Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 240-10 (3)TO: CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 2 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JUNE 23, 2010 CMR: 240:10 REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: City Council Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update On March 3, 2010 and May 12,2010 the City Council conducted two study sessions jointly with the Planning and Transportation Commission to discuss the status of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Housing Element revision. Issues scheduled to be addressed included the Comprehensive Plan vision statements and implementing policies, initial growth projections for 2020, the approach for identifying housing inventory sites for the Housing Element, and possible additional work items outside the current amendment work plan scope. The staff reports from both of those meetings are attached in addition to the synopsis of both study sessions and the minutes from the May 12th meeting describing the Council's action regarding direction for preparing the Housing Element sites inventory. The Council action regarding developing the housing sites inventory included: • Disallow rezoning of commercial sites to residential; • Evaluate limited exceptions to the 50 foot height policy for possible sites within 1,4 miles of fixed rail transit stations; • Focus on sites within Y2 mile of transit stations and evaluate sites within l;4 miles of EI Camino Real if currently well served by transit or likely to be well served; • Use a "bottoms-up" approach to define the kind and amount of housing that can be accommodated consistent with the principles of locating housing in areas close to support services and transit regardless of whether the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is met; • Primary criteria for sites should include provision of access to services, accessibility to neighbors, neighborhood compatibility, proximity to jobs and transit, transit accessibility and potential for mixed use development; • Identify existing sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to transit and services; • Explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from the County to the City for RHNA credit; • Explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from the County to the City for RHNA credit; • Evaluate potential housing inventory sites using LEED-ND criteria as the primary evaluation tool, particularly for sites near transit and services; and • Emphasize smaller size units and minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities. The purpose of the June 23, 2010 meeting is to discuss the remaining items not covered during the May 12th meeting and give appropriate direction to staff regarding those items. Staff has not included in this packet all of the attachments from the previous two reports; however, they are available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicaifilebanklblobdload.asp?BlobID= 19993. CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: CMR: 240:10 May 12,2010 Regarding Joint City CouncillPlanning & Transportation Commission Review and Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update Attachment B: Minutes from May 12, 2010 City Council meeting Attachment C: CMR: 152:10 March 3, 2010 Regarding Joint City CouncillPlanning & Transportation Commission Study Session Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update Attachment D: Synopsis of March 3, 2010 Joint PTC/City Council Study Session on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT A City 01 .ralo AltO TO: City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL . .. e· FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: l\1AY 12,2010 REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM DEPARTMENT: PLANNINGAND COl\1MUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 240:10 SUBJECT: Joint City CounciIIPlanning & Transportation Commission Review and Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on the Comprehensive Plan amendment process is intended to enable the City Council to provide direction to staff and the ptc for their continuing work in completing the work program initially adopted by the City Council in 2006. On March 3, 2010, a joint study session with the City Council and PTC was held to update the Council on progress in completing the work program for the Comprehensive Plan and to identify key issues requiring Council input. A follow-up session was planned to enable staff to return with additional information requested by the City Council and to identify specific questions for Council direction regarding key elements of the work program, most specifically: a) the approach to identifying housing opportunity sites in the housing element; b) proposed growth projections; c) the extent of revisions to the vision statements and key policies; and d) whether to expand the scope of the work program. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION Staff requests direction from the City Council on various work items on the Comprehensive Plan prior to moving forward with preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to undertake the suggested approaches to each key issue identified in this report. BACKGROUND The City Council initiated the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in 2006. Funding for the project was allocated in 2007 and a consultant team selected in 2008. For the past two years, staff has been working with the consultant team and the Planning Commission on several work program elements, including the update of goals, policies and programs, background reports on relevant baseline topics, and two concept area plans. On March 3,2010, the City Council and the PTC held a joint study session (see Attachments A and B) to discuss the status of the major components ofthe work program. At that study session, the City Council requested staff to 1) bring back to Council questions related to both the amendment and the Housing Element update that need further direction CMR: 152:10 Page 1 of 8 from the Council and 2) provide specific infonnation that could assist the Council in developing direction for staff. Specifically, the City Council requested background on the following items, which are attached to this report: • Summary of SB375 (Sustainable Communities Planning Legislation) • hnplications of Housing Element non-compliance • Information regarding Housing Element "self-certification" • Housing Element status for neighboring jurisdictions • Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Data • City correspondence with Association of Bay Area Govenunents re: RHNA • Vehicular availability for households near transit" • Estimated student generation from City's RHNA • LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) information DISCUSSION In this report, staff has framed several questions for the City Council related to different work elements of the Comprehensive Plan; each set of questions is followed by a "suggested staff approach" for Council consideration. The "suggested staff approach" contains the scope ofwork for specific items, the suggested timeframe for completion and any additional costs required to perfonn the tasks. A. Housing Element: Staff has made considerable progress in updating the City's Housing Element over the past year focusing on updating the population, household and housing data required for the Housing Element, evaluating of the effectiveness of the current element's programs and policies, conducting public outreach meetings through the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) process and analyzing strategies to identify effective housing inventory sites to meet the RHNA numbers. One of the most critical components ofthe Housing Element is the housing sites inventory list, which identifies parcels with zoning appropriate to allow for housing sufficient to meet the City's current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) which is included in Attachment E5. Also attached to this report in Attachment E2 are newspaper articles and a summary of recent case law affecting the City of PleasantooolBn,....-----­ regarding the legal mandates of state housing law and RHNA compliance. Specific direction is requested from Council on the following issues to fulfill the Housing Element requirements: 1. Should the City of Palo Alto draft a Housing Element with a primary goal of providing adequate sites to accommodate all of the City'S RHNA allocation?? 2. Should the City use a "bottoms-up" approach to define what kind and amount of housing can best be accommodated, consistent with the principles of locating housing in areas close to support services and transit, regardless of whether it ultimately complies with the RHNA allocation? 3. What criteria should be used to identify sites to include in the housing inventory, e.g., housing type, size, location, existing zoning, proximity to transit and pedestrian-oriented areas? CMR: 152:10 Page 2 of8 4. Should the bulk of new multi-family housing be located near train stations and along EI Camino Real, focusing on areas served by transit? Suggested Staff Approach: • Identify existing sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to transit and services. • Evaluate increased housing potential in the Califomia Avenue area as part of the California Avenue Concept Plan.. • Explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from the County to the City for: housing sites allowed under Stanford's Community Plan and General Use Permit, i'n conjunction with or following the Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center expansion. • Explore potential housing inventOlY sites using LEED-ND (LEED for Neighborhood Development) criteria as a primary evaluation tool, particularly near transit and services (EI Camino Real, Stanford, and University Ave.) • Include policies and programs to develop a concept plan for downtown, focusing higher density housing near the University Avenue multi-modal transit station. •. Emphasize smaller size units and units for seniors to minimize housing impacts on schools and I! other public/acilities. Ii • Emphasize constrnction of affordable units. B. Growth Projections: Staff has identified three different potential growth scenarios for jobs and housing development in Palo Alto tl-rrough 2020 for evaluation in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The first growth scenario would use ABAG Projections 2009 data (an additional 530 jobs and an additional 3,210 households) and the second growth scenario would use historic growth rates and "pipeline" (in process) projects for residential development (an additional 1,065 households) and employment projections recommended by the City'S economic consultant based on ABAG Projections 2007 data which estimates an additional 5,321 jobs. The third scenario would be a low growth alternative that would be developed when the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is prepared and would result in no net new impacts. Staff requests that the Council provide guidance on the appropriate proj ect scenario( s) to discuss with the public in a series of community meetings anticipated to be initiated later this year: 1. Should staffuse ABAG Projections 2009 numbers to develop and analyze a project scenario with limited job growth and significant housing growth tl-rrough 2020 or should CMR: 152:10 Page 3 of8 Ii I: I, ; a project scenario be prepared based on numbers generated by staff from the historical growth of population and pipeline projects of new housing development in the City and a forecast number for jobs recommended by the City's economic consultant? 2. Should the City's citywide growth limit for non-residential development be extended to 2020 as outlined in Policy L-8 of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan that currently allows for up to approximately 2.38 million additional square feet of new non residential development, at least for evaluation in the EJR, or should the City set a more restrictive citywide growth limit for non-residential growth through 2020? -------_ _ _ -------, --~'--"'----,------~---,--, ,----------, --, ,-,"" _ ,----,---------"---,----" ,-----'" '" Suggested Staff Approach: • Use the Population, Housing and Jobs forecast number through 2020 developed by staff and the consultant that take into account the historical growth of population, past and pipeline housing development in the City and recent local and national economic conditions. ' • Use the Citywide growth limits for non-residential development outlined in P oliey L-8 of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. C. Vision Statements, Goals, Policies and Programs: The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) has indicated through its review of the Comprehensive Plan that significant revisions to tbe Comprehensive Plan format should be undertaken in order to create a clearer, more general, cohesive and less redundant policy document. This could substantially change the format of the existing plan and result in significant additional staff work and costs since the existing work program envisioned only limited changes to the current fOlmat and focused policy changes only on those specific areas identified by the work program. Staff requests that Council provide guidance on the following questions: 1. ' Should the Vision statements of the Comprehensive Plan and supporting policies and pro grams be modified comprehensively or should changes be limited to key substantive work program priorities and to update clearly outdatedpolicies and programs? 2. Should staff and the PTC extensively "word-smith" policies and programs as well? Suggested Staff Approach: • Revise the Vision Statements (in conjunction with the PTC subcommittee) as needed for clarity and key concepts. • Update the Policies and Programs for consistency with the Vision Statements and to eliminate or update obsolete policies and programs. Add new policies and programs where needed to CMR: 152:10 Page 4 of8 • Allow the PTC subcommittee and staff to determine the need for fine grain wordsmithing. • Perfonn Comprehensive Plan re-organization and additional review with consultant support. Cost for this additional consultant work is estimated at $20,000. D. AdditionalScope of Work: In addition to the potential to expand the work scope to provide extensive revisions to the Comprehensive Plan fonnat, policies, and programs, other potential work program elements'have been identified that are outside of the original scope ofwork and could add significant cost and time to the planning effort. Based on the outcome of the joint City Council and PTC meeting of March 3, 2010, staffhas outlined the following questions for Council to provide guidance. The suggested staff approach discusses the time franle and costs associated with each of these additional tasks. 1. Should staff give priority to reviewing/revising the South El Camino Real Guidelines within the next year? 2. Should (or how should) LEED-ND (LEED for Neighborhood Developm~nt) be used in updating the Comprehensive Plan? 3. Should the following tasks be added to the existing work program? o University AvenuelDowntown Area Concept Plan o South EI Camino Real Area (from Charleston to San Antonio Rd) Concept Plan o High Speed Rail land use scenarios o Sea-Level rise study and mitigation measures o Housing at Stanford Shopping Center site Suggested Staff Approach: • Modify 4-5 key components of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (setbacks for different streets, land uses, height step backs, break-up building length, and retailfrontage); estimate $25K-$30K design consultant cost. • Develop a policy for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan supporting preparation of a University Ave. /Downtown Area Concept Plan at a later date, and that restricts rezoningfor residential intensification unless/until the Concept Plan is approved. Approximate consultant cost for preparing the Concept Plan is estimated at $140K. • Develop a policy for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan suppOJ1ing preparation of a South EI Camino Real Area Concept Plan (from Charleston to San Antonio portion of El Camino Real) at a later date, and that restricts rezoning for residential intensification unless/until the Concept Plan is approved. Approximate consultant cost for preparing the Concept Plan is estimated at $135K. • P Zan to address CMR: 152:10 Page 5 of8 (HSR) issues (coordination with other agencies, design parameters for review, position on-~­ HSR station in Palo Alto, etc.) and revisit these in-a year; to see how/if the HSR project progresses. Consultant cost for preparation of land use scenarios is estimated at $JOO+K, if desired, and should be a separate work item from the Comprehensive Plan, given the HSR timtframe. • Develop maps of potential sea-level rise and policies for future considerations, but not identifY mitigation measures at this point; provide direction for preparing appropriate studies within the Comprehensive Plan timtframe. 'c • Identify policies in the Comprehensive Plan that are already consistent with the policies of LEED-ND, and add policies ifnecessary. • Evaluate area concept plans under LEED-ND principles. • Develop a policy for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan supportingpreparation of a concept plan to include housing at the Stanford Shopping Center site at a later date. Approximate consultant cost for preparing the concept plan is $11 OK. PUBLIC OUTREACH Several community workshops and public meetings will be conducted throughout the rest of20 10 to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Housing Element update. The City also maintains a website (www.paloaltocompplan2020.org) that provides information about the Comprehensive Plan including the Housing Element. Meeting outreach will include neighborhood associations, business groups, the school district and other interested parties. Staff also intends to integrate the Comprehensive Plan effort into a City Facebook page to allow for real-time updates of Comprehensive Plan information. . POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Comprehensive Plan amendment work plan process enables the plan to be updated to focus on cUn"ent City policy and to adequately reflect the City's vision consistent with or modified using the goals afthe existing Comprehensive Plan. The updated plan is intended to provide an effective guide for future growth in the City. RESOURCE IMPACTS The Council approved a budget of $850,000 in April 2008 for completing the amendment work program. The City Council's adoption of the 2010 budget extended the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work schedule by one year and decreased the Comprehensive Plan Amendment budget by $75,000 for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. Expansion of the work program would require additional resources as outlined above and would likely lengthen the schedule for completion. Funding is not currently available for these tasks. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report to the City Council is not considered a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. CMR: 152:10 Page 6 of8 PREPARED BY: CHITRA MOITRA Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTISILLIAMS . Director of Planning and Community Enviromnent CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS ~~AMES KEENE "")' City Manager Attachment A: CMR: 152:10March 3, 2010 Joint Study Session regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and the Approved Work Program Attachment B: Synopsis of March 3, 2010 Joint Study Session meeting regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and the Approved Work Program Attachment C: Work Program Schedule Attachment D: Brief Summary of SB375, Joint Policy Committee Policies: The Bay Area Implementation of SB375 (September 2009) and League of California Cities, "Teclmical Overview ofSB375 (January 2009) . Attachment E: 1) Brief on Housing Element Non-Compliance 2) Articles regarding City of Pleasanton Housing Element Court Decision on Housing Caps and California Housing Community & Development (HCD) Press Release on the Court Decision on Housing Caps 3) Overview of SANDAG's Housing Element Pilot Self Certification Process (Full report can be downloaded at: http://www.paloaltocompplan2020.orgldocument/sandag-housing-element­ self-certification-report-legislature) 4) Housing Element Compliance Report of Neighboring Cities 5) Palo Alto Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 2007-2014 Attachment F: 1) Appeal Letter from Mayor to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and other City correspondence with ABAG re: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) CMR: 152:10 Page 7 or8 2) CMR: 389:07 October 15, 2007 Study Session re: ABAG RHNA for Palo Alto and Housing Element Requirement Attachment G: City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Units Profile Attachment H: 1) Vehicular Availability for Households Near Transit (2000 Census) Attachment I: Attachment J: CMR: 152:10 2) Executive Summary of Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel, Transit Cooperative Program Research Report #128 (Full report can be downloaded at: http://www.paloaltocompplan2020.orgldocumentleffects-tod-housing-parking­ travel) Potential Student Generation data in relation to RHNA requirement 1) A review of LEED-ND Rating System and its Compatibility with Existing Green Building Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. 2) LEED-ND Checklist. Page 8 of8 ATTACHMENT B MINUTES CITY COUNCil MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 ======================::::::AND BROADCAST ON KZSU, 90.1 FM ============================== Special Meeting May 12, 2010 The City Cbuncil of the City of Palo Alto met with the Planning & Transportation Commission on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:04 p.m. Present:· Council Members Burt, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Planning & Transportation Commission Members Fineberg, Garber, Keller, Lippert, Tanaka, Tuma Council Members Espinosa, Yeh Planning & Transportation Commission Member Martinez STUDY SESSION 1. Joint City Council/Planning & Transportation Commission Review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update. A brief presentation was given by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis· Williams who described the four main issues needing further direction from the City Council prior to Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) moving forward with preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. These included: 1) Criteria for preparation of the Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory; 2).2020 growth projections; '3) The extent of revisions to the Vision, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) Additional work items outside the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment work plan scope. Each of the P&TC Commissioners gave a short four. minute presentation describing their main concerns regarding the four key issues. After the Commissioners' presentation's, the Council asked individual Commissioner's questions in order to further understand their pOSitions on the four topics. The discussion primarily focused on the Housing Element and preparation of the Housing 1 05/12/10 Sites Inventory. The criteria for site identification generated the most discussion and included the following observations: • Explore mixed-use development in commercial areas • Explore increasing the 50 foot height restriction under limited circumstances • Employ a "bottoms up" approach that defines the parameters for accommodating housing • Explore increasing densities for existing multifamily residential sites • Locate high densities near transit stations • Explore use of Transfer of Development Rights for increasing housing production • Encourage small, high density units Mayor Burt left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. At the conclusion of the Study Session, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) members left the Dias. Candice Gonzales, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, encouraged the completion of the Housing Element prior to the project being out of compliance. The Housing. Corporation and Staff had been working together for more than a year and requested Council to direct Staff on the final phase. She noted beir:lg out of compliance limited the State funding available for affordable housing and infrastructure. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street! noted over the past fifteen years the City had been eliminating retail establishments! hotels and restaurants in an effort to create space for more housing. By eliminating the above mentioned establishments the City was eliminating the walkable neighborhoods. He . requested to discontinue the loss of commercial space. Mayor Burt returned to the meeting at 7:30 p.m. ACTION. 2. City Council Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendm~nt and Housing Elem.ent Update. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to not consider R-1, R-2! and RMD sites in the housing site criteria. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent 2 05/12/2010 MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to not allow rezoning of commercial to residential, but allow mixed use with no decrease of retail sites throughout the city. Council Member Scharff spoke about the importance in protecting the economic viability of the City. Council Member Price asked whether the Motion would preclude any serious examination of the Fry's Electronic site. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated the Fry's site was not presently in play for the Housing Element since their lease expired in 2013. Chief Planning & Transportation Officer, Julie Caporgno stated the Fry's site was zoned for residential uses, although it was currently being used for commercial. Council Member Holman asked whether the intention of the Motion was not to increase the building envelope but to consider a multitude of mixed uses that would include housing. Council Member Scharff stated his Motion had a broader direction in order to not limit the Cour:lCil on future decisions of larger mixed uses. Council Member Holman stated larger projects were subject to a Planned Community (PC) Zoning. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent Council Member Holman requested to retain the fifty foot height limit on buildings. Council Member Price stated she supported the allowance of exploration of exceptions within a quarter mile of transit. She stated there needed to be flexibility within the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to consider that the height is generally not to exceed 50 feet. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to 3 05/12/2010 consider that the height is generally not to exceed fifty feet, and Staff is to perhaps explore and return with exceptions within 1/4 mile of fixed rail transit stations. Council Member Scharff stated there needed to be flexibility to look at the fifty foot height limit in the area of the fixed rail stations, which was a limited area. Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on whether the exception was within a quarter mile of transit or transit stations. Council Member Scharff stated transit stations. Council Member Klein stated he did not support the Motion. Council Member Scharff stated the intent of the Motion was for Staff to explore the options and return to Council for a decision on which direction would best suit the City. Council Member Klein stated Staff came to Council for guidance and the Motion was without guidance. Mayor Burt clarified asking Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) to evaluate a process was guidance. He noted historically the fifty foot height limit was of concern for the community. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete the word "perhaps", and change "explore" to "evaluate", and include the wording "limited exceptions" after explore. Council Member Holman stated she did not support the Motion. She stated once an exception was allowed there tended to be increasing slow progress towards extended exceptions. Compatibility was imperative moving forward. Council Member Shepherd suggested expanding the study to include the High Speed Rail (HSR). Council Member Price stated she supported the l"lotion with the incorporated language. Council Member Klein stated if the Motion was adopted, the City was undercutting the use of the bottom-up argument on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. 4 05/12/2010 Mayor Burt clarified there was no vote for altering the height limit, on Iy to allow the consideration of altering the limit. He stated it wou Id be inappropriate to not consider any height limitation in an effort to protect the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. Council Member Holman stated she wanted to avoid over building using the allowed exception without consideration for the community goal. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-2 Holman, Klein no, Espinosa, Yeh absent Mayor Burt stated the focus needed to be modifying the language of which portions of EI Camino Real would be appropriate for housing sites. Council Member Scharff stated he did not feel EI Camino Real was the type of transit route that made sense for housing. He clarified the bus transit route was not adequate enough to be considered, although areas incorporated with fixed rail would be sufficient. He asked Staff for clarification on the variance between the quarter mile and the. half mile distance. Mr. Williams stated the Comprehensive Plan currently had a designation of· Transit Oriented Residential which was 2,000 feet from a transit station. He clarified the number was modified to fit the circumstances with California . Avenue Pedestrian Transportation Oriented Development (PTOD) .. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to focus on sites within 1/2 mile of transit stations. Council Member Scharff stated transit oriented development was an tmportant direction. Council Member Schmid stated the transit stations; fixed rail, Caltrain, and possibly High Speed Rail (HSR),. granted a higher level of opportunity for housing development than that of EI Camino Real. Council Member Shepherd stated concern with whether the transit systems would continue their present routes in the future. She suggested starting the outreach process and connecting it to the developments making headway to see if the City could reach an agreement with the developers to secure transit pathways. Council Member Price suggested the focus be on the area of EI Camino Real that was sufficiently served by transit and not the distance of a quarter or half mile. She stated she did not support the Motion. 5 05/12/2010 Mayor Burt stated the current EI Camino Real bus route system had the heaviest usage in Santa Clara County. Council Member Holman stated she supported the Motion . . Council Member Schmid stated the sites were not indiscriminant and there were other criteria that were important for identifying sites that were accessible as walkable options appropriate for the neighborhoods. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to have Staff and Planning & Transportation Commission evaluate sites within 1f4 mile of EI Camino Real if well served by transit or likely to oe well served . . Council Member Scharff stated he had concerns with the EI Camino Real bus system. The purpose of having housing near transit systems was to eliminate vehicle travel. He asked for clarification on where the EI Camino bus system went in order for him to determine the viability of building housing near the bus system. Mayor Burt stated there were projections by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on the trip ratio and destinations. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Schmid no! Espinosa! Yeh absent Mayor Burt stated Staff was asking direction on: 1) Should the City of Palo Alto draft a Housing Element with a primary goal of providing adequate sites to accommodate all of the City's RHNA allocations! or 2) Should the City use a "bottoms-up" approach to define what kind and amount of housing can best be accommodated! consistent with the principles of locating housing in areas close to support services and transit! regardless of whether it ultimately complies with the RHI\lA allocation. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by CounCil Member Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to use a "bottoms-up" approach to define what kind and amount of housing can best be accommodated. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa! Yeh absent Mayor Burt stated Staff was asking direction on: 3) What criteria should be used to identify sites to include in the housing inventory, e.g., housing type! size! location, 'existing zoning proximity to transit and pedestrian-oriented areas. 6 05/12/2010 Council Member Scharff stated in meeting the Housing Element goal from a "bottom-up" perspective, areas that needed to be looked at were up zoning parcels of existing areas such as apartments, going from RM-15 to RM-40. Council Member Schmid stated identification of sites needed to include key criteria of what the denser housing sites would have; accessibility of neighbors, walkable options and compatible access to schools. Mayor Burt stated an alternative to directing Staff was not to provide an action for all of the recommendations. Council could provide Staff with a sense of their proposed directions, and Staff could return to Council with specific alternatives. , ~ Council Member Prit'e stated the potential for mixed-use developments within a housing site should be considered. Council Member Holman stated, a smaller unit size had less impact on schools. She was interested in whether there were community benefits in the up zoning. Mayor Burt stated if there were areas like California Avenue or downtown with existing zoning he would be interested in the concept of overlay zones and of smaller units with a higher number of units per acre; not necessarily subsidized housing. He asked, with an added overlaYI would it have a higher Floor.Area Ratio (FAR). Council Member Price asked for clarification on whether the comment was to consider the implementation of overlays at different sites. She asked whether Staff's intention was in the size of the site or the size of the unit. Mr. Williams stated the direction requested by Staff was for unit sizes not parcel sizes. Mayor Burt stated for Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and RHNA a 600 square foot unit counted the same as. a 6 /000 square foot home. Council Member Scharff stated smaller units were practical and more feasible for a community. He asked whether the concept of an overlay would be counted towards the RHNA numbers. Mr. Williams stated if the project was in an overlay without constrictions then it could be counted towards the RHNA numbers. 7 05/12/2010 Ms. Caporgno stated if there were an overlay zone with options of the underlying land use designation to be used and the project were in the overlay then it would be necessary to implement the overlay. Council Member Scharff stated Council's responsibility was to ensure proper zoning. Ms. Caporgno clarified if the site was placed in the housing inventory; there was an implied commitment that this site was going to be developed in a certain mahner. Mayor Burt asked for clarification on placing a site in the housing inventory. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission that the criteria for sites should provide such things as access to services, accessibility to neighbors, compatibility to neighborhood, close to jobs and schools, accessible to transit. Council Member Schmid stated with the creation of a list of criteria we would be able to check-off the developments that had the most likelihood of being built. Mayor Burt asked whether all of the criteria mentioned would be required or the list would be the pallet. Council Member Schmid stated the list of criteria would be a pallet to choose from. Council Member Shepherd stated there needed to be a nexus between the services and the developments. Specific criteria of what types of services would be available was imperative. Council Member Price asked whether the potential for mixed-use was still a part of the discussion. i Mayor Burt stated the Motion on the floor was in regards to criteria for development. The discussion of mixed-use was a part of a discussion however not specific to the vote. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the wording to the Motion: the potential for mixed use development be a criteria for identifying sites. 8 05/12/2010 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the wording in the Motion "that the criteria for sites" to "that among the primary criteria for sites." Mayor Burt asked whether the term incentives in the Motion was meant as a preference for these sites intended for development. Council Member Schmid stated the intent was one of guidance for there to be a list of services avai~able for the intended residents as an incentive of a site that would be developed. Staff would be able to sort through the list of primary criteria in an effort to assist in the choices of sites to develop. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to continue the remainder of this Agenda Item to a date uncertain. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OFA SECOND MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission that higher density, small unit overlays be evaluated particularly in our two Transit Oriented Districts. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent Council Member Shepherd was concerned that there were 26 days left before the Alternatives Analysis comments were due. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to add to the existing work program; 1) High Speed Rail land use scenarios, and 2) University -Avenue/Downtown Area Concept Plan. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, Council Member Schmid to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to: 1) identify existing sites zoned for housing or mixed use in prqximity to transit and services, 2) explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from. the County to the City for housing sites allowed under Stanford's Community Plan and General Use Permit, in conjunction with or following the Development Agreement for the Stanford University· Medical Center expansion, 3) explore potential housing inventory sites using LEED-ND (LEED for Neighborhood Development) criteria as primary evaluation tool, particularly near transit and services (EI Camino Real, Stanford, and 9 05/12/2010 University Ave., and 4) emphasize smaller size units and minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities. Council Member Price asked for clarification on the LEED-ND criteria as it related to the Housing Element. Mr. Williams stated the LEED-I\lD criteria included virtually all of the evaluations of whether the site and the surrounding area created walkability that was accessible to public spaces and services. Council Member Scharff stated he wanted to support the Motion although . there needed to be focus on senior housing. AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to include units for seniors. Mayor Burt stated the presentation listed an emphasis on smaller units. Units for seniors minimized the housing impacts on schools and other public facilities. Council Member Schmid supported the Amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to continue the remainder of this Agenda Item to a date uncertain. Council Member Schmid asked what was being specifically extended within the Housing Element and will there be further discussion at a later date. Mr. Williams stated the Housing Element would be returning to Council for discussion .. Council Member Schmid asked whether there would be site information provided at the continued meeting. Mayor Burt stated the continued meeting would be to discuss the items in the CMR that were on the Council agenda for this evening. Council Member Holman requested to add a topic for discussion to be heard tonight under the Housing Element. 10 05/12/2010 lV1ayor Burt reiterated that the Housing Element was being continued for further discussion for the items which had not yet been discussed at this evenings meeting. Council Member Shepherd asked when the discussion of the strategic planning for the corridor study would be occurring. Mayor Burt clarified the discussion was currently addressing the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element although the question asked was on the Alternatives Analysis for the corridor study. Council Member Scharff requested discussing the construction of affordable units this evening. He felt the issue needed minimal further discussion and could be resolved without waiting. Council Member Price stated she understood the difference between the Alternatives Analysis and corridor study in short-term and long-term. She noted the item was time sensitive and there needed to be a clear understanding of when there would be discussion. lV1ayor Burt explained the opportunity to discuss all items not covered during this evenings meeting would be at the upcoming special Council meeting before the end of June. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent ORAL COMf'lIUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. 11 05/12/2010 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 3, 2010 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION ATTACHMENT C DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 152:10 SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCILIPLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE EXECUTIVE·SUMMARY The purpose of the study session is for staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to updat~ the City Council on progress in completing the work program for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City's zoning ordinance and development decisions, the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) , transportation programs, economic development efforts, environmental sustainability measures, and a host of other actions by staff, various boards and commissions, and the City Council. The City Council, in response to several issues and trends, particularly those related to a rapid increase in housing development and loss of commercial uses and land, initiated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in 2006. The Amendment was not intended to overhaul the Plan, but to focus on preservation of commercial uses and land, provision of retail and community services to . I support new residential growth, incorporation of sustainability concepts, update of the housing element, and preparation of concept plans for the East Meadow area and California A venuelFry' s area. The joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission study session provides an opportunity for the City Council and the PTC to discuss the status of the m~or components of the . work program for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Housing Element update. Staff and the PTC have identified five primary areas of discussion for the study session: 1. Vision Statements, Policies and Programs 2. Growth Projections 3. Housing Element 4. Scope of Work 5. Concept Plans CMR: 152:10 Page 1 of 12 Brief summaries of each topic are provided in the report. At a follow-up study session, Council may then provide direction to staff and the PrC regarding these and other work items. Staff anticipates that the Concept Plans will be presented to Council in the spring or summer of 2010, a draft Housing Element will be prepared shortly thereafter, and the entire Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including the accompanying Environmental Impact Report, will be completed in early 2012. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose of the study session is for staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PrC) to update the City Council on progress in completing the work program for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Key policy issues ate identified as background for the study session, and a follow-up session is planned to allow for City Council direction regarding the implementation of the work program, most specifically in the areas of: a) the extent of revisions to vision statements and key policies; b) proposed growth projections; c) the approach to identifying housing opportunity sites in the housing element; and d) whether to expand the scope of the work program. No Council or Commission action is required or may be taken at a study session. Staff recommends that the Council and PrC discuss the work program and key issues, and provide questions and direction for a follow-up study session, to be scheduled within the cOming two months. BACKGROUND The City's Comprehensi ve Plan and Housing Element are required planning documents under State law. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City's zoning ordinance and development decisions, the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) , transportation programs, economic development efforts, environmental sustain ability measures, and a host of other actions by staff, various boards and commissions, and the City Council. State law requires that a general (or comprehensive) plan include a minimum of seven elements, such as Land Use, Circulation, and Housing. The Housing Element responds to State requirements to provide for adequate zoning to accommodate housing for households of varying income levels, as well as programs and policies to assure fair housing practices and housi ng services. Evaluation of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 The City's existing Comprehensive Plan covers the timeframe of 1998 to 2010, and provides for all State-mandated plan elements plus a Business and Economic Element. A Comprehensive Plan is usually in need of updating every 10 years or so, as circumstances change and policies and programs become obsolete' or new ones are required. Many of the current Plan's goals, policies and programs remain relevant today and have been supported by improvements and projects over the past 12 years, but changed conditions and less successful projects led to the Council's direction to update the Plan. Examples of successful implementation of the existing Comprehensive Plan could include: • Creation of a significant number of affordable and senior housing projects • The redevelopment o(the South of Forest Area (SOFA) to a mixed use, mixed housing, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly community • Additional recreation and cultural facilities, such as the Mayfield Soccer CompJex, Heritage Park, and the Jewish Community Center • Preparation and initial implementation ofthe City's Climate Protection Plan • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as the Homer Tunnel and the Waverley bridge • The approval of three new neighborhood grocery stores CMR: 152: 10 . Page 2 of 12 • Preservation and restoration of several historic structures using transferable development rights and other incentives On the other hand, examples of other projects and improvements were less than successful with some potentiallong-tenn adverse effects, such as: • The loss of the Hyatt Rickey's Hotel and an attendant loss of transient occupancy tax revenue • Conversion of other commercial and industrial sites to residential projects, again reducing the City revenues and job base • Lack of a cohesive planning framework for new projects in south Palo Alto, resulting in development that is sometimes not well integrated into the community fabric of street connections or urban design • Lack of provision of commercial and public services commensurate with the new housing development • Little accommodation for significant economic development opportunities, particularly those that enhance City revenues Staff believes that the primary driver of some of these adverse changes was the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan focus on housing to the detriment of commercial and industrial uses. When that Plan was prepared, the City had a very strong office market and a weak housing market, and the Plan compensated by placing a priority on housing shortly before housing became a highly profitable land use. Some of these concerns were addressed with zoning changes that arrested the change in !and use from commercial to housing, but the overall Comprehensive Plan approach remains to be refocused. It will be important, as the City updates the Comprehensive Plan, to provide an flPptopriate balance of land uses, services, and economic development to lead the City to 2020. At the same time, climate change has become a major theme at the local, regional, statewide, and national level, altering lifestyles and development patterns over the coming 10 years of the updated Comprehensive Plan. State Senate Bill 375, in particular, will provide incentives (and possibly regulation) to encourage measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to facilitate compact, higher density development in walkable, transit adjacent areas. Work Program The City Council, in response to many of the changes and projects noted above, initiated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in 2006 with approval of a Colleague's Memo that outlined the general parameters of the work program. Funding for the project was allocated in 2007 and a consultant team selected in 2008. At a joint study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held on July 28, 2008, City Council reviewed and finalized the work program (Attachment A). The primary purposes of the amendment were stated as: 1. to extend the horizon year of the Plan to 2020; 2. to update baseline data and growth projections; 3. to modify the vision statements, policies and programs as needed to address the focus of the Comp Plan Amendment; 4. to ensure the retention of sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail uses and commercial growth; 5. to adequately mitigate impacts of increased housing on community services such as parks, libraries and schools; and CMR: 152:10 Page 3 of 12 6. to address the City's commitment to climate protection and sustainabiIity. The work program also called for the development of Concept Plans for the East Meadow CirclelFabian Way! West Bayshore area and the California Avenue area (including the existing Fry's Electronics site and adjacent properties) for inclusion in the amended Comprehensive Plan, to determine appropriate future land uses, circulation, and services in these two areas. Finally, updating the City's Housing Element was included as part of the work effort. The Council indicated at the time the work program was adopted that the amendment was to continue much of the direction of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and to underscore its major themes, including: • Building Community and Neighborhoods • Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character • Reducing Reliance on the Automobile • Meeting Housing Supply Challenges • Protecting and Repairing Natural Features • Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs • Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership The Council allocated $850,000 for this work effort over a four year period, which has since been extended one year due to budget constraints. This budget and timeframe is premised on retaining the focused scope outlined at the time and further discussed below. The City's update of the Housing Element was also part of the work scope, but consultant funding was riot provided, as the document is to be prepared by staff. Further background on the Housing Element update is provided in the discussion below. DISCUSSION The joint City Council and Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) study session provides an opportunity for the City Council and the PTC to discuss the status of the major components of the work program for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Housing Element update. At a follow-up study session, Council may then provide direction to staff and the PTC regarding specific work items that are in process. Staff has included a draft schedule (Attachment B) for the work program that identifies the major work scope components and a timeframe for their completion. Staff and the PTC have identified five primary areas of discussion for the study session: 1. Vision Statements, Policies and Programs 2. Growth Projections 3. Housing Element 4. Scope of Work 5. Concept Plans Each of these topics is discussed below, and the PTC m~mbers will further explain some of their specific concerns about the initial three key policy issues. Staff has identified the extent of the scope of work as an additional issue requiring clarification from Council. The status of the Concept Plans is also discussed below, and each will be coming forward to the Commission and Council in greater CMR: 152:10 Page 4 of 12 detail in the spring and summer of this year. More information about these items will be provided to the PTC and Council at the follow-up study session, along with responses to questions raised at this meeting. 1. Vision Statements, Policies, and Programs The PTC discussed the major themes and vision statements (Attachment C) of the existing Comprehensive P1an during two separate meetings, held in September and October of 2009, focusing on the overall framework of the plan and the interrelationship between the vision statements of each element of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners made specific recommendations for changes to each element's vision statement (Attachment D) and also made general recommendations regarding modifying the vision statements, including the following: • The style of the vision statements should be more cohesive; • Vision statements should be realistic and not overarching or too general; • The language of the vision statement should be clearer; and • The vision statements for each element should reflect a balance between existing conditions and future growth. As part of the review, the PTe has indicated that revisions to the Comprehensive Plan format should be undertaken in order to create a clearer, more general, cohesive and less redundant policy document. This could involve rearranging chapters and elements and substantially changing the format of the existing plan and would result in significant additional staff work and costs. The work program envisioned only limited changes to the existing format and focused policy changes only on those specific areas identified by the work program. The staff and consultant resources allocated to the work program are based on that direction from Council. 2. Growth Projections Staff discussed draft population, housing and employment growth projections to be considered in the Comprehensive Plan through 2020 at three separate PTC meetings in late 2008 and early 2009. Staff proposes to evaluate three different growth scenarios for jobs and housing development through 2020 and to evaluate those three scenarios in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). One growth scenario would use ABAG Projections 2009 data and a second growth scenario would use historic growth rates and "pipeline" (in process) projects for residential development and employment projections would be based on data developed by the economic consultant for the Comprehensi ve Plan, Advanced Development Economics. Each of these scenarios is further described below. A third scenario would be a low growth alternative that would be developed when the EIR for the Comprehensive P1an Amendment is prepared and would result in no net new impacts. ABAG Projections 2009, released last year, is the most recent edition of ABAG's long-term forecast of population, households, and employment. ABAG Projections 2009 adjusted the regions and local employment projections to reflect the economic climate during the last half of 2008. Table 1 shows ABAG's projected employment, population and households for the City's jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence (SOl) through 2020. CMR: 152:10 Page 5 of12 Table 1 ABA G Projections 2009 City of Palo Alto 2000 2010 2020 EMPLOYMENT Jobs (City)* . 86,960 . 76,480 77,010 Jobs (SOI)** 107,950 97,300 99,280 City of Palo Alto 2000 2010 2020 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS Population (City)* 58,598 61,600 70,400 Population (SOI)** 71,914 76,400 86,100 Households (City)* 25,216 26,700 29,910 Households (SOI)** 28,424 30,350 33,870 * City Jurisdiction * * City Sphere of Influence ABAG 2009 projects minimal "net" job growth from 2010-2020, indicating the slow recovery from the current economic recession and that substantial employment growth will mostly occur after 2020. Staff notes that the Stanford Uni versity Medical Center expansion is scheduled for completion after 2020. Projections 2009 assumes a population growth rate of approximately 14% from 2010-2020, while historical Census data shows the City of Palo Alto's population has only grown by approximately 4.7% over the last 30 years (1970-2000 Census data). Although Palo Alto experienced significant new housing development from 2000 -2008, that growth rate has now decreased due to changing economic conditions. Staff has consistently maintained to ABAG the accelerated growth in the period from 1997-2008 is unlikely to be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and existing redevelopment potential, and thus proposes using the Population and Household growth in ABAG Projections 2009 as the high-growth scenario for the EIR. Based on historical development patterns, household and population estimates of the State Department of Finance from 2001..,2008, and known past and "pipeline" residential development, staff forecasts a more modest population and household growth through 2020. Hlstorical Census data shows the City's population grew 1.2% from 1980 to 1990 and an additional 4.8% from 1990 to . 2000. Known residential projects either in the entitlement process or entitled that have not recei ved building permits will generate approximately 400 dwelling units in the next several years. Table 2 shows staffs developed total population, household and housing unit forecasts through 2020. . CMR: 152:10 Page 6 of 12 Table 2 Staff Population and Household Projections Staff Projections for City of Palo Alto Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 Total Population * 58,598 62,700 65,400 Households * * 25,216 26,913 27,978 Housing Units 26,048 27,800 28,900 * Total Population includes household population and persons living in group quarters. ** Staff projected Households data with the assumption that 3.2% of housing units in Palo Alto is unoccupied or vacant derived from civilian vacancy rate based on Census 2000 benchmark. I ! Staff projects a 4.3% population increase from 2010-2020, which is indicative of historical population growth trends and purposes to use these projections as the "mid-growth scenario" for population and housing growth. City of Palo Alto *EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2020 Staff Jobs Growth (based on 2008 data)**** 86,960 76,774 82,095 ABAG Jobs Growth 86,960 76,480 77,010 City of Palo Alto *POPULATION and HOUSEHOLDS 2000 2010 2020 High Growth Population** 58598 61,600 70,400 Mid Growth Population** 58,598 62,700 65,400 High Growth Households 25,216 26,700 29,910 Mid Growth Households*** 25,216 26,913 27,978 High Growth Housing Units 26,048 27,552 30,864 Mid Growth Housing Units 26,048 27,800 28,900 City of Palo Alto Jurisdictional Boundary. Total Population includes household population and persons living in group quarters. * ** *** Staff projected Households data with the assumption that 3.2% of housing units in Palo Alto are unoccupied or vacant derived from civilian vacancy rate based on Census 2000 benchmark. CMR: 152:lO Page 7 of 12 r To be updated by economic consultant 3. Housing Element Considerable progress has been made to update the City's Housing Element over the past year. Staff work on the Housing Element has focused on updating the population, household and housing data required for the Housing Element and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current element's programs and policies. An ad hoc Housing Element Technical Advisory Group (TAG), representing stakeholders and organizations concerned about housing growth and policy, was fonned in late 2008 and has met regularly to discuss housing issues and policies, to evaluate housing strategies and programs, to assess impacts of various housing types and locations, and to enable ongoing public involvement in the Housing Element process .. The PTe discussed the current Housing Element's vision, goals and key policies at two study sessions last year. Main policy concerns for the commissioners that were not sufficiently addressed in-the current Housing Element included: • focusing new housing opportunities on underserved needs; • considering balancing housing needs with city and school resources and traffic capacity; • ensuring preservation of neighborhood character, particularly single family homes; and • changing the paradigm that housing is the preferred land use and should be located in most areas of the City. The latter concern is seen as implicit in the phrase "including converting non~residentiallands to residential or mixed use" from the existing Housing Element vision statement. A critical component of the Housing Element is the housing sites inventory that identifies how the City will meet its current Regional Housing Needs Al1ocation (RHNA). The State requires that housing elements demonstrate how the jurisdiction can accommodate the RHNA allocation by planning and zoning adequate sites, although the RHNA does not assume that the zoned residential lands will be built. The PTC has specifically requested direction from Council regarding criteria to identify sites to include in the RHNA inventory, and whether the City should attempt to comply with the RHNA allocation. The City contested the RHNA process and appealed the resultant RHNA allocation to ABAG in 2008 (Attachment E). Currently the City would need to identify sites for approximately 2,100 units in order to meet its RHNA allocation, as depicted in Table 4. There are approximately 315 units currently in the review process that could be placed on the inventory, which would reduce the RHNA to about 1,800 units. Staff has conducted a preliminary analysis of sites that have redevelopment potential and are zoned for higher density residential uses or are zoned to allow higher density residential development in a mixed use configuration and could be included in the sites inventory without a zone change (Attachment F). This excludes approximately 304 housing units from the Fry's site currently under evaluation as part of the California A venue Concept Plan, since the site would not be available for redevelopment until after 2014, following the 2001-2014 housing evaluation period. CMR: 152:10 Page 8 of 12 Table 4 Status of Palo Alto's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) RHNA for City of Palo Alto (2007-2014 Housing Element) 2,860 units Housing Built or Building Permit Issued (since Jan 2007) 786 Housing currently In Process* 315 Potential Housing on existing Residentially Zoned Sites 369 Potential Housing in Zoning Districts that could accommodate Mixed Use Development 312 Total 1,782 units RHNA Deficiency 1,078 units * In process includes projects entitled without building permits, in the entitlement process or in the preliminary entitlement process. As Table 4 depicts, this leaves a deficiency of almost 1,100 units. Some options that could be considered to address this shortfall include: • Working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from the County to the City for housing sites allowed under Stanford's Community Plan and General Use Pennit, in conjunction with" or following the Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center expansion; • Increasing housing potential in the California Avenue area as part of the California A venue Concept Plan; , • Developing a concept plan for downtown and focusing higher density housing near the University Avenue multi-modal transit station; and/or • Evaluating other sites throughout the City for rezoning for higher density housing. Lack of a State-certified housing element has several potential implications, including litigation or loss of potential funding for affordable housing or transportation grants. Funding consequences will likely increase over the coming years as SB375 is implemented, but at this time are not seen as highly risky, given the lack of State funds available. Utigation is highly unusual, and is generally not pursued so long as a city is making a sincere attempt to prepare its housing element. Staff anticipates development of alternate housing scenarios and assessment of related impacts for presentation to the PTC and Council in the summer of 2010. 4. Scope of Work In addition to the potential to expand the work scope to provide extensive revisions to the Comprehensive Plan format, policies, and programs, other potential work program elements have' been identified that are outside of the original scope of work and could add significant cost and time . to the planning effort. These include: 1) providing concept plans for the downtown and/or South El Camino Real areas, 2) evaluating and incorporating High Speed Rail land use scenarios; and/or 3) providing details of potential mitigation of sea level rise impacts. Staff expects to develop general policy level guidance and future study of all of these items within the current work scope, but if a greater level of analysis and discussion is desired, budget and schedule would be affected substantially. Staff estimates that to fully address anyone of these work items would require increased budget of $75,000-$100,000 and could be considerably more, depending on the level of CMR: 152:10 Page 9 of 12 technical analysis required. 5. Concept Plans Three neighborhood workshops and stakeholder meetings and interviews have been completed for both the East Meadow Circle (Attachment G) and California Avenue (Attachment H) Concept Plan areas. A preferred land use alternative has been developed for the East Meadow Circle concept plan area and the PTC reviewed and commented on that alternative on February 10,2010. The preferred alternative focuses on enhancing non-residential development opportunities, limiting housing, and providing for critical pedestrian and bicycle connections to residential areas and to the Baylands. Staff will be retumingto the PTC in April or May with additional information and revisions to the alternative based on comments received at that meeting. !tis anticipated that a PTC recommendation for the East Meadow concept plan will be forwarded to City Council in late spring .. Three potential land use scenarios for the California A venue area were presented at a third and final community workshop held on February 2,2010. The alternativ~s generally include some increased housing density or mixed use development, but with different options regarding the level of intensity and the treatment of the Fry's site. Options are also outlined to provide additional parking and open space opportunities. These three land use alternatives for the CaliforniaAvenue Concept Plan area will be presented to the PTC this spring for their recommendation of a preferred land use alternative . with Council discussion anticipated this summer. The two draft Concept Plans will be incorporated in the Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment and evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Concept Plans also have implications for the Housing Element in that they will either provide opportunities for additional housing or further limit housing options. NEXT STEPS Attachment B outlines an anticipated schedule for preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Environmental Impact Report. Concept Plans The PTC is expected to complete its review and recommend to the City Council a preferred land use alternative for both Concept Plan areas by mid 2010. The land use concept plan for each area that is supported by the City Council will then be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Vision Statements, Policies. and Programs The PTC will craft text changes to the goals, policies and programs for each individual element, including developing new policies and programs to address the areas of concern identified in the work program. A major component of work in the next year will be to incorporate sustainability . concepts into the existing Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element To encourage broad participation, two community-wide meetings will beheld in mid-2010 to gather input from the general public on housing issues, goals, and poJicies and programs. Staff will also convene a focus group, consisting of housing developers, commercial "mixed-use"developers, architects and other housing development professionals, to discuss the effectiveness of existing and proposed programs. The City Council will review the draft Housing Element in the summer of 201 0, CMR: 152:10 Page 10 of 12 following PTC review. The draft element would then be forwarded to the State for an initial review for compliance with State regulations. Citywide Community Workshops The City will sponsor at least three citywide community workshops to engage the public in the amendment process by presenting information regarding the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, the fundamentals of sustainable growth and the availability of City services to accommodate future growth. In addition, as mentioned above, the City will hold two workshops on the Housing Element. These citywide community workshops will begin in the spring of 2010 and extend throughout the '" year. Sneaker Series In addition to the community workshops, staff will continue over the remainder of the year to invite various experts in land use planning, transportation, and urban design to provide insight and guidance to both decision makers and the public prior to completion of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The presentations include such topics as recent state legislation regarding climate change, smart growth principles, infill development, urban design, and land use and transportation linkages. Draft Comprehensive Plan AmendmentlEIR Staff anticipate~ PTC and City Council review of the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2011 with hearings on the Draft Environmental bnpact Report (DEIR) in late 2011. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including changes to the Housing Element, is scheduled to be adopted by the City Council in mid 2012. PUBLIC OUTREACH As noted above, several community workshops and public meetings will be conducted to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Housing Element update. The City also maintains a website (www.paloaltocompplan2020.org) that provides information about the Comprehensive Plan' including the Housing Element. Meeting outreach will include neighborhood associations, business groups, schools, and other interested parties. Staff also intends to integrate the Comprehensi ve Plan effort into a City Facebook site to allow for real-time updates of Comprehensive Plan information. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Although this study sessions will result in no policy actions, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process enables the Comprehensive Plan to be updated to focus on current City policy and to adequately reflect the City's vision consistent with or modified from the goals of the existing· Comprehensive Plan. The updated plan is intended to provide an effective guide for future growth in . the City. RESOURCE IMPACTS There are no fiscal impacts reSUlting from this report. The Council approved a budget of $850,000 in April 2008 for the amendment process. The City Council's adoption of the 2010 budget extended the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work schedule by one year and decreased the Comprehensi ve Plan Amendment budget by $75,000 for fiscal years 200912010 and 201012011. Staff expects to complete the Comprehensi ve Plan Amendment work program within the current staffing structure CMR: 152:10 Page 11 of 12 and revised budget. However, expansion of the work program would require additional resources and would likely lengthen the schedule for completion. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report to the City Council is not considered a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS R6I:AND RIVERA? Senior Planner CURTIS WILLIAMS Attachment A: CMR: 323:08 Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and the Approved Work Program Attachment B: Work Program Schedule Attachment C: Existing Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements Attachment D: PTC Comments on Vision Statements Attachment E: 2008 City Appeal Letter to ABAO regarding RHNA Allocation Attachment F: Existing Sites Zoned for Housing or Mixed Use Attachment 0: East Meadow Concept Plan Area Map Attachment H: California A venue/Fry' s Concept Plari Area Map CMR: 152:10 Page 12 of 12 AlITACHMENT B March 3, 2010 Joint PTC/Ci\y Council Study Session on Comprehensive Plan " Amendment Synopsis Curtis Williams, the Director of Planning and Community Environment, provided an overview of the purpose of comprehensive plans, discussed some of the positives and negative outcomes resulting under the City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, and recounted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work program approved by Council in 2006. He outlined four key issues for City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) consideration for the Amendment, including: 1} growth projections, 2} the Housing Element,and particularly the housing allocation by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the City's approach to compliance, 3) the Vision Statements, goals, and policies of the Plan and the extent of potential revisions, and 4) possible components of the Amendment (e.g., area plans for downtown and south EI Camino Real, high speed rail, and sea level rise) that would be outside the current scope of work. Staff suggested that the Council and PTC ask questions about these topics and then return at a second session to provide direction to staff and the PTC. Six members of the public spoke relative to the study session topics, most with concerns about the (undesirable) type of development approved under the current Comprehensive Plan, the amount of housing the City should plan to build, and the validity of the population projections by ABAG and staff. The Council and Commission discussed the various issues extensively, including but not limited to the following general observations (and not intended to represent a consensus): • Most of the projects built under the current Plan, and those in south Palo Alto in particular, have been "neighborhood resistant;" the City should look at LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -Neighborhood Development) as a possible guideline for new growth; and the work effort should be more than an "amendment;" • The City should challenge the ABAG assumptions with respect to impacts on greenhouse gases, water conservation, etc., of increased development, especially for housing; • The City's approach to the housing element should be a "bottoms-up" methodology to define what we can do, building on what is already realistic and zoned, not a directive to find a way to meet the ABAG RHNA housing allocations; • The follow-up session should be treated as an action item (not a study session) so that votes may be taken to provide direction; • The South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines and associated Comp Plan policies and zoning codes shoulcj be considered and updated in the short term rather than awaiting completion of the Comp Plan effort; • There is a need to reconcile inconsistent vision statements and pOliCies, and for some reformatting to make the Plan more user-friendly; and to provide more practical and "opera'tional" statements and policies; • Area plans should be a more frequently-used tool than has been the case, to guide development; • The City should evaluate the potential for litigation if the City does not comply with housing element law, as well as preemptive measures to challenge those regulations; • The City should deal with the housing element issues before acting on the Stanford project or the concept plans; • The housing element should address the difficulty of providing "moderate income" units and the fact that the City was over its total housing allocation for the priOr period witli' no "credit" for that; and that the City already has provided pedestrian-transit oriented zoning in advance of ABAG projections and SB375; and that ABAG should consider the least­ cost methods for meeting greenhouse gas objectives; • The City needs to consider SB375 implications in its housing plans, and should "step up to the bar" to provide adequate housing for the area; and • Staff and the PTC should provide a list of questions for the Council to respond to, at least 2 weeks in advance of the next session. Many other detailed comments and questions were provided for response and direction at the follow-up session. Staff is to schedule a second study session followed by an action item to allow Council to provide direction on a number of these issues. The PTCwould be involved in the study session portion of the deliberations.