb 13 RHMC: Work Plan Status & Outreach Plan; Use of Existing Units 4. March 2014 (Completed) • March 11: Convene Community Panel; intro to the Housing Element • March 13 RHMC: Work Plan Status, Demographics & Site Options • March 27 Community Panel: Sites Options • Other Community Input: Surveys by Consultant, launch HE website, identify potential focus groups • Start preparation of Nexus Study 5. April 2014 (Completed) • April 1: Submit HCD Housing Element Annual Performance Report to HCD & OPR • April 10 RHMC: Site Options continued; Goals, Policies and Programs & Streamlined Update Checklist • April 21: Informational Report to Council • April 24: Community Panel: Site Options continued; Goals, Policies and Programs • April 28: Community Workshop #1 (North Palo Alto), Lucie Stern Community Ballroom, 3-5 pm • April 30: Community Workshop #2 (South Palo Alto), Palo Alto Elks Lodge, 6-8 pm • Other Community Input: Questionnaires by Consultant 6. May 2014 • Mid May: Consultant submittal of Administrative Draft • May 8 RHMC: Housing Sites and Goals, Policies and Programs continued • May 14: PTC discussion of Sites Inventory & Housing Element revisions • May 29: Community Panel: Review Admin Draft & Streamlined Update Checklist 7. June 2014 • June 2: City Council Study Session • June 12 RHMC: Review Admin Draft & Streamlined Update Checklist • June 25: PTC review of Admin Draft and Streamlined Update Checklist (tentative) • June 26: Community Panel: Admin Draft (cont.); HE Update & Streamlined Checklist • Initiate preparation of the environmental document (initial study) • End of June: HCD consultation with submittal of draft 8. July 2014 • Continued consultation with HCD • Disseminate draft environmental document • Break/Catch Up 9. August 2014 • August 14: RHMC: TBD (Review of Initial HCD input if available) • August 20: PTC begins review of draft Updates and CEQA review • August 28: Community Panel: Community Panel makes its recommendation 10. September 2014 • September 11 RHMC: begins discussion of its recommendation to Council on Draft Update and CEQA document (Possible Consultation with HCD) • September 17: PTC completes its review of revised Draft and CEQA • Completion of Nexus Study 11. October 2014 • Oct. 9 RHMC: makes its recommendation to Council on Draft Update and CEQA document 12. November 2014 • Nov 10 Council Consideration of Draft Update and CEQA Document • Nov 24: Second Council Hearing Date (if needed) • Nov 25: Submit HE Update to HCD for 60 day review 13. December 2014 Break/HCD Q&A 14. January 31, 2015 HCD Certification Deadline* • HCD does allow for a 120 day post deadline grace period under certain conditions City Housing Element Update Website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_2015_2023.asp APPENDIX B-1 Housing Sites Notes: 1. CN zoned parcels maximum density increased to 20 du/acre in January 2014 2. Parcels with an Assessed Value Ratio greater than 1.5 were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value from parcels under the same ownership for more than 10 years; the assessed land value is far below current market land values. APN SITE ADDRESS ZONING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED MAXIMUM YIELD LAND USE DESIGNATION LOT SIZE (ac) REALISTIC CAPACITY EXISTING USE ONSITE CONSTRAINTS - OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSED VALUE RATIO 132-41-085 3707 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 3 CN 0.18 3 1 Story Personal Service; Retail Existing Commercial Use; Current 0.99 124-32- 013 470 Cambridge Av CC (2) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.23 5 1 Story Religious Institution: Surface Parking Existing Non- Residential Use 1.64 124-33- 005 410 Sherman Av CC (2) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.24 5 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 4.17 124-29-007 251 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.26 5 1 Story retail Existing Commercial Use 1.19 124-32- 035 334 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 8 CC 0.27 5 2 Story Retail; Eating Drinking; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.74 124-33- 061 479 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 7 CC 0.24 5 1 Story commercial; Financial Service Existing Commercial Use 0.55 120-15- 090 595 Bryant St CD-C (GF)(P)/ 40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Retail; Eating Drinking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.75 120-03- 021 581 University Av CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 10 CC 0.26 5 1 Story Financial Service Existing Commercial Use 0.73 120-03-037 578 University Av CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 3.45 120-03- 067 541 Cowper St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 9 CC 0.23 5 1 Story commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.47 120-15-007 401 Waverley St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Retail; personal Service Small lot consolidation opportunity 1.09 120-15- 013 420 Cowper St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 10 CC 0.25 5 2 story office Existing Commercial Use 2.12 120-26- 109 542 High St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 10 CC 0.25 5 ! Story Commercial; Retail office Existing Commercial Use 1.38 124-31-059 2101 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Retail; Personal Service; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.91 132-40- 062 480 Wilton Av CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.91 132-46- 106 4112 El Camino Wy CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 2.41 137-01- 116 2000 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.27 5 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 1.13 137-08- 078 3636 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.09 137-08- 097 3666 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Retail: Commercial; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.44 137-11-091 3972 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0.27 137-11- 098 3780 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 5 CN 0.24 5 1 Story Retail; Commercial; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.13 132-38-011 3275 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.27 5 1 Story Office; Commercial; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 2.47 132-38-017 460 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 Surface parking Small lot consolidation opportunity 0.04 132-38- 018 460 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 Surface parking Small lot consolidation opportunity 0.04 132-38-025 455 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 1 Story Commercial Office Small lot consolidation opportunity 4.26 132-38- 047 3260 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 SFD Small lot consolidation opportunity 5.62 137-08-079 3516 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.23 5 1 Story Personal Service Existing Commercial Use 0.09 137-08-088 3508 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 7 CS 0.24 5 Automotive Service; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.16 124-28- 003 2260 Park Bl CC (2) 30 du/ac 8 CC 0.29 6 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0 124-32- 034 300 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 8 CC 0.27 6 2 Story Eating Drinking; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.73 120-15-045 353 University Av CD-C (GF)(P) 40 du/ac 12 CC 0.3 6 1 Story Commercial; Retail; Office Existing Commercial Use 2.95 120-16- 020 635 Waverley St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 12 CC 0.31 6 2 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 0.9 120-27- 038 658 High St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 12 CC 0.32 6 2 Story Commercial Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.89 124-30-015 1963 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 6 CN 0.28 6 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0.04 132-35- 045 3705 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 6 CN 0.28 6 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 0.26 120-33-004 67 Encina Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.27 6 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 1.17 132-37-055 3051 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.3 6 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.45 132-38-058 320 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.28 6 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 6.46 132-38- 060 280 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.28 6 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.53 132-38-061 292 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 6 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.93 132-39-087 455 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 6 1 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.56 142-20-055 3160 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.29 6 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.03 132-31- 071 2747 Park Bl GM 40du/ac 6 LI 0.3 6 Vacant Lot Within PTOD 0.51 124-32- 040 414 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 11 CC 0.37 7 2 Story Financial Services; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.49 120-15-015 469 University Av CD-C (GF)(P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Commercial; Retail; Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 1.7 120-15- 103 360 University Av CD-C (GF)(P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1 120-16-011 630 Cowper St CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 0.45 120-26-002 130 Lytton Av CD-C (P) 40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 2 Level Parking Structure Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0.36 132-46- 100 4115 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.35 7 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use; 1.03 137-08- 081 3630 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.37 7 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.36 137-11-078 3700 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.36 7 1 Story Personal Service; Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0 137-11- 083 3896 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 7 CN 0.32 7 1 Story Retail; Eating Drinking; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.56 132-37-033 2905 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 7 2 Story Commercial: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.17 132-37- 052 2951 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 7 1 Story Retail; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.62 132-37- 056 3001 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.33 7 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.08 132-38- 048 268 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Office Commercial; Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.64 132-41-088 3801 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.14 132-46- 119 4195 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Automotive Services Existing Commercial Use 0.88 132-46- 120 4193 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.36 7 1 Story Medical Office; Automotive Services Existing Commercial Use 0.56 124-33- 066 2585 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 8 CN 0.4 8 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0 132-40-059 3609 El Camino Real CN 15 du/ac 8 CN 0.42 8 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0 132-41- 083 3783 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 8 CN 0.42 8 1 Story Eating Drinking; Retail; Commercial: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.33 137-01-070 2200 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 8 CN 0.41 8 Gas Station Underground Storage Tanks 0.11 132-38- 027 425 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.4 8 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.31 132-38-045 3200 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 11 CS 0.39 8 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 4.6 132-38- 046 3250 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 11 CS 0.38 8 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.13 148-09-010 4335 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.4 8 2 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 1.21 120-34-014 98 Encina Av CC 30 du/ac 13 CC 0.44 9 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0.01 124-30-017 1921 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.97 132-46-104 4128 El Camino Wy CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.45 9 2 Story Office Existing Commercial Use; 0.32 137-01-113 2280 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.06 137-01- 125 2257 Yale St CN 20 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 1.23 132-38-026 435 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.45 9 1 Story Commercial Office Existing Commercial Use 0.34 132-39-071 429 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.45 9 1 Story Automotive Services; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.23 167-08- 036 4232 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.43 9 1 Story Daycare School Existing Commercial Use 1.07 137-01- 069 559 College Av CN 20 du/ac 10 CN 0.47 10 2 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 1.81 124-33- 067 2501 El Camino Real CN; CC (2) 15/30 du/ac 10 CN 0.51 10 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use; Current Max Res Density is 20 du/ac on portion of lot 0.33 132-39- 090 415 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.51 10 1 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 3.44 132-41- 096 3885 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.47 10 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 3.51 167-08- 030 4230 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.52 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0.04 167-08-035 4200 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.48 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0 124-29- 020 150 Grant Av CC (2) 30 du/ac 17 CC 0.59 12 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.23 132-38-062 435 Acacia Av CS 30 du/ac 18 CS 0.62 12 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 7.47 167-08-042 4256 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 17 CS 0.59 12 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.14 132-36-077 2675 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 13 CN 0.63 13 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.59 132-44- 022 4115 El Camino Wy CN 20 du/ac 13 CN 0.64 13 1 Story Commercial: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.75 137-08-080 3606 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 13 CN 0.65 13 Vacant Lot Current 0 120-34- 001 841 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.64 13 Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0 167-08-037 4222 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.63 13 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.41 132-43-153 4085 El Camino Way CN 20 du/ac 14 CN 0.71 14 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0.7 132-38-042 3201 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 20 CS 0.68 14 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.27 132-44- 100 4135 El Camino Way CN 20 du/ac 15 CN 0.75 15 2 Story Office; Underground Parking Existing Commercial Use; 4.06 137-01-129 2390 El Camino Real CN 20 du/ac 15 CN 0.76 15 2 Story Commercial Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use; 0 142-20- 054 3150 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 22 CS 0.75 15 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.3 132-39-088 3399 El Camino Real CS; CN 30/20 du/ac 15 CS;CN 0.74 15 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.29 137-08-083 3400 El Camino Real CS (H); RM-15 30/20 du/ac 19 MF;CS 0.96 19 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 1.74 132-38- 056 430 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 30 CS 1.03 21 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 4.49 124-28-045 154 California Av CC (2)(R)(P) 30 du/ac 34 CC 1.14 23 2 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 0.29 148-09-014 4291 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 34 CS 1.16 23 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.33 132-31-042 130 Sheridan Av GM 34 LI 1.13 34 Within PTOD Needs Rezoning to allow Residential Use 0 142-20-035 3128 El Camino Real CS 30 du/ac 35 CS 1.18 24 1 Story Eating Drinking; Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.93 120-27-073 718 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 2 1 Story; Automotive Service Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.53 120-28-084 918 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.08 2 1 Story; Automotive Service Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0 120-27- 072 721 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.93 120-28- 004 160 Homer Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.05 120-28- 033 839 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Personal Service; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.02 120-28-036 825 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Personal Service; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.31 120-28-080 943 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story Professional Office Small lot; consolidation opportunity 1.04 120-28- 081 935 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story Personal Service Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0.59 120-28-082 929 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story SFD Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0.01 120-28- 085 926 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 2 Story Personal Service; Office Small lot; consolidation opportunity 0.34 120-28-090 931 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 story light manufacturin g Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.19 120-28- 091 925 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 5 SOFA II CAP 0.14 3 Vacant; Auto Storage Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.01 120-28-093 960 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Automotive Service Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.59 120-30-048 1027 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.79 120-30-049 1019 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 1.25 120-28-003 815 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.13 4 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 1.55 120-28- 005 160 Homer Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 5 SOFA II CAP 0.14 4 Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.02 120-28-051 190 Channin g Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.17 5 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 1.45 120-28- 092 940 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.18 5 1 story light manufacturin g Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.62 120-28-094 145 Addison Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.17 5 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.77 120-28- 099 829 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.19 5 1 Story Personal Service; Office; Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation opportunity 0.89 120-27-048 700 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.55 120- 27-049 701 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.22 6 1 Story Personal Service; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.04 120-28- 040 849 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office Existing Commercial Use 0.89 120-28-050 901 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 11 SOFA II CAP 0.32 6 Vacant; Auto Storage Existing Commercial Use 0 120-28-095 999 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.3 120-30- 050 100 Addison Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Retail; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0 120-28-097 925 Alma St RT-50 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office Existing Commercial Use 1.2 120-28- 038 882 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.25 7 2 Story Personal Service; Medical Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 8.86 120-28-086 930 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.25 7 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 2.04 120-28-089 965 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 12 SOFA II CAP 0.35 9 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.47 120-27-046 700 High St RT-50 25-50 du/ac 12 SOFA II CAP 0.36 9 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 1.64 120-27-075 774 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 16 SOFA II CAP 0.48 13 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.76 120-28- 037 840 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 16 SOFA II CAP 0.48 13 Surface Parking Parking serving adjacent commercial uses 0.03 132-41- 025 397 Curtner Ave. RM-30 30 du/ac 6 MF 0.19 4 2 story duplex Existing Residential 0.73 003-02- 021 725 University Av RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.4 003-02- 022 489 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.12 120-04- 043 704 Webster St RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.22 5 1 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.67 120-16-046 720 Cowper St RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.23 5 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.49 124-27-038 2185 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.21 124-27- 039 2149 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.74 120-03-038 610 University Av RM-40 40 du/ac 8 MF 0.22 5 2 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.22 003-02- 043 575 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 8 MF 0.28 6 2 Story Office; Podium Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.19 003-02-048 547 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 10 MF 0.36 7 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.61 124-28-043 2211 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 10 MF 0.34 7 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.26 003-02-047 720 University Av RM-30 30 du/ac 12 MF 0.41 8 1 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.37 137-01- 121 531 Stanford Av RM-30 30 du/ac 12 MF 0.4 8 2 Story Hotel: Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 4.91 120-16- 041 400 Forest Av RM-40 40 du/ac 18 SOFA I CAP 0.45 9 1 Story Medical Office; Podium Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.6 120-16-042 430 Forest Av RM-40 40 du/ac 20 SOFA I CAP 0.51 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0.91 137-37- 004 4102 El Camino Real RM-30 30 du/ac 19 MF 0.64 13 1 Story Religious Institution Existing Non- Residential Use 0.02 137-24-034 4146 El Camino Real RM-15 20 du/ac 15 MF 0.77 15 Vacant Lot 127-15-023 4151 Middlefield Rd RM-15 20 du/ac 18 MF 0.93 18 2 Story Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.46 132-42-074 3945 El Camino Real RM-30; CS 30 du/ac 26 MF;CS 0.89 18 1 to 2 Story Professional Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.35 132-42-073 3901 El Camino Real RM-30 30 du/ac 33 MF 1.1 22 2 Story Motel; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.39 132-38-059 340 Portage Ave RM-30 30 du/ac 374 MF 12.47 75 1 Story Commercial/ Retail Existing Commercial Use 4.68 000-00-000 1170 Welch Rd RM-40 40 du/ac 84 RO 2.11 73 Vacant Lot Opportunity for expansion of adjacent existing multifamily residential 0 San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Junip e r o S e r r a Boule v a r d M i l l Road E l C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University A v e n u e 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t Camino Real R F oothi l l Ex H i l l v E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d H i l l R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne Ct Lorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee Lane Wilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive HemlockCourt Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle Lindero Drive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan PlaceMumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland DriveNelson Drive El Capitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley Street South Court Bryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley Street El Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina Way Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way Sutter Avenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price Court Stern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive Thomas Drive Greer Road Stockton PlaceVernon TerraceLouis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth DriveLoma Verde Avenue CliftonCourt ElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron AvenueJosina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRobles Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive eroRoad La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa AvenueCastilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar Lane Alannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon Avenue Blair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial LaneMoreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara Drive Colorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircleGreer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlow Maple Palm Stre Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton Street Cowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wilso n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive Univers Center Drive Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson Avenue Pine Street Mark Twain Street Louis Road Barbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edg ewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Marion Avenue Welch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Ave Lane 20 W Lane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sandhill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail Dr Quail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolumne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Ju n iper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado Ct Alvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cookse y Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court Jenkins Court Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L Lane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomita Court Lomita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears Court Mears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Ra i mundo Way Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra Walk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco Court San Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm Road Thoburn Court Tolman Drive Valdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r voir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Quarter Mile Radius from El Camino Real Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station 2007-2014 RHNA HOS 2007-2014 RHNA HOS Pipeline Projects Pipeline Project Sites not previously identified Tier 2 - 340 Portage (Fry's) @ 20 du/ac Tier 3 - CN/CS Zoned San Antonio Sites Tier 4 - Cal Ave Surface Parking Lots Tier 5 - Downtown Surface Parking Lots Tier 6 - Miscellaneous Residential Zoned Sites 0'2072' DR A F T 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 Ho u s i n g O p p o r t u n i t y S i t e s v0 3 1 2 1 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo Altorrivera, 2014-03-17 11:03:27 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Name of Representative Organization Greg Tanaka Planning and Transportation Commission Ray Bachetti Human Relations Commision Heidi Emberling Palo Alto Unified School District Faith Brigel PTA Council Sheri Furman Midtown Neighborhood Association Lisa Landers Barron Park Neighborhood Association Tom Dubois Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning Paula Wolfson Avenidas Deborah Sue Stevens Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Jessica Epstein Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Doris Peterson League of Women Voters Bonnie Packer Palo Alto Housing Corporation Tony Carrasco Mixed Use Developer Lydia Tan Related California Dena Mossar Housing Advocate Caryll-Lynn Taylor Neighbor Helping Neighbors Elaine Uang Member-At-Large Housing Element Community Panel 1 Memorandum To: Regional Housing Mandate Committee From: Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment Date: May 27, 2014 Re: Ability to Incorporate Workforce Housing Programs into Housing Element The Committee has requested some general information regarding “workforce” housing. Workforce housing is sometimes used interchangeably with affordable housing or Below Market Rate (BMR) housing, and sometimes used more broadly to describe housing that serves employees working within a geographic area. In general, BMR housing is affordable to those with incomes between 60 and 120 percent of the area median income adjusted for household size. (In Palo Alto, median household income was $118,936 in 2012.) Housing affordability in the San Francisco Bay Area has been a persistent problem, even during the recent economic and housing market downturn. (See Urban Land Institute’s 2009 Report titled Priced Out: Persistence of the Workforce Housing Gap in the San Francisco Bay Area; Attachment A.) As of 2009, every county in the Bay Area fell within the 15 percent least affordable in the country, and only New York City ranked less affordable. The high cost of housing is particularly challenging for “workforce” employees who work in growth industries such as education, health care and professional services. And for every high tech job added to the local economy four jobs in support services fields are created. Housing affordability is not only a problem for lower income service workers. According to an annual survey administered by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Silicon Valley CEOs have pinpointed affordable housing as their No. 1 challenge for the past 11 years. Regional Programs Bay Area cities recognize that housing affordability is a regional problem. There are ongoing regional planning efforts occurring in the Bay Area. Silicon Valley Leadership Council has an affordable housing working group that teams private and public sectors. The Housing Trust has raised considerable money from both private and public sources. Most recently, Palo Alto is partnering with San Mateo County cities in conducting an affordable housing nexus study. Staff also hopes that creative partnering opportunities will come out of that collaboration. Similar efforts are occurring in other metropolitan areas. (See Workforce Housing Study: Westside Subregion; Attachment B.) Local Programs Cities are also recognizing the importance of addressing workforce housing in their Housing Elements. Because legislating who can live in a particular housing unit triggers a series of legal hurdles (such as fair housing, privacy, takings and right to travel), the overwhelming trend has been to provide incentives, rather than mandates. Programs to incent higher density, especially around transit; use of city or agency 2 owned land for housing, strategic distribution of housing near employment; reduced parking requirements, allowance for micro-units and density bonus programs are becoming key programs in Housing Elements. (See Attachment C; excerpt from Santa Monica’s Housing Element adopted December 10, 2013.) The recent Facebook announcement that it was partnering with a housing developer to build 394 units of housing in close proximity to its new Menlo Park Campus caused many commentators to ask whether the century old “company town” concept was coming back. (See Attachment D; Wall Street Journal Article titled “Facebook’s Company Town” dated October 3, 2013.) Traditionally in Palo Alto, commercial housing projects have paid affordable housing development impact fees, rather than provide affordable housing on site. Some cities however have imposed inclusionary housing requirements on commercial housing projects. The Building Industry Association has been litigating the constitutionality of inclusionary housing programs and a case challenging San Jose’s inclusionary housing program is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. It is not clear whether that case will reach the issue of commercial inclusionary housing programs. Given the evolving legal issues in this area, the Council could choose to include a broad program in the Housing Element Update to “Explore additional options for workforce housing, such as development incentives and innovative private sector programs.” This would be similar to Santa Monica’s “Program 2.g: Facilitate the Development of Housing that is Affordable for Santa Monica’s Diverse Workforce,” which reads as follows: Explore the development of housing that is affordable to the City’s workforce, including rental, ownership, and forms of employer-provided transitional housing, with “Workforce Housing” defined as between 120% and 180% of the County Average Median Income (AMI). In addition to the Affordable Housing Production Program, prioritize incentives to develop workforce housing units, with particular emphasis on housing for larger households in need of units with two or more bedrooms. Possible parameters of the program are as follows: • Provide regulatory development incentives, particularly in locations with proximity to transit, in the Zoning Ordinance or in specific and area plans to encourage inclusion of units affordable to households defined as moderate income or “workforce.” Incorporate incentives such as: Floor-area-ratio (FAR) calculation based on reduced floor area for square footage in moderate or moderate and workforce units in projects that also provide on-site affordable housing in compliance with the AHPP. Expedited processing of projects that provide housing units guaranteed through deed restrictions or other means to be maintained at rent levels affordable to moderate or workforce households as defined above. Flexibility with open space requirements, such as substituting or partially substituting common for private open space. • Encourage workforce housing as a community benefit that supplements but does not replace the provision of deed-restricted affordable housing.” Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D