HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4120
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4120)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/13/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Housing Element Zoning Revisions
Title: Public Hearing: Ordinance to Amend Sections 18.04.030 (Definitions),
18.16.060 (CN Zone), 18.18.060 (CD Zone), 18.20.030 (ROLM(E) Zone) and
Add Section 18.46 (Reasonable Accommodation) of Title 18 (Zo ning) of Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Implement 2007 -2014 Housing Element Programs
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) to implement five
programs in the City’s Housing Element by amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) to make the following changes:
1. Amend Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) to add definitions for Emergency Shelter,
Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing to comply with the definitions found in
State law and to conform to the requirements of Government Section Code 65583.
2. Amend Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards for CN, CC, and CS Districts) to
increase the density for residential projects in the CN zone district from 15 units per acre
to 20 units per acre for CN parcels in Housing Inventory Sites list of the Housing Element.
3. Amend Section 18.20.030 (Land Uses for MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP and GM Districts) to
add Emergency Shelters for the Homeless as a permitted use in the portion of the ROLM
(E) District located east of Highway 101, and to establish performance and design
standards for emergency shelters as outlined in the Palo Alto Quality Assurance
Standards for Emergency Shelters (Attachment B).
4. Add Chapter 18.46 (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility) to
establish a process for persons with disabilities to seek a modification to the zoning
regulations to eliminate regulatory barriers to providing housing for persons with a
disability as required by State law. Typical improvements that would be considered for
reasonable accommodation provisions include ramps, walls, handrails, elevators or lifts,
or similar physical improvements necessary to accommodate a person’s disability.
5. Revise Section 18.16.060(c) (CN zoning) and 18.18.060(c) (CD zoning) to be consistent
with the current Housing Element which does not allow exclusive residential uses for
City of Palo Alto Page 2
identified parcels in the Housing Element.
Executive Summary
The proposed changes to the zoning code outlined in the attached Draft Ordinance would
implement five programs included in the City’s Housing Element, which was certified by the
State Department of Housing and Community Development on August 15, 2013. The changes
would (i) modify the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) district to increase densities from 15 to 20
dwelling units per acre on those sites included in the Housing Element, (ii) permit transitional
and supportive housing by right where multifamily housing is permitted, as required by State
law; (iii) allow emergency shelters as a permitted use in the ROLM (E) district east of Highway
101 pursuant to specific design and management standards; (iv) establish a process for Requests
for Reasonable Accommodation pursuant to State Law; and (v) prohibit exclusively residential
projects (as opposed to mixed use projects) in certain commercial zones.
These zoning amendments, in addition to the adoption of the density bonus ordinance, are
significant because they must be adopted in order for the City to be eligible for the State’s
streamlined process for the 2015-23 Housing Element Update, which is due January 31, 2015.
There are other programs in the 2007-2014 Housing Element requiring zoning amendments,
which will be brought to the City Council for consideration later this year.
Background
The proposed changes to the zoning code are meant to address the following five programs
contained in the adopted Housing Element.
Program H2.2.5 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.
As part of the State requirements for Housing Inventory Sites, housing elements must include
analysis of identified sites which demonstrate density standards to accommodate a jurisdiction’s
regional need for all income levels, including lower-income households. While jurisdictions can
theoretically provide an analysis demonstrating how adopted densities accommodate the
regional housing need for lower income households, in practice, HCD requires that sites meet
default densities established by statute. For Palo Alto, the law includes a default density of 20
units per acre (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)).
In addition, the Council provided direction to staff to identify Housing Inventory Sites (HIS)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
within the El Camino Real, University Avenue and California Avenue corridors. A total of 32
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoned parcels were identified and included in the HIS list. In
order to meet the State default density, the Housing Element directs the City to revise the CN
zone to provide for densities of 20 dwelling units per acre for sites on the HIS list. Currently, per
the City Code, the CN zoning district allows for a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre
in a mixed use development. This zoning amendment would only apply to CN zoned parcels in
the HIS. Please note that while this change assists the City in complying with Housing Element
law, at most it is expected to yield an additional 64 units citywide.
Program H3.3.8 Amend the Zoning Code to allow transitional and supportive housing by
right in all multifamily zone districts which allow residential uses only subject to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
In 2008, the State legislature passed Senate Bill 2 (SB2). As part of the bill, it provided that
transitional and supporting housing be considered a residential use. As a residential use, the
proposed transitional and/or supportive housing would subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. The definitions of
transitional housing and supportive housing have been revised within the City Municipal Code
to specify that these housing types are considered to be a multi-family residential use.
Program 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(E) zone district located east of Highway 101.
As part of the same SB2 bill, the State required jurisdictions to identify potential site(s) or a
zoning district that emergency shelters can be permitted without discretionary review by the
local government. The ROLM(E) zone district has been designated to meet the SB2
requirements.
Staff has enlisted Inn Vision’s assistance in developing emergency shelter standards for the
ROLM(E) district and will report back to Council on the progress of this effort.
If a developer submits plans that meet all the standards, no additional discretionary review can
be required. The permit would be considered ministerial and permitted “by right”.
Program H4.1.6 Amend the Zoning Code to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable
accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be necessary to ensure
reasonable access to housing. The purpose of this program is to provide a process for individuals
with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City.
In the HCD review of the City’s draft Housing Element, HCD required that the City have a Cit y-
wide Reasonable Accommodation (RA) policy. The federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") impose an affirmative duty on local
governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or excepti ons) in their
zoning laws and other land use regulations and practices when such accommodations "may be
necessary to afford" disabled persons "an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." While
the City does have a RA policy for its BMR program, it was inadequate for HCD purposes. The
Reasonable Accommodation Policy has been proposed for inclusion as Chapter 18.46 “Requests
for Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility” in the Municipal Code. An example of a
reasonable accommodation request could be allowing a wheelchair ramp to encroach within a
setback without the requirement of planning review. If there are other discretionary items that
require review, the RA request would be part of the discretionary review. But the reviewing
body would not have discretionary review over the RA request.
Title 18 Housing Element Clean Up Items
There are some existing sections of Title 18 that were approved to implement programs from
the previous HE programs. These sections need to be revised or removed from the zoning code
to be consistent with the current HE. When preparing the current HE, the Council provided
direction that no additional non -residentially zoned parcels be converted to exclusively
residential uses.
The proposed ordinance will revise or remove the following sections from Title 18:
1. 18.16.060(c) Exclusive Residential Uses In CN, CS, CC and CC(2) zone districts
This section will be revised to state that exclusive residential use is prohibited in the CN,
CS, CC and CC(2) zone districts.
2. 18.18.060(c) Exclusive Residential Uses in CD zone district
This section will be revised to state that exclusive residential use is prohibited in the CD
zone district.
Discussion
Because of the number of actions included in the draft ordinance proposed for Council
City of Palo Alto Page 5
adoption, the table below has been prepared to provide a brief summary of each action with an
explanation of why the action is needed.
Code Section
Amended
Subject Reason for Action
18.04.030 Revise definitions to allow supportive,
transitional and Emergency shelter
Comply with State law
(SB2)
18.16.060 Increase maximum density for CN zoned
parcels in the HIS from 15 units per acre up to
20 units per acre (32 parcels. +64 more units
max)
Meet State default
density requirement
18.20.030 Add Emergency Shelter as permitted use in
the ROLM(E) zone district with no
discretionary review if meet zoning standards
Comply with State
Law (SB2)
18.46 Create a City wide Reasonable
Accommodation policy
Compliance with Fair
Housing Act and the
California Fair
Employment and
Housing Act
18.16.060(c) and
18.18.060(c)
Revised section to prohibit exclusive
residential use from the CN and CD zone,
respectively.
Revised to be
consistent with the
current Housing
Element, which does
not allow exclusive
residential uses in the
CD and CN zones.
Eligibility for Housing Element Streamlined Update
The 2015-2023 Housing Element update deadline is January 31, 2015, and the City will find it
challenging to meet this deadline particularly if it cannot qualify for the Streamlined Update
procedure developed by HCD. The Streamlined Update will reduce the time needed for HCD
review of a Housing Element. Currently, HCD had 60 days to review the draft Housing Element
and then 90 days to review the final approved draft. This d oes not include time needed for City
staff to respond to draft comments prior to submitting the approved draft. The HCD review
process for the current HE was over 13 months. The Streamlined Update process reduces the
entire review time to 60 days.
In the Streamline Review process, jurisdictions will not need to prepare a completely new draft
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Housing Element. Only certain sections of the Housing Element would need to be updated.
Those sections include:
1. Housing Needs Assessment
2. Person with Special Needs
3. At-Risk Units
4. Potential Governmental and Non-governmental Constraints.
5. Sites Inventory and Analysis
6. Analysis of Internal Consistency of the General Plan
Jurisdictions may be eligible for the voluntary streamline review process if the jurisdiction has
completed the following items:
1. Rezone of adequate sites has been completed.
2. Approval of zoning to permit emergency shelters without discretionary action.
3. Zoning to permit transitional and supportive housing as a multi-family residential use.
4. Policies, ordinances or procedures established to allow reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities.
5. Adoption of Density Bonus ordinance consistent with Government Code Section 65915.
If these items are not completed, the jurisdiction would need to have its element reviewed
using the longer review schedule. Based on the short time frame given to update the Housing
Element, having to adhere the longer review schedule would seriously compromise the City’s
ability to meet the January 31, 2015 HCD deadline and there are significant risks and penalties
associated with not meeting the deadline.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80 describes the process for amendments to the
City’s zoning regulations. Pursuant to Section 18.80.090, the PTC is to set forth the findings and
determinations of the PTC with respect to the proposed changes initiated by the Commission in
a written recommendation to City Council. Council would consider the PTC recommendations in
a public hearing. The PTC’s determination for its recommendation should include why the
public interest or general welfare require these amendments.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
On December 11, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the attached
ordinances relating to implementation of the Housing Element. The main PTC concern involved
the reasonable accommodation policy. While fully supportive of implementing the policy, the
PTC directed staff to research if the reasonable accommodations improvements (ramps, walls,
handrails, elevators or lifts, or similar physical improvements necessary to accommodate a
person’s disability) can be linked to the tenure of the applicant in the residence. The PTC
questioned whether or not the reasonable accommodation improvements could be removed
once the tenure of the applicant in the residence ceases. It is possible to require these
accommodations to be removed after the qualifying resident leaves; however, staff proposes
monitoring the types of improvements requested under the ordinance before imposing this
requirement. Staff anticipates that some improvements might be beneficial in the long run
while imposing nominal neighborhood compatibility or aesthetic concerns.
The PTC unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to implement
programs in the City’s Housing Element to amend Title 18 (Zoning). The minutes of the PTC
meeting are included as Attachment C.
Next Steps
As stated, staff anticipates presenting additional Housing Element programs that require zon ing
ordinance amendments in the future. Some of the other Housing Element programs include lot
consolidation programs, creating an incentive program for small lots and considering other
possible programs to increase the density yields for projects with af fordable housing
components.
Staff is also initiating work on the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update, which will begin with
demographic analysis and public outreach. The Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee
will be meeting to discuss the update regularly.
Policy Implications
The proposed changes to the zoning code are consistent with the 2007 -2014 Housing Element
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan because these changes implement the programs outlined
in the Housing Element by allowing for increased density on sites designated as housing
inventory sites by the Housing Element within the CN zone district, providing opportunities for
emergency shelters for the homeless with appropriate performance standards within the
ROLM(E) zone district, allowing for placement of transitional and supportive housing as required
by State law, and providing a process for requests for reasonable accommodation for physical
improvements to housing for persons with disabilities.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
As noted above, approval of the draft ordinance, as well as the proposed density bonus
ordinance, would make the City eligible for HCD’s streamlined process for the 2015 -2023
Housing Element Update, which is due on January 31, 2015.
Timeline
If approved by the Council, the ordinance would require a 2nd no less than 10 days after the
initial approval. The ordinance would become effective 31 days after the 2nd reading adoption
by the City Council.
Environmental Review
The proposed Ordinance updating the zoning ordinance to implement the 2007 -2014 Housing
Element were considered as a part of the implementation program contained in the Housing
Element. The potential environmental impacts of implementation of the Housing Element were
reviewed as a part of the Negative Declaration prepared for the Housing Element. This
document determined that no adverse environmental impacts would result from
implementation of the policies and programs outlined in the 2007 -2014 Housing Element, and
the Negative Declaration and Housing Element were approved by the City Council on June 17,
2013 by Resolution No. 9349. The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance would modify
existing programs and add procedures which provide suitable sites for emergency shelters to
comply with SB2, and establish procedures to make accommodations for persons with
disabilities. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Housing Element Program Ordinance Amendments (PDF)
Attachment B: December 11, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission Draft
Excerpt Minutes (DOC)
Attachment C: Correspondence (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections
18.04.030 (Definitions), 18.16.060 (Development Standards for CN, CC,
and CS Districts), and 18.20.030 (Land Uses for MOR, ROLM, RP and GM
Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning), and adding Chapter 18.46 (Requests for
Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement the adopted 2007-2014 Housing
Element
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
declares as follows:
A. On June 17, 2013, the City Council adopted the 2007-2014 Housing
Element to provide a framework for housing opportunities in the City of Palo Alto . This
ordinance implements some of the policies and programs contained in the Housing
Element by updating the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program to apply to projects
with three or more units, allow for increased density (from 15 units per acre to 20 units
per acre) on sites designated as Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) by the Housing Element
within the CN zone district, provide opportunities for emergency shelters for the
homeless with appropriate performance standards within the ROLM(E) zone district east
of Highway 101, provide opportunities for placement of transitional and supportive
housing as required by State law, and to provide a process for requests for reasonable
accommodation to remove constraints to the development of housing for individuals
with disabilities and provide reasonable access to housing.
B. The 2007-2014 Housing Element includes programs (Programs H2.2.5,
H3.1.1, H3.5.1 and H4.1.6) which require that these changes to the zoning code be
adopted. Staff anticipates that the changes to the density in the CN district and the
change in the Below Market Rate Housing Program to include any project with three or
more units will be an important tool to help the City accommodate its Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. The changes to allow emergency shelters in certain
locations subject to performance standards and to allow opportunities for transitional
and supportive housing will bring the zoning code into compliance with the provisions of
Government Code Section 65583 and 65589.5 . The reasonable accommodations
program will remove constraints to providing necessary improvements to housing for
persons with disabilities.
C. The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair
Employment Act require local governments to make reasonable accommodation in their
land use and zoning regulations and practices when such accommodation may be
necessary to provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to housing. The
Not Yet Approved
2
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
Attorney General of the State of California has recommended that cities implement fair
housing reasonable accommodation procedures for making land use and zoning
determinations to further the development of housing for individuals with disabilities. A
fair housing reasonable accommodation procedure for individuals with disabilities to
seek relief in the application of zoning regulations will further Palo Alto’s compliance
with federal and state fair housing laws and provide greater opportunities for the
development of critically needed housing for individuals with disabilities.
SECTION 2. Section 18.040.030(a)(50) (Definition of Emergency Shelters) of Title
18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
(50) "Emergency shelter" means a facility or use, which provides temporary housing
(six months or less) for homeless individuals or families and may involve supplemental
services. Supplemental services may include, but are not limited to, meal preparation, an
activities center, day care for homeless person's children, vocational rehabilitation and other
similar activities.
SECTION 3. Section 18.040(a)(135.5) (Definition of Supportive Housing) is added
to read as follows:
(135.5) "Supportive Housing" means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is
occupied by target populations, as defined by Section 53260(d) of the California Health and
Safety Code, and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing
residents in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or
her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing shall be
considered as a multiple-family use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
multiple-family uses of the same type in the same zone. Supportive housing programs may
use residential care homes wholly or as a part of their overall facilities.
SECTION 4. Section 18.040(a)(138) (Definition of Transitional Housing) is added
to read as follows:
(138) "Transitional Housing" means buildings configured as rental housing
developments, but operated under program requirements that call for termination of
assistance and recirculation of the assisted units to another eligible program recipient at
some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Support
services may include meals, counseling, and other services, as well as common areas for
residents of the facility. Transitional housing shall be considered a multiple-family use and
only subject to those restrictions that apply to other multiple-family uses of the same type in
the same zone. Transitional housing programs may use residential care homes wholly or as
part of their overall facilities.
Not Yet Approved
3
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
SECTION 5. Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards for CN, CC, and CS
Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a) Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and alterations
to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These developments
shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the
context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive
regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the
director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
TABLE 3
EXCLUSIVELY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CN CC CC(2) CS
Subject to
regulations in
Section
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
None Required
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft) 0 – 10’ to
create an 8’
– 12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1), (2), (8)
None
Required
(8)
0 – 10’ to
create an 8’
– 12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1), (2), (8)
0 – 10’ to
create an 8’
– 12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1), (2), (8)
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback map
pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code
Rear Yard (ft) None required
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft) 20’ (2) None required
Minimum Yard (ft) for lot
lines abutting or opposite
residential districts or
residential PC districts
10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2)
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (7)
33% of side street built to setback (7)
Minimum setbacks from alleys
for structures other than public
parking garages (ft) (3)
Corner lots, from rear lot line
on the alley
Not applicable
8’
Not
applicable Corner lots, from side lot line
on the alley None
All lots other than corner lots 20’
Maximum Site 50% None Required
Not Yet Approved
4
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
CN CC CC(2) CS
Subject to
regulations in
Section
Coverage
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
25’ and 2
stories
50’ 37’ (4) 50’
Within 150 ft. of a residential
district (other than an RM-40
or PC zone) abutting or
located within 50 feet of the
site
35’ 35’ 35’
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 18.18.060(e)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for Hotels N/A - (5) 2.0:1 2.0:1 18.18.060(d)
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting one or more
residential zone districts other
than an RM-40 or PC zone
Initial Height at side or rear
lot line (ft) - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6)
Slope - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6)
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the
street property line of any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen
excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be
constructed along any common interior lot line.
(3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage.
(4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may
exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten
percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane.
(5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050.
(6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site
line in question.
(7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to
CC district.
(8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage.
(b) Mixed Uses
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments.
These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that
more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and
approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section
18.76.020.
TABLE 4
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Not Yet Approved
5
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to
regulations in:
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
None required
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback map
pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code
may apply
Front Yard (ft) 0’ – 10’ to
create an 8’
– 12’
effective
sidewalk
width (8)
None
Required (8)
0’ – 10’ to
create an 8’
– 12’
effective
sidewalk
width (8)
0’ – 10’ to
create an 8’
– 12’
effective
sidewalk
width (8)
Rear Yard (ft) 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial
portion
Rear Yard abutting
residential zone district (ft) 10’
Interior Side Yard if abutting
residential zone district (ft) 10’
Street Side Yard (ft) 5’
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback(1)
33% of side street built to setback(1)
Permitted Setback
Encroachments
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar
elements may extend up to 6’ into the setback. Cornices,
eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features
(excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior
space) may extend up to 4’ into the front and rear setbacks
and up to 3’ into interior side setbacks
Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50%
Landscape/Open Space
Coverage 35% 30% 20% 30%
Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (2), 150 sq ft per unit
for 6 units or more (2)
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 35’ (4) 50’ 37’ 50’
Within 150 ft. of a residential
zone district (other than an
RM-40 or PC zone) abutting
or located within 50 feet of
the site
35’ 35’ (5) 35’ (5) 35’ (5)
Daylight Plan for lot lines
abutting one or more
residential zoning districts
Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those
of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting
the lot line
Residential Density (net)(3) 15 or 20(9) See sub-
section (e)
below
30 30
Maximum Residential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 (4) 0.6:1 0.6:1
Not Yet Approved
6
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
CN CC C C(2) CS Subject to
regulations in:
Maximum Nonresidential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1
Total Mixed Use Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) 0.9:1 (4) 2.0:1 1.0:1
Minimum Mixed Use Ground
Floor Commercial FAR (6) 0.15:1 0.15:1
0.25:1 (7) 0.15:1
Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54
(1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district.
(2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be
located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension
six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet.
(3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to
commercial use.
(4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of
1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).
(5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height
may be increased to 50 feet.
(6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments.
Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations.
(7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
(8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage.
(9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on Housing Inventory Sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element.
(1) Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and
design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(G), except that mixed use projects with four or
fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review board.
(2) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in
excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but not
limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use development with
residential uses.
(3) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with
an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
(c) Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) zone
districts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing Opportunity
Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be developed pursuant
to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified
for the site in the Housing Element.
SECTION 6. Section 18.18.060 (Development Standards for CD District) of Title
18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.18.060 Development Standards
Not Yet Approved
7
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
(c) Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CD zone districts. Such uses
are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be developed pursuant to the regulations
for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site in the
Housing Element.
SECTION 7. Section 18.20.030 (Land Uses for MOR, ROLM, RP and GM Districts)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.20.030 Land Uses
(a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses
Table 1 lists the land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the industrial and
manufacturing districts.
TABLE 1
INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING DISTRICT LAND USES
[P = Permitted Use ▪ CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
MOR ROLM
ROLM(E)
RP
RP(5) GM
Subject to
regulations in
Chapter:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and activities
customarily associated with or
essential to permitted uses, and
operated incidental to the principal
use.
P P P P Chs. 1840, 18.42
Automatic Teller Machines P P P P 18.20.030(d)
Home Occupations, when accessory to
permitted residential uses. P P P P Chs. 18.40, 18.42
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Business and Trade Schools P
Religious Institutions P P P
Colleges and Universities P P P
Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal
Organizations CUP CUP CUP CUP
Private Schools (K-12) CUP CUP CUP CUP
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Ambulance Services CUP
Convalescent Facilities CUP CUP
Medical Office P CUP CUP
Medical Research P P P 18.20.030(c)
Not Yet Approved
8
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
[P = Permitted Use ▪ CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
MOR ROLM
ROLM(E)
RP
RP(5) GM
Subject to
regulations in
Chapter:
Medical Support Retail P 18.20.030(b)
Medical Support Services P 18.20.030(b)
MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING USES
Manufacturing P P P
Recycling Centers CUP CUP CUP
Research and Development CUP P P P
Warehousing and Distribution P P P
OFFICE USES
Administrative Office Services P P CUP
Financial Services CUP CUP
Professional and General Business
Office P P
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Service and Equipment Yards P
Utility Facilities CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision
of utility services but excluding
construction/storage yards,
maintenance facilities, or corporation
yards
CUP CUP CUP
RECREATION USES
Commercial Recreation CUP CUP CUP
Neighborhood Recreational Centers CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family Not permitted 18.20.040(b) Two-Family Not permitted
Multiple-Family CUP CUP CUP
Residential Care Homes P P P CUP
RETAIL USES
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding
drive-in and take-out services CUP CUP CUP
Retail Services CUP CUP CUP
SERVICE USES
Animal Care, excluding boarding and
kennels P
Boarding and Kennels CUP
Day Care Centers P P P CUP
Emergency Shelters for the Homeless P (ROLM(E) 18.20.030(d)
Family Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care P P P P
Large Family Day Care P P P P
General Business Services P
Lodging
Hotels providing not more than
10% of rooms with kitchens CUP
Not Yet Approved
9
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
[P = Permitted Use ▪ CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required]
MOR ROLM
ROLM(E)
RP
RP(5) GM
Subject to
regulations in
Chapter:
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes P
Personal Services CUP CUP CUP
Vehicle Services
Automobile Service Stations,
subject to site and design review in
accord with the provisions of
Chapter 18.30(G)
CUP CUP
Automotive Services CUP
Off-site new vehicle storage for
auto dealerships located in Palo
Alto
CUP CUP
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided
that such facilities shall remain no
more than five years
CUP CUP CUP CUP
TRANSPORTATION USES
Passenger Transportation Terminals CUP
(b) Limitations on Medical Support Service and Medical Support Retail Uses in the
Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) Zone
(1) The intent of this limitation is to restrict medical support service and medical
support retail uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zone in order to preserve
and facilitate space for medical offices and medical research facilities.
(2) Floor area devoted to medical support services and medical support retail
uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zoning district shall not exceed twenty
percent (20%) of the total gross floor area within the district.
(3) The director may require a report from the property owner or applicant
whenever application is made to the city to develop new space for medical support service or
medical support retail uses or to convert existing space to such uses. The report shall identify
the gross floor area of buildings on each site within the zoning district and the gross floor area
of medical support service and medical support retail uses for each site. The director may, from
time to time, establish procedures and standards implementing this Section 18.20.030(b).
(c) Automatic Teller Machines
(1) Automatic teller machines may be allowed as an accessory use in the MOR,
ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM districts when incidental to a primary use on the site and
when accessible only from the interior of a building.
Not Yet Approved
10
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
(2) Automatic teller machines may be allowed as a permitted use in the MOR,
ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM districts when incidental to a primary use on the site and
when accessible from the exterior of a building. Staff level Architectural Review is required prior
to issuance of a building permit.
(d) Emergency Shelters for the Homeless
Emergency shelters for the homeless may be allowed as a permitted use in the
ROLM(E) district on properties located east of Highway 101, subject to the following
performance and design standards.
Performance and Design Standards for Emergency Shelters for the Homeless
An emergency shelter for the homeless shall conform to all site development
standards and performance criteria of the ROLM(E) zone district except as modified by the
following performance and design standards:
(1) The construction of and/or renovation of a building for use as an
emergency shelter shall conform to all applicable building and fire code standards.
(2) There shall be provided one parking space for each three (3) beds in the
emergency shelter.
(3) Shelters shall have designated smoking areas that are not visible from the
street and which are in compliance with all other laws and regulations.
(4) There shall be no space for outdoor congregating in front of the building
adjacent to the street and no outdoor public telephones.
(5) There shall be a refuse area screened from view.
(6) Maximum Number of Persons/Beds. The emergency shelter for the
homeless shall contain no more than 40 beds.
(7) Size and location of exterior and interior on-site waiting and client intake
areas. Shelters shall provide 10 square feet of interior waiting and client intake space per
bed. In addition, there shall be two office areas provided for shelter staff. Waiting and intake
areas may be used for other purposes as needed during operations of the shelter.
(8) On-site management. On-site management and on-site security shall be
provided during hours when the emergency shelter is in operation.
Not Yet Approved
11
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
(9) The emergency shelter provider shall submit an operations plan that
addresses the standards for operation contained in the Palo Alto Quality Assurance Standards
for Emergency Shelters for the Homeless.
(10) Distance to other facilities. The shelter must be more than 300 feet from
any other shelters for the homeless.
(11) Length of stay. Temporary shelter shall be available to residents for no
more than 60 days. Extensions up to a total stay of 180 days may be provided if no
alternative housing is available.
(12) Outdoor lighting shall be sufficient to provide illumination and clear
visibility to all outdoor areas, with minimal shadows or light leaving the property. The
lighting shall be stationary, and directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-
way.
SECTION 8. Chapter 18.46 (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation for
Accessibility) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to
read as follows:
Chapter 18.46 REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR ACCESSIBILITY
Sections:
18.46.010 Purpose
18.46.020 Applicability
18.46.030 Application Requirements
18.46.040 Review Procedure
18.46.050 Required Criteria for Reasonable Accommodations
18.46.060 Decisions
18.46.070 Appeal
18.46.080 Effect of Chapter
18.46.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a formal procedure to request reasonable
accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the
Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment Act (the Acts) in the application
of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures, and to establish
relevant criteria to be used when considering such requests.
18.46.020 Applicability
Not Yet Approved
12
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
In order to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability, any
person may request a modification or exception to the rules, standards and practices for the
siting, development and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate
regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of
their choice. Typical improvements which may be considered for reasonable accommodation
provisions include ramps, walls, handrails, elevators or lifts, or other similar physical
improvements necessary to accommodate a person's disability. The reasonable
accommodation would allow exceptions to setback, lot coverage and floor area provisions of
the zoning code that are deemed necessary to accommodate these improvements.
A person with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that
limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as
having such impairment, or anyone who has a record of such impairment. This Chapter
applies only to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts.
18.46.030 Application Requirements
(a) Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be initiated by submitting a
completed application form to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, signed
by the property owner, together with the appropriate fee, as established by resolution
adopted by the city council, and shall be filed in the office of the planning division of the
Department of Planning and Community Environment. The following information shall be
included with the application:
(1) The applicant's name, address and telephone number;
(2) Address of the property for which the request is being made;
(3) The current use of the property;
(4) The basis for the claim that the individual is considered disabled under the
Acts, including supporting medical documentation from a qualified medical expert in support
of the request for accommodation;
(5) The zoning code provision or other city regulation or policy from which th e
reasonable accommodation is being requested; and
(6) An explanation of why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to
make the specific property accessible to the individual.
(b) Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a
manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for
public inspection.
(c) A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and
procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure
equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an individual’s
obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested
accommodation.
Not Yet Approved
13
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
(d) If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable
accommodation, the Planning and Community Environment Department will provide
assistance to ensure that the process is accessible.
(e) Review with other planning applications. If the project for which the request
for reasonable accommodation is being made also requires some other discretionary approval
under this Title (including but not limited to architectural review, conditional use permit, or
variance), the application shall be submitted and reviewed at the same time as the related
applications.
18.46.040 Review Procedure
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment shall have the authority to consider and take action on requests for
reasonable accommodation. The application shall be reviewed ministerially without
discretionary review or public hearing. If the application is granted because the requirements
and criteria are met, the applicant may proceed with a building permit. If the application is
submitted concurrent with an application requiring discretionary review, the procedures for
the discretionary review shall be followed.
18.46.050 Required Criteria for Reasonable Accommodations
Any decision on an application under this chapter shall be supported by a written
statement addressing the criteria set forth in this section. In making a determination
regarding the reasonableness of a requested accommodation, the determination shall be
consistent with fair housing laws and based on the following criteria:
(a) Whether the housing that is subject to the request for reasonable
accommodation will be used for an individual with a disability under the Acts.
(b) Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make
specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts.
(c) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the community.
(d) Whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental
alteration to the City's zoning requirements, development standards, policies or procedures.
(e) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would adversely impact
surrounding properties or uses.
Not Yet Approved
14
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
(e) Whether there are reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent
level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the City's applicable rules,
standards and practices.
18.46.060 Decisions
The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall issue a written
determination of the action and may grant or deny the accommodation request based on the
criteria outlined in this chapter. The written decision on the request for reasonable
accommodation shall explain in detail the basis of the decision including compliance with the
criteria set forth in Section 18.46.050 of this Chapter. The written decision of the Director
shall be final unless an applicant submits an appeal following the appeal procedure
established in Section 18.46.070.
18.46.070 Appeals
(a) The applicant requesting the reasonable accommodation may appeal the
Director of Planning and Community Environment adverse decision. The appeal shall be in
writing and shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Environment Department
within ten (10) calendar days of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
decision.
(b) If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the
Department will provide assistance to ensure that the appeals procedure is accessible.
(c) All appeals shall contain a statement of the grounds for the appeal. Any
information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to
respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public
inspection.
(d) The appeal shall be heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission in a
public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter
18.77.
(e) Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication but need not be sent to
nearby property owners.
18.46.080 Effect of Chapter
This chapter shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Acts; nothing in
this chapter shall be deemed to create greater rights than exist under the Acts.
SECTION 9. CEQA. The proposed Ordinance updating the zoning ordinance to
implement the 2007-2014 Housing Element were considered as a part of the
Not Yet Approved
15
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
implementation program contained in the Housing Element. The potential
environmental impacts of implementation of the Housing Element were reviewed as a
part of the Negative Declaration prepared for the Housing Element. This document
determined that no adverse environmental impacts would result from implementation
of the policies and programs outlined in the 2007-2014 Housing Element, and the
Negative Declaration and Housing Element were approved by the City Council on June
Resolution by Resolution No. 9349. The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance
would modify existing programs and add procedures which provide below market rate
housing opportunities, suitable sites for emergency shelters to comply with Government
Code Section 65583, and establish procedures to make accommodations for persons
with disabilities. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own
environmental review.
SECTION 10. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
16
ORD Amend Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Revised: January 7, 2014
130107 jb 0131163
SECTION 11. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
December 11, 2013 3
4
DRAFT EXCERPT 5
6
7
Housing Element Zone Code Changes - Review and recommendation to City Council to Adopt 8
an Ordinance to amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement 2007-9
2014 Housing Element programs. (Tim Wong – tim.wong@cityofpaloalto.org) 10
11
Chair Michael: He’s gone home and Commissioner Tanaka is rejoining us shortly, but let’s 12
commence as we have a quorum. And the next topic is the Housing Element Zone Code 13
Changes beginning with a staff report. 14
15
Tim Wong, Senior Planner – Housing: Yes, staff has prepared a brief presentation considering, 16
but prior to beginning I would just like to point out a couple quick corrections with staff’s 17
recommendation in the staff report. In Recommendation 2 it is to amend Section 18.16, not 18
.15060 of the zoning code and with Recommendation 5 it is to revise Section 1.1, a 18.18.060 19
not 18.19. So I’d like to just point out those two corrections. 20
21
So good evening, my name is Tim Wong and I’m a Senior Planner and I have a brief, yeah again 22
a brief presentation for you tonight regarding a number of proposed zoning amendments as part 23
of the Housing Element program implementation process and this is for the 2007-2014 Housing 24
Element. Some background, as you know the City has been working on the 2007-2014 Housing 25
Element Update for some time and in August of 2013 the City received a letter from Department 26
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certifying that the City’s Housing Element was 27
in compliance with Housing Element State Law. And within the Housing Element there were a 28
number of programs proposed to achieve the objectives of the Housing Element including 29
meeting our City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement and other State 30
requirements. 31
32
This is the first of two rounds of Housing implementation Programs. These zone amendments 33
before you are the less complicated, the low hanging fruit if you will, and also to help meet some 34
State requirements. A second round of program implementation will be before you in I 35
anticipate in about six months. And the second round of the zone amendments will be a little 36
more complicated. It’ll be lot consolidation program and zoning incentives for development of 37
smaller units consistent with what was discussed in the previous item. Also just as a side note 38
the Density Bonus Zone Amendment, which the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 39
reviewed a few months ago is on a separate track and that will be heard by the Council in 40
January. 41
42
And so I would like to start off by explaining some of the State requirements. The first State 43
requirement is SB2. It is a piece of legislation that was passed in actually 2007, implemented in 44
2008 that strengthened Housing Element Law in support of the emergency shelters and 45
transitional and supportive housing. So in SB2 it said that transitional and supportive housing 46
are to be considered as multi-family residential uses and only subject to those jurisdictions 47
requirements for multi-family residential uses. So jurisdiction could not require more than just 48
what is required of multi-family residential uses. Also SB2 required jurisdictions to designate a 49
Attachment B
2
zoning district or potential sites that emergency shelters could be permitted without discretionary 1
review. 2
3
And so in response to the SB2 requirements staff proposes to amend the definitions section of the 4
zoning code to add supportive housing and transitional housing as multi-family residential uses 5
and also to amend the Research Office Light Manufacturing (ROLM) East Embarcadero, excuse 6
me, east of Highway 101 zone district to add emergency shelters as a permitted use and to 7
establish performance and design standards. Therefore if a developer submits an application that 8
meets the emergency shelter standards in the ROLM E zone district it must be approved without 9
discretionary review. So therefore this is a by right use. And this is a map showing the ROLM E 10
zone district. All those parcels in that zone district are with the crosshatched red crisscross. So 11
any parcel in that zone district would be eligible for the emergency shelter use and standards. 12
13
The next state requirement is the RHNA requirement for the 2007-2014 Housing Element the 14
City was assigned 2,860 units and after subtracting out approved and built units there was still 15
1,646 units that needed to be identified in the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) to accommodate 16
there were enough sites to accommodate 1,680 units including 32 Neighborhood Commercial or 17
(CN) zoned sites, but in order to reach that 1,680 figure staff had proposed that the CN zone sites 18
would be increased to a maximum of 20 units per acre. Currently the zoning standard is 15 units 19
per acre maximum. So the City’s proposal is to amend the CN zone district. That should be 20
18.16060 to increase the density for residential projects of CN zoned parcels in the HIS from 15 21
units to 20 units. And again, just to note that this increase in zoning density are for those CN 22
zoned parcels in the City’s HIS. All other CN zoned parcels outside of the, not identified in the 23
HIS would remain at 15 units per acre. 24
25
And lastly HCD required that the City adopt a citywide Reasonable Accommodation policy. 26
Reasonable Accommodation allows persons with disabilities to seek regulatory relief from 27
zoning requirements to access their homes. So for example, if a person with a disability wished 28
to put a wheelchair ramp within a required setback through the Reasonable Accommodation 29
policy there would be no discretionary action taken to approve the wheelchair ramp in that 30
required setback such as a variance or an Home Improvement Exception (HIE). So staff 31
proposes to add Chapter 18.46 that establishes a process for the Reasonable Accommodation 32
request. 33
34
And lastly there are a couple zoning clean up items. In the previous zoning in the 1999 to 2006 35
Housing Element as a program to that it allowed exclusive residential use for those CN and CD 36
zoned sites in that HIS, but staff received direction from Council that there would be no more 37
loss of non-residential or commercial zoned properties or parcels therefore staff is removing that 38
exception. So therefore, exclusive residential is now prohibited in those two zones. And this is 39
hard to read, but a quick summary or table of your requested actions tonight, the sections and the 40
reason for the action. 41
42
And while it is important to implement some of the proposed programs in the 2007-2014 43
Housing Element there is also significance for the upcoming 2015-2023 Housing Element 44
update. For that HCD has developed what is known as a streamlined review to review housing 45
elements. Previously HCD review could take up to a period of months, up to 13 months, 46
sometimes longer, but they have what is known as a streamlined review, which now takes 60 47
days. And for that is significant because the City in order to meet the January 31, 2015, deadline 48
of the next Housing Element update we will need to use, utilize the 60 day streamlined review. 49
3
So in order for jurisdiction to complete or to be eligible for the streamlined review it must 1
complete these following, the following items: to rezone the adequate sites, which we’re doing 2
through the CN revision; approve zoning to permit emergency shelters, so you’re designating the 3
ROLM E zoning district; zoning to permit transition and supportive housing as a multi-family 4
residential use in updating the definitions, that’s being done; and then policies, ordinances, and 5
procedures established to allow Reasonable Accommodation, that is being done in adding a new 6
chapter for Reasonable Accommodation; and lastly, adoption of a Density Bonus Ordinance, 7
which will be done separately. And therefore in sake of brevity here is a summary of the zoning 8
recommendations that staff is recommending, but for the exact language I suggest you refer back 9
to the staff report. And that concludes my presentation. 10
11
Chair Michael: So thank you for that. We have one public speaker. 12
13
Vice-Chair Keller: The public speaker is Herb Borock. 14
15
Herb Borock: Good evening Chair Michael and Commissioners. I have three comments. The 16
first regarding emergency shelters for the homeless and the ordinance at the top of Page 11 of the 17
draft ordinance it refers to a Palo Alto quality assurance standards for emergency shelters for the 18
homeless, but it doesn’t say what they are. When there is a use permit say for temporary shelter 19
and there’s a process and conditions are placed on it, so I think that there are going to be such 20
quality assurance standards that the Council should adopt them by the effective date of the 21
ordinance. Staff believes that it doesn’t require an ordinance for those and it can be adopted in 22
one vote and takes effect immediately then there’s even enough time for the Commission to 23
review them and make a recommendation although that’s, may not even be necessary, but those 24
should be in place in public and have Council adoption. 25
26
The second topic is the reasonable accommodations for accessibility. Usually when you have 27
entitlements they go with the land, but here you’re providing something that goes with an 28
individual and I don’t think they should stay in place if that individual is no longer in the housing 29
so there should be language in the ordinance that requires removing the modifications or 30
exceptions to the rules, standards, and practices for the siding development in use of housing or 31
housing related facilities when the person who requires those accommodations is no longer in 32
that housing. 33
34
The third comment refers I believe it’s only in one place in the ordinance and that’s in findings 35
and recitals refers to SB2. I know that people who work in the field use the number of the bill 36
from a previous legislature as sort of a shorthand way of referring to something, but I don’t think 37
it’s appropriate in an ordinance. This is a codified bill then the portion, the section and title of 38
the California code is what should be mentioned there or may have a popular title name or either 39
way or at least the if not that then the statute year and chapter. Thank you. 40
41
Chair Michael: Does staff have a response to any of these comments by Mr. Borock? 42
43
Mr. Wong: Well in regards to the quality assurance standards we do have some drafted, we’re 44
still working on them. But those should be prepared shortly and also in regards to SB2, yes. 45
SB2 has, was passed to amend Government Code Section 65583 and the change will be made. 46
And with the Reasonable Accommodation I’m not sure. 47
48
4
Hillary Gitelman, Director: I think we’ll have to look into the Reasonable Accommodation 1
comment. I don’t know, I don’t know that’s State law and whether we’re going to be able to 2
make that change. 3
4
Chair Michael: Ok, well just follow up as appropriate that would be fine. So turning back to the 5
Commission open it up for any questions or comments that the Commissioners may have. 6
Commissioner Martinez. 7
8
Commissioner Martinez: Regarding changing the CN to 20 units per acre as I think you said in 9
our HIS most of them are pretty small. So even if, and there are a few that are 10,000 square feet 10
or larger. They are small sites. So I just following up on the California Avenue Concept Plan 11
most of the sites there are 5,000 square feet, maybe there’s a few 10,000 square feet, and there 12
are some that are on our inventory. That doesn’t provide very many units. It doesn’t see how 13
we’re really achieving either the density that we’re looking for or achieving our RENA goals. 14
Shouldn’t that standard be upped a bit? 15
16
Mr. Wong: Excuse me, could you please repeat that last, should the standard be? 17
18
Commissioner Martinez: The density from 20 units shouldn’t it be 40 units or something like 19
that to achieve our responsibility for the housing needs assessment goals? 20
21
Mr. Wong: Well, my response is every, first to start our surplus was so small that my response 22
would be every little bit helps in regards to meeting our RHNA requirements. Yes with this 23
increase in density we would only get possibly there were 32 parcels on the CN zoned parcels on 24
the HIS. Staff had I think we’d probably get 15 to 20 units more through the up zone, but seeing 25
how our surplus is about 15 units right now that, this does help. And in regards to going up to 40 26
or something higher than that well 20 was chosen because the State assigned the City a default 27
density of 20 units per acre. So this was an increase in zoning that wouldn’t create significant 28
impacts I believe and also help meet our default density requirements. 29
30
Ms. Gitelman: I guess I would add let’s save that idea. I mean we committed to rezone or to 31
increase the density to 20 units to the acre on these sites in this Housing Element, but that next 32
Housing Element is staring us in the face after the first of the year. So we could consider higher 33
densities on some of these sites in the next cycle. 34
35
Commissioner Martinez: Good point. I’ll go with that. And then my second question maybe is 36
more to the Chair as it may be time to reconstitute a new Housing Element subcommittee. I 37
remember the days when I was first asked to serve on that. I think it was 2010 and I think I’ve 38
served long enough so maybe the Chair might be thinking about constituting a new 39
subcommittee to work with staff really right after the first of the year and really being in on some 40
of this conversation so that in our subcommittee reports we can have a report back once a month 41
or something without having to ask Tim to come here for this update. My recommendation is 42
it’s a tradition for the Chair to be part of the subcommittee, but I would since he’s not here 43
recommend Commissioner Panelli to work with you. Now I was joking about that, but I think he 44
would be a really fine, enthusiastic Commissioner to work on that. So just take it under 45
advisement and be aware that we should be actively involved as part of our responsibility very 46
shortly. Thank you. 47
48
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 49
5
1
Commissioner King: Thank you. So I have a question regarding the Reasonable 2
Accommodation. Could you describe what would either be the most common or atypical use, 3
specific use for that? 4
5
Mr. Wong: Commissioner King we have not had that many requests for Reasonable 6
Accommodation, but I think the example I pointed out would probably be a more common one; a 7
wheelchair ramp maybe in the side yard setback for example, to be able to access a side-yard 8
door or something along those types, along that type. That would be probably the most common 9
example. But I think Reasonable Accommodation requests can have a whole range of potential 10
requests, but that’s the one that comes to mind. Can you think? 11
12
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I can’t think of another example off the top of my head, but again it’s, this 13
is a State law. We really we don’t have a lot of discretion. It’s kind of like the Density Bonus 14
law where they, the State says you have to do this and you have to adopt a local ordinance to 15
effectuate the State rules. 16
17
Commissioner King: Got it. I guess I’m just trying to understand based on the public comment 18
is there a potential for some abuse that someone would use that to build some mark, something 19
with a market value that then they would then gain market value when they leave the premises 20
that we would then want to not allow that potential, a potential for abuse is what I’m trying to 21
understand. 22
23
Ms. Gitelman: Well again we’ll research that particular suggestion, but the Reasonable 24
Accommodation requirements have been in State law for a while and as Tim mentioned we 25
rarely if ever, well, maybe once in the last few years have gotten a request for Reasonable 26
Accommodation. So I mean it’s an existing law. It hasn’t been the subject of abuse thus far. 27
28
Commissioner King: Ok. It would seem prudent to include something there’s a take if in fact it 29
is running with the property as the public commenter mentioned it would seem reason, prudent to 30
then include something that even if we don’t actively enforce it that addresses that issue that if 31
the requestor in need of Reasonable Accommodation leaves the premises that it can revert back 32
to zoning (interrupted) 33
34
Ms. Gitelman: We’ll have to go back and review the State Statutes. If we can put something like 35
that in the ordinance we will. 36
37
Commissioner King: Ok, great. 38
39
Mr. Wong: And if I might add? Commissioner King, one of the requirements to get, to be 40
granted a Reasonable Accommodation request is you must have a medical reason therefore I 41
don’t think chances for abuse due to a medical reason are, there would be opportunities for that. 42
43
Commissioner King: Yeah, it would be a, if you believe all people are good it would never 44
happen and most people are good, but there could be somebody who says, “Hey I’m going,” I’m 45
getting to the extremes, somebody says, “I’m going to make every two years I get this like extra 46
bedroom beyond zoning and then I sell the house because I can make”… who knows? I, people 47
are creative on that side too. So I just it seems if it doesn’t, it seems reasonable to address. 48
Thanks. 49
6
1
Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: So agree with what the public the, my fellow Commissioner and public 4
speaker mentioned about the Reasonable Accommodation. It should ride with the person, not the 5
property. It makes total sense to me. The one thing I wanted to understand is just about so are 6
we currently meeting our RHNA numbers right now? You said we were 15 over so we have a 7
15 unit surplus, correct? 8
9
Mr. Wong: Correct, but that is a very fluid number because we’ve had some parcels on the HIS 10
be proposed for lesser density than estimated, but we’ve also had other properties developed for 11
more. So it’s very fluid, but as we speak right now we have a very small surplus. 12
13
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. And does the, does Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 14
is it a requirement that you maintain it throughout the life of the Element or at the time the 15
Element is approved? 16
17
Mr. Wong: It’s throughout the life through 2014 and in the Housing Element they required that 18
we add a program that we would actively monitor the development of the HIS sites. So we will 19
be monitoring for the life of this Housing Element, but after January 15th or January 31st of 2015 20
when the new starts it’s unknown whether that program will continue in the new Housing 21
Element update. 22
23
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I was just thinking back to what the Planning Director said whether 24
we should save our bullets for later. If we don’t need it now, why use it? Why not up zone it 25
later when you actually need the units, unless we think those 15 are going away between now 26
and the end of January 31st, which is only a month and a half from now. 27
28
Ms. Gitelman: I should clarify that we committed to do this, this adjustment to the CN zone to 29
have that little bit of surplus. It’s something that we’re required to do because of the 30
commitments that we made in the Housing Element. I would say anything over and above that 31
we should hold our fire and maybe address that in the next cycle. 32
33
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I misheard. So I thought this was optional. If it was optional then I 34
would say that (interrupted) 35
36
Ms. Gitelman: Unfortunately no. I mean the State wants you to have a surplus. We have a very 37
skinny surplus, but they want you to maintain that. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. My other point was just that if we don’t anticipate the surplus from 40
going under, going under the surplus before a month and a half from now then maybe it’s wise to 41
use this bullet on the next round instead of this round. 42
43
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 44
45
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So first I’m going to address what was brought up by 46
Commissioner Tanaka about the increase in density from 15 units to 20 units. And that is it is 47
my understanding and staff please correct me if I’m wrong, that those sites that are on the HIS 48
list that are not developed may be carried forward to the next time. Is that correct? And 49
7
therefore if we have a surplus now we can use it next time. So there’s no harm in adding to the 1
surplus now, it’s not going to change our RHNA number for next time, which are already locked 2
in stone as far as I can tell. So we might as well do it and as the Planning Director indicated 3
we’re committed to doing that. 4
5
So but the second thing is my understanding and correct me if I’m wrong that not only are we 6
required to have a certain number of housing units on the HIS, but we’re also required to have a 7
certain level of affordability for these units and affordability for these units is based on having a 8
minimum density of 20 units per acre and that’s their State definition of what affordable zoning 9
is as opposed to affordable housing. And would these numbers be needed for achieving our 10
affordable zoning threshold? 11
12
Ms. Gitelman: That’s what Tim referred to as the default density. The State statues basically say 13
that if you meet that default density the sites are deemed to accommodate low and very low 14
income housing whether they actually do or not is not addressed in statute, but the default 15
density is designed to insure that jurisdictions achieve densities that the State believes will 16
encourage affordable housing. 17
18
Vice-Chair Keller: And my understanding is that the RHNA numbers not only include overall 19
numbers, but they include a certain amount for very low, low, and moderate and that we might 20
need these numbers to achieve the sum of the low, very low, and moderate and I don’t know if 21
that’s the case, but that might be another threshold that we needed to meet for this and this would 22
help us meet that threshold as well. So I’m not sure where we are in that, but it’s another 23
purpose of increasing the zoning to 20 units per acre. 24
25
Ok, so a few questions. Pardon me, but I don’t know what transitional housing is. Could you 26
enlighten me? Thank you. 27
28
Mr. Wong: Commissioner Keller, we have the transit, the definition of transitional housing per 29
the Health and Safety Code Section means buildings configured as rental housing developments, 30
but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and 31
recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined 32
future time, point in time, which shall be no less than six months. 33
34
Vice-Chair Keller: No, I read it. I don’t know what it means. So perhaps you can convert it 35
from legalize to plain English and explain to me what the transitional housing is used for. 36
37
Mr. Wong: I’m sorry. It’s part of the kind of whole continuum of care if you will that the first 38
order is emergency shelters. If a homeless person needs some shelter then they go to the 39
emergency shelter, but transitional shelter, transitional housing is when maybe that person has 40
gotten a little more on his feet and needs somewhere to stay for a little bit longer so that he can 41
or she can stabilize to go into affordable housing. So it’s a part of that entire continuum of care. 42
43
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So perhaps you could also tell me what supportive housing is 44
because I don’t know what, I didn’t look up Section 53260(d) of the California Health and Safety 45
Code. So perhaps you can enlighten me? 46
47
Mr. Wong: Supportive housing is just housing with supportive services and so that’s 48
(interrupted) 49
8
1
Vice-Chair Keller: Is that like nursing homes or assisted living or things like that? 2
3
Mr. Wong: That I am not sure of, but supportive housing could be housing for those that had 4
previous probably drug issues, those type of that there are things in place to help them 5
(interrupted) 6
7
Vice-Chair Keller: Or developmentally disabled? 8
9
Mr. Wong: That’s another type of supportive housing. 10
11
MOTION 12
13
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. And I just leave it up to the Chair to appoint people, but I would 14
be interested in serving on the Housing subcommittee. So if I may can I make a Motion? So I 15
Move that the staff recommendation particularly amending Section 18.04.030, amending Section 16
18.16.060, amending Section 18.20.030, amending, adding Chapter 18.46, revising Section 17
18.18.060(c) as in Charlie. Also change the reference to SB2 in the preamble section to refer to 18
that Section of the California Code. And finally a recommendation that staff explore whether it 19
is reasonable to require some sort of removal of accommodations when the requester no longer 20
occupies the property, perhaps when the property is sold or perhaps when there is a building 21
permit issued for the property then that’s the opportunity to check whether the resident who 22
requested the accommodation is still there. 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Chair Michael: Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Tanaka. Vice-Chair Keller do 27
you want to speak any further to your Motion? 28
29
Vice-Chair Keller: Just one comment and response to something that Commissioner Martinez 30
mentioned. And that is I’m wondering just for a thought for the future whether we need to have 31
density limits or whether we should simply have Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and envelope limits. 32
And if people wish to build more density to that, to those FAR and envelope limits feel free 33
because typically most developments will maximize the amount of unit sizes and we seem to 34
want to encourage smaller units. So I don’t, if somebody can figure out a way to fully park and 35
build 30 units within that FAR and height and building envelop limits feel free. So that’s just a, 36
it’s not a thing I want to add to the Motion, it’s just something to think about. Thank you. 37
38
Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka did you want to speak to your second? Ok. We’re ready 39
to vote. All in favor of the Motion? It’s unanimous. Good job. With Commissioners King, 40
Tanaka, Martinez, Vice-Chair Keller, and Chair Michael voting in favor and Commissioner 41
Alcheck and Panelli absent. 42
43
MOTION PASSED (4-0-2, Commissioners Alcheck and Panelli absent) 44
Minor, Beth
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:04 AM
Council, City
Proposed CN Zone Changes
Mayor Shepherd and Councilmembers;
Subject: Proposed Revisions to CN Zone
ClTY f': P'~{'C O/::F"'CE:: I • ...J '"_'--. [\1 \ J I ~
/' J~'.I ~ ""1 3 w. fli" -'"'l f~~." • "I • n; " l ~~~! fl· .j
Jan. 8,2014
I urge you not to approve the proposed changes to the CN zone. Either reject the staff report entirely or send
the subject back for much more study. The proposals before you would have major negative impacts on the
community, EI Camino businesses, and nearby residential neighborhoods.
I was one of the three Barron Park residents that created the CN zone more than 35 years ago. The two women
moved from Palo Alto years ago so I am the only remaining CN creator. Neither staff nor most councilmenbers
are familiar with the reasons for CN zone creation or how it has complied with our intent over the decades. Let
me inform you.
We wanted to encourage low density retail along EI Camino, and to replace the many auto-related operations
and whore houses on the street with locally-serving businesses where residents could walk to shop. We also
wanted the buildings to be low in scale so that they would fit with the adjacent residential sites. In many cases
there are single family homes right behind the commercial strip separated only by a narrow alley. Therefore we
wanted low density, low height buildings in CN, no more than 30 or 35 feet, the height of nearby homes. Since
a second floor is allowed within that height we assumed that the uses would be related to retail, or offices,
although housing was considered possible. The then Director of Planning said housing on the second floor was
very unlikely because that would require underground parking for the site, and that was too expensive. Since
then the economics have changed and underground parking is common, encouraging upper floor residential
over commercial.
Traffic and parking on EI Camino were problems, even 30 years ago. There was (and still is) spill-over parking
on residential streets from EI Camino businesses, especially from the auto repair sites. Over time most of those
sites were replaced by retail uses, although a few changed to offices. For example, the Happy Donuts site was a
muffler repair shop in the 1970s and 1980s. The whore houses were removed during a city-wide enforcement
effort in the mid to late 1970s, so we no longer have over 30 whore houses in Palo Alto, most along EI Camino.
That plus the CN zone application to most of our section ofEI Camino encouraged the type of locally-serving
retail that was our goal. As an aside, once we presented the CN zone staff liked it so much that they applied it
elsewhere, such as at Charleston Plaza.
Remember the intent of CN zoning was to encourage low density neighborhood-serving retail, allowing people
to walk to stores and shop locally. It was not to increase residential uses. Unfortunately that is exactly what the
staff proposal does. Originally the lowest density residential zone was RM-lO, ten units/acre. That was
replaced by RM-15 years ago, so by default housing density in CN increased from 10 to 15 units/acre. There
was no rational reason to increase the housing density in CN then and certainly no reason to increase density to
20 units/acre now. Our Housing Element has been accepted. We do not have a firm new housing potential
requirement yet from ABAG. Accepting the requirement that lowest housing density must be 20 units/acre
would impact adversely the CN zone, without any environmental impact studies, no traffic studies, no
consideration of the impact of higher density on schools, neighborhood compatibility, and city finances.
1
City Manager Keene noted each housing unit costs the city budget about $2S00/year more for city services than
it returns in taxes. Adding housing along El Camino will only increase those costs, plus worsen traffic
congestion on our busiest street. CN sites along El Camino aren't very desirable locations for housing. The
existing housing projects on El Camino are on large sites with the buildings set well back from the sidewalk.
The proposal for housing development at the old Compadres site locates the housing at the rear of the site,
mainly away from El Camino. That is impossible on most CN sites since the lots are shallow, typically 100 feet
deep. The combination of underground parking needed for CN sites developed with higher density housing,
and the greater potential for developer profits from more housing will encourage demolition of existing
affordable retail buildings, replacing them with more intense uses, increasing rental costs and driving out
smaller, local retailers.
CN sites are supposed to be limited to ground floor retail, a concept that was adapted and copied later for much
of downtown. Office uses are allowed with staff rev~ew and approval, for example the former Manpower
occupant at El Camino and Curtner. If sites are encouraged to redevelop to add that higher density housing,
over time retail will be replaced by offices, defeating the intent of the CN zone and the goal of making El
Camino a street serving local residents with needed stores.
Another potential negative impact is concessions required when BMR housing is included on a site. A
developer could offer a few BMR units on a small CN site and then insist on concessions increasing height,
FAR, reducing setbacks, or daylight planes. The result would be a project totally defeating the intent of CN to
encourage buildings for ground floor retail that fit with nearby homes.
Another very undesirable part of the staff report is limiting review of smaller housing developments to the
ARB. On some of the smaller CN sites even four housing units can have a noticeable negative impact. There is
no reason to eliminate Planning Commission review of any and all mixed-use developments in the CN zone.
The ARB looks only at design, ignoring traffic impacts, cumulative impacts of city-wide and area-wide
developments, traffic and parking congestion, or other· land use issues. Those factors must have full review, and
the Planning Commission is the first place that must begin.
Neither the increase in housing density nor limiting review to the ARB for smaller housing projects takes into
account potential cumulative impacts. Last year staff agreed that developments should consider cumulative
impacts from current and proposed projects in Palo Alto but also in nearby cities including Mountain View, Los
Altos and Menlo Park. The proposal to increase CN housing density and limit review of projects with fewer
housing units to the ARB assures that those cumulative impacts will be ignored.
This is the wrong time to be increasing density in any of our commercial zones, especially CN. It is bad policy
to limit reviews of new projects to the ARB when those projects may contribute to cumulative negative impacts
on traffic, parking, retail viability, neighborhood character and compatibility. It is the wrong time to search for
more potential housing sites. This proposal is all harm and no benefits. It should not be approved or adopted.
Yours truly,
Bob Moss
2