HomeMy WebLinkAboutFulPktJuly9 (1)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2724)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/9/2012
July 09, 2012 Page 1 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Summary Title: Housing Element Update
Title: Public Hearing: Review of Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element and
Authorization to Submit to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the draft Housing
Element and authorize staff to submit the draft Housing Element, as amended by
recommended changes from the Regional Housing Mandate Committee (as
reflected on pages 13-16 of the staff report and text changes in Attachment A), to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto is required to update its 2007-2014 Housing Element per
State Housing Element Law. The State deadline to complete the update process,
which concludes with the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) certification, was June 30, 2009, but cities may continue to
request review and certification through the end of the planning period. Based
on Council direction, staff developed the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list to
identify sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(identification of 2,860 units on potential housing sites) and policies and programs
to encourage developers in the production of housing. Per prior Council direction,
the sites selected are concentrated in the Downtown, the California Avenue area,
and the El Camino Real corridor. The Housing Element emphasizes providing
incentives for housing development using existing zoning rather than up-zoning
single family and low density residential parcels or converting commercial or
retail uses to residential. In addition, the Housing Element encourages smaller
July 09, 2012 Page 2 of 22
(ID # 2724)
units to provide both for the City’s aging population as well as the single
employee households who are attracted to the concentration of start-up
technology companies in Palo Alto. Per the proposed Housing Element programs,
some City owned parking lots may also be considered for rezoning to allow for
residential uses (though the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee has
recommended against this action). Extensive public outreach was conducted in
the preparation of the Housing Element. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) with
representatives from the Palo Alto Unified School District, neighborhood groups,
both affordable and market rate housing developers, and interested residents all
served on the TAG. In addition, multiple meetings were held to educate the
public about the Housing Element and public hearings were conducted by the
Planning and Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation
Commission recommended forwarding the draft to HCD on May 9, 2012 and the
Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee recommended the same on June
26, 2012.
Background
California State Housing Element law requires each city and county to update its housing
element every five years to ensure that all localities provide adequate development
sites for sufficient new housing to be built to meet their fair share of the regional
housing need. As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process
overseen by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City of Palo Alto was
assigned a quantified goal of 2,860 units, which represents the City’s “fair share” of
projected housing need for the 2007–2014 planning period, distributed among the
following income groups: very low (690 units), low (543 units), moderate (641 units) and
above moderate (986 units) income categories.
Housing element law is the State’s primary strategy to increase housing supply, choice
and affordability. The housing element identifies the existing and projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community, including the homeless and persons
with disabilities, and promotes a variety of housing types, including multifamily rental
units, transitional and other types of supportive housing. The housing element also
defines the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve its
housing goals and objectives developed to address its housing needs.
It is important to note that Housing Element law only requires the City to provide
residential zoning opportunities to accommodate its RHNA allocation. It does not
require the City to approve or construct such housing. Cities and counties without
compliant housing elements may be faced with legal challenges pursuant to housing
July 09, 2012 Page 3 of 22
(ID # 2724)
element law and/or fair housing law. Menlo Park, for example, was recently sued by a
coalition of housing advocates for failing to comply with Housing Element law. An
analysis of this lawsuit and the resulting Settlement Agreement (as discussed in the City
of Menlo Park staff report) is included in Attachment E. Also, if the City fails to identify
or make available adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA assignment, the City may be
required to carry those units over into the next planning cycle, thus increasing the
number of sites required to be identified in the upcoming cycle. In addition, many State
housing, transportation and infrastructure funding programs available to local
governments require a certified housing element as one of the eligibility criteria. The
State’s sustainable communities law (known as SB 375) to reduce greenhouse gases
contains further incentives for cities to submit compliant housing elements by
conditioning key transportation grants to compliant elements and by extending the
housing cycle for cities with certified elements.
Discussion
In accordance with State law, a housing element must include:
An analysis of existing housing needs, including the number of people living in
substandard or overcrowded housing, the number of people paying more for
their housing that they can sustainably afford, the number of people with special
housing needs and the number of affordable housing units at risk of converting to
market rate;
An analysis of projected needs, including the allocation of income-specific
housing needs based on income categories pursuant to the assigned allocation
developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);
A site inventory identifying the sites needed to accommodate the City’s share of
the regional housing allocation;
An analysis of both non-governmental and governmental constraints to provide
and maintain housing, and
Programs, policies and objectives that the City will adopt to assist the
development of housing for different income and special needs groups, to ensure
equal housing opportunity and to preserve and improve the existing housing
stock.
The draft Housing Element (Attachment F, and available to the public at:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/advance_planning/comprehensive_plan_amen
dment.asp) is divided into five chapters which are summarized individually below.
The Housing Element addresses the required topics listed above. It is anticipated
that Chapters 3 (Housing Resources and Inventory) and 5 (Goals, Policies and
Programs) will provide the focus for Council discussion since they provide policy
July 09, 2012 Page 4 of 22
(ID # 2724)
direction while the other three chapters provide the data which drive those
policies. Given the City’s constraints on land supply, the proposed Housing
Element focuses on infill development. The overall intent of the Housing Element
is to enable an adequate variety of housing to be accommodated in appropriate
locations (particularly near transit) and at densities that ensure neighborhood
compatibility. An emphasis is also placed on encouraging smaller units that
minimize community and school impacts and reflect the City’s changing
workforce and demographics.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter provides a short overview of Palo Alto, identifies the process and
data sources for developing a housing element consistent with State law, and
describes the extent of the community involvement in developing the draft
Housing Element.
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Assessment
This chapter evaluates the City’s existing housing needs as a community and is
based on demographic data including the overall condition and status of the City’s
housing stock. Housing supply and demand is evaluated through a demographic
profile of the City population and population changes over time, employment
characteristics and trends, household characteristics and trends, and focuses on
the provision of housing for special needs groups that oftentimes have lower
incomes and/or have more difficulty obtaining adequate housing. This chapter
also projects the need in Palo Alto for housing to accommodate extremely low-
income households. The number, type, tenure, cost and condition of the housing
stock in Palo Alto are also characterized. The Housing Needs Assessment
identifies the nature and extent of the City’s housing needs that in turn provide
the basis for new housing policies and programs.
Findings
Palo Alto demographics indicate an aging population with the senior cohort
continually growing over the past three decades. Since seniors are considered a
special needs group, the provision of senior housing should be an objective for
new housing in the future and facilitated though Housing Element policy. Data
also indicates that the City does not have sufficient emergency shelters to house
its homeless. In order to comply with state law, the City must either rezone
sufficient sites for emergency shelter use or modify allowed uses in certain zoning
July 09, 2012 Page 5 of 22
(ID # 2724)
districts to accommodate the housing needs of the homeless within the City.
Programs have been included to address these issues. Some of the programs
include:
H2.1.5 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that
encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including
units for seniors.
H3.5.1 PROGRAM Enter into discussions with local churches participating in the
City’s year round Hotel de Zink emergency shelter program to establish a
permanent emergency shelter in each church within a year of Housing Element
adoption.
Chapter 3: Housing Resources and Inventory
This chapter analyzes the resources available for development, rehabilitation and
preservation of housing in Palo Alto and includes a parcel-specific inventory of
sites that are suitable to provide sufficient housing to meet the City’s share of the
need for housing for all income groups. The chapter also includes an evaluation
of the resources available to the City to support housing activities.
Council Direction
In May 12, 2010, the City Council provided direction for staff by outlining criteria
for identifying sites to meet the City’s assigned RHNA. Council supported the
following housing site criteria:
Sites within one half mile radius of transit stations or within a quarter mile
of El Camino Real if served by existing or future transit;
All sites should provide accessibility to services and jobs with mixed use
potential;
Smaller sized units for inventory sites and higher density development to
minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities, including
units for seniors, particularly for the two transit-oriented areas (California
Avenue and Downtown);
Areas zoned for single family or two family uses should generally not be
identified for new multi-family housing;
Do not allow rezoning of commercial to residential, but allow mixed use
with no decrease of retail sites throughout the City, and
July 09, 2012 Page 6 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Authorized staff to evaluate the potential to allow limited exceptions for
building heights in excess of 50 feet when proximate to fixed rail.
Proposed Housing Inventory Sites
The Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) included in the element identify land in Palo
Alto that is zoned to accommodate residential development, including
underutilized sites with the potential for redevelopment. For this Housing
Element, the City has targeted areas for the inventory sites that are appropriate
for multi-family housing, encouraging mixed uses (residential over retail) in close
proximity to public transportation and amenities. The City’s approach to
accommodate its share of housing needs is based on the following combination:
A. Housing units built or with building permits issued since January 2007;
B. Housing currently in process (discretionary review completed but
building permit not yet issued);
C. Potential housing in existing residentially zoned sites primarily, within
the transit areas;
D. Potential housing in commercial zoning districts that could
accommodate mixed use development within the transit oriented areas,
and
E. Potential housing over City owned surface parking lots in commercial
districts (note this has been eliminated by the Council’s Regional
Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) and replaced with potential hotel
condominium units).
For purposes of identifying specific parcels suitable for potential housing
redevelopment in the near future in either existing residential or commercial
districts, the following criteria were generally used:
Improvements on the sites are at least 20 years of age; sites were not
significantly redeveloped since 1990;
Sites have a lot area greater than 10,000 square feet with a potential yield
of at least 5 residential units at a density calculation of 20 dwelling units per
acre;
Sites are considered underdeveloped with 1-2 story structures (based on
“windshield survey”);
Residential capacity remains on the site, and
July 09, 2012 Page 7 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Sites generally have an assessed value (A/V) ratio of 1.5 or less. The A/V
ratio is the ratio of the assessed value of the improvements to the assessed
value of the land.
Meeting the RHNA Goal
Using the criteria listed above, staff used a “bottom up” methodology in developing the
housing inventory. In other words, the list begins with sites already developed or
approved or in process during the current housing period (2007-2014). The next “layer”
is those sites in multi-family residential districts. The following “layer” would comprise
commercial districts that allow mixed use, excluding those constrained by date of the
structure, size, etc. The final layer is allowing housing as part of hotel development.
Attachment B outlines this approach in a “Building Block” diagram.
The proposed HIS could potentially yield approximately 1,784 housing units. The table
below shows the updated numbers compared to the regional housing need identified by
ABAG.
CATEGORY
Units
( as of 6/14/12)
Regional Housing Need 2,860
A. Housing built or with building permit issued since January 2007 921
B. Housing currently in process (in planning entitlement process or in building permit
process)
271
SUBTOTAL (Built, Building Permit Issued, Entitled, Entitlement or in Building Permit
Process)
1,192
C. Potential housing in existing residentially zoned sites 264
D. Potential housing in commercial zoning districts that could accommodate mixed use
development (including SOFA sites, Mayfield Development Agreement sites)(w/some
zoning cleanup amendments required)
1,335
E. Potential Housing on City owned surface parking lots around University and California
Avenue (need rezoning)
185
SUBTOTAL 1,784
TOTAL 2,976
With the exception of Categories D and E, all of the above housing sites can be
accommodated within existing zoning. Category D could require some minor
zoning code cleanup to accommodate 20 units per acre on some housing
inventory sites, and Category E would require a zone change of certain parking
lots in order to allow for housing (note again that the hotel residential units,
recommended by the RHMC, would not require rezoning).
If the Council believes the suggested sites are not adequate, some options could
include:
July 09, 2012 Page 8 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Assuming higher densities on existing RM-30 or RM-40 parcels.
Designating limited rezoning on some commercially zoned sites on El
Camino Real.
Reviewing additional sites that are not entirely consistent with Council
direction.
During the discussion by the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee,
adjustments were made to the Housing Inventory Sites list, with the primary
recommended changes including: a) deleting the parking lots from the listing, b)
adding the potential for hotels to include residential condominiums, as allowed by
zoning, and c) adding a few other sites not previously included or modifying
densities on some sites to exceed 20 units per acre. The modifications would still
result in zoning for an adequate number of units to meet the RHNA targets.
Details of the suggestions are outlined in the discussion of the Committee’s
actions below and are summarized in Attachment A.
Incentives
As an incentive for developing mixed use in addition to commercial development
on the commercially designated sites listed on the HIS, the draft Housing Element
includes a new program that would eliminate the Site and Design process under
specific limited conditions.
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review if the project meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
Only Architectural Review would be required for those inventory sites proposing
mixed use development that meets those specific density and size requirements.
This concept still allows property owners to develop any uses allowed under the
existing zoning, consistent with all current development requirements.
Staff originally proposed the inclusion of additional incentives if needed to
encourage mixed use development. The Planning and Transportation
July 09, 2012 Page 9 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Commission (PTC) indicated that concessions provided by the State density bonus
law would be available to address any code requirements not conducive to
developing mixed use, such as height and parking requirements. Furthermore, a
new program in the draft Housing Element calls for exploring limited exceptions
to the 50-foot height policy for HIS properties within a quarter mile of fixed rail.
The proposed program is as follows:
H2.1.1 PROGRAM Consider allowing high density residential in mixed use projects
in commercial areas within half a mile of fixed rail stations. Explore limited
exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a quarter
mile of fixed rail stations to encourage higher density residential development.
Minimal zoning ordinance changes would be required for HIS sites in specific zone
districts.
The Public Facilities (PF) zone would need to be amended to allow for residential
units on parking lots, though the Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
recommended against that proposal. Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning
would need to be revised to allow those parcels in the HIS to increase their
density from the current 15 units per acre to 20 units per acre if compliant with
the provision of the smaller units, to be consistent with the proposed programs.
The RHMC also recommended that Site and Design Review be required for any
development proposed at over 50 feet in height, even if compliant with other
incentive criteria.
Smaller Units
The City Council provided clear direction to develop policies with a greater
emphasis towards smaller residential units. Smaller units are generally more
affordable and typically generate fewer impacts to many of the City’s
infrastructure and services, including roads, water, sewer and schools. As Palo
Alto’s senior population continues to increase, the need for smaller senior units is
important as many senior households have become “empty nesters” and would
prefer to downsize. In addition, the proximity to Stanford University and the City’s
concentration of startup/incubator companies creates a unique demand for
smaller, more affordable units. There is also a growing demand for multifamily
units near services and transit, by both seniors and young urban professionals,
who are choosing to live closer to services, thus reducing traffic impacts. Some
programs encouraging smaller units are listed below.
July 09, 2012 Page 10 of 22
(ID # 2724)
H2.1.5 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that
encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including
units for seniors.
H2.2.1 PROGRAM Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to promote
more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that propose smaller units at a
higher density, to encourage development of suitable housing sites currently
planned and zoned for non-residential use with mixed use projects to contribute to
the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs.
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review if the project meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
Another alternative to encourage smaller units could include eliminating density
limits (but retaining floor area ratio requirements) for a) projects with all units
less than 900 square feet in size, and/or b) 100% affordable housing projects.
Chapter 4: Housing Constraints
This chapter evaluates both non-governmental and governmental constraints to
housing in the community. These are factors that can hinder the production of
new affordable housing. These types of non-governmental constraints generally
relate to the housing market and involve variables beyond the control of the City.
These include the lack of available land, high development costs, and lack of
accessible financing both for the builder and the homeowner.
The City is essentially a built-out city with vacant parcels constituting less than
0.5% of city land. There was considerable housing activity in Palo Alto during the
last planning period (1999-2006) due to the redevelopment of underutilized land
and available financing. However, due to the housing market decline coupled
with the reduced amount of available land, very few new units were added to
Palo Alto’s housing stock in the last few years.
July 09, 2012 Page 11 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Both land and development costs continue to increase, making housing
development more difficult. And due to federal reform of the lending industry,
both builders and potential homeowners have had difficulty obtaining loans to
construct or purchase housing. In addition, the Palo Alto Unified School District is
near or at capacity with its facilities and new housing would certainly strain their
existing resources.
Government constraints to affordable housing relate to local regulations and fees.
These include land use regulations, permit processing time, development fees,
and development requirements such as parking. Proposing to eliminate, or at
least limit, the Site and Design process for development of sites on the Housing
Inventory Sites list should be viewed by HCD as a reduction in constraints for
developing housing sites listed on the inventory.
Chapter 5: Past Accomplishments and New Housing Goals, Policies and Programs
The final chapter of the draft Housing Element assesses how effective the past
Housing Element was in accomplishing its goals through implementation of it
adopted policies and programs. This chapter also identifies appropriate policies
and programs for the planning period. A significant revision to this Housing
Element update is reflected in the Vision Statement. Previously, the City’s long-
term policy was to allow multifamily residential uses on commercially zoned
parcels. That policy supported the entitlement and construction of more than
1,000 residential units on sites with prior commercial uses within the past
Housing Element cycle. However, this policy has jeopardized the economic
viability of some commercial areas, resulting in zoning changes in 2007 to restrict
such conversions.
As a result, the City has targeted areas in the updated Housing Element that are
more appropriate for multi-family housing by providing incentives and outlining
housing sites as described above.
The draft 2007–2014 Housing Element is more focused at targeting appropriate
locations for new housing to meet the City’s housing needs including housing for
seniors and shelter space for the homeless, but it retains most of the overall goals
from the 1999–2006 Housing Element of preserving the neighborhood character
of Palo Alto and providing sufficient housing opportunities for a diverse
July 09, 2012 Page 12 of 22
(ID # 2724)
population. New programs that reinforce the City’s commitment to providing
affordable, higher density housing in appropriate locations include the following:
PROGRAM H2.1.1 Consider allowing high density residential in mixed use
projects in commercial areas within half a mile of major transit stations. Explore
limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a
quarter mile of fixed rail stations to encourage higher density residential
development.
PROGRAM H2.1.5 Revise the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district to allow
residential uses on parking lots in commercial districts listed on the Housing
Inventory Sites as long as there is no loss in public parking (note this program was
eliminated by the Regional Housing Mandate Committee).
PROGRAM H2.1.6 Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that
encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including
units for seniors.
PROGRAM H2.1.9 Develop a small residential unit overlay district to allow higher
densities in areas designated Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD).
PROGRAM H2.1.10 Explore developing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program to encourage higher density housing in appropriate locations.
PROGRAM H2.2.2 Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review and only requires Architectural Review for some mixed use projects
if the project meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer; and
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher; and
Maximum average unit size of 900 sq. ft.
PROGRAM H3.1.1 Amend the City’s BMR ordinance to lower the BMR
requirement from projects of five or more units to three or more units and to
modify the BMR rental section to be consistent with recent court rulings related to
inclusionary rental housing.
July 09, 2012 Page 13 of 22
(ID # 2724)
PROGRAM H3.1.2 Evaluate revising the BMR calculation to base the required
number of BMR units on maximum density allowable on the site rather than the
total number of proposed units in the development.
PROGRAM H3.1.12 Consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of limiting
market rate housing development to the City’s “Above Moderate” allocation of
the current RHNA planning cycle. Report the results to the Planning and
Transportation Commission and City Council (note this program was eliminated by
the Regional Housing Mandate Committee).
PROGRAM H3.5.1 Enter into discussions with local churches participating in the
City’s year round Hotel de Zink emergency shelter program to establish a
permanent emergency shelter in each church within a year of Housing Element
adoption.
Approximately 85% of the policies and programs from the previous Housing
Element remain applicable, although in some cases they were revised or
combined with other programs.
As discussed below, the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
suggested modifications to some of the programs, including elimination of
programs H2.1.4 (parking lots) and H3.1.12 (above market rate study), and
assuring Site and Design review applies to any project in excess of 50 feet in
height (Program H2.1.1).
At the end of Chapter 5 is an Appendix that lists all the programs from the 1999-
2006 Housing Element, identifies if the program was implemented, if it was an
effective program and whether it should be retained in the 2007–2014 Housing
Element. Staff has also provided a disposition table entitled Goals, Policies and
Programs Disposition (Attachment C) that cross references the 1999-2006 Goals,
Policies and Programs with the 2007–2014 Housing Element. The 1999-2006
Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs can be accessed online
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=26924).
The Disposition table identifies if the previous goal policy or program was
unchanged, revised, merged with another goal, policy or program or deleted.
July 09, 2012 Page 14 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Relationship to Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS)
With the passage of SB 375, metropolitan regions are now responsible for the
development of a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). The goal of the SCS is to
create a 25-year land use strategy while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions through an integrated transportation plan. As part of the SCS process,
new RHNA numbers will be assigned to each jurisdiction for the next 2015-2022
planning cycle. Palo Alto has tentatively been assigned 2,192 units for the next
cycle. However, as the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle is coming to a close, those sites
identified in this Housing Element update may be included in the new SCS cycle
unless they are approved for development in the next two years. The proposed
2007-2014 Housing Element is not related directly to the current SCS effort,
however.
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review
Since the summer of 2008, staff has been working on updating the City’s Housing
Element covering the 2007-2014 planning period. Beginning in June of 2009, staff
has met ten times with the PTC to discuss the Housing Element; three of those
meetings focused on only the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS). The other meetings
were discussions about the specific goals, policies and programs to be included in
the updated Housing Element.
On April 11, 2012, staff presented the complete draft Housing Element for PTC
review. While PTC had some comments about the “technical” chapters, a
majority of the comments were focused on Chapter 5, “Goals, Policies and
Program”. The main comments from the PTC focused on the following programs:
Program 2.1.1 - Consider allowing high density residential in mixed use
projects in commercial areas within half a mile of major transit stations.
Explore limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory
Sites within a quarter mile of fixed rail stations to encourage higher density
residential development.
Program 2.1.4 - Revise the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district to allow
residential uses on those parking lots in commercial districts listed on the
Housing Inventory Sites as long as there is no loss in public parking.
Program 2.2.1 – Identify incentives that encourage development of suitable
housing sites currently planned and zoned for non-residential use with
July 09, 2012 Page 15 of 22
(ID # 2724)
mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s
housing needs.
Program 2.2.2 - Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site
and Design, requiring only Architectural Review for mixed use project for
residential projects with a residential density of 20 residential units or
higher and a maximum average unit size of 1,250 sq.ft.
The PTC directed staff to work with the Regional Housing Element subcommittee
to address all the comments and return on May 9, 2012 with revised program
language for the four programs. In working with the Housing Element
subcommittee, staff revised three of the programs.
At the May 9, 2012 meeting, staff presented the PTC with some technical changes
and revised program language for the three programs. The revisions to the
programs are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Revised Programs
Proposed Program Commission Comments Revised Program
Program 2.1.4 - Revise the Public
Facilities (PF) zoning district to allow
residential uses on parking lots in
commercial districts listed on the
Housing Inventory Sites as long as there
is no loss in public parking.
Evaluate parking lots for
appropriateness for housing
opportunities
Do not rezone but create a
100% AH overlay zone
Evaluate parking lots in commercial districts
to determine which of the lots are most
appropriate for residential housing
opportunities and revise the Public Facilities
(PF) zoning district to allow higher density
residential uses on those parking lots listed
on the Housing Inventory Sites as long as
there is no loss in public parking.
Proposed Program Commission Comments Revised Program
Program 2.2.2 - Implement an incentive
program within a year of Housing
Element adoption for properties
identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those
sites. The incentive eliminates Site and
Design Review requiring only
Architectural Review for mixed use
projects with a residential density of 20
dwelling units per acre or higher and a
maximum average unit size of 1,250 sq.
ft.
Eliminate Proposed Program
Bad idea to waive Site and
Design.
Essential to keep Site and
Design
Unwise to remove
1250 sq. ft. is not a small unit
Other incentives may be
better (FAR, density, etc.)
Implement an incentive program
within a year of Housing Element
adoption for properties identified as
a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on
those sites. The incentive eliminates
Site and Design Review if the project
meets the following criteria:
The project has 9 residential
units or fewer
A residential density of 20
dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
July 09, 2012 Page 16 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Program 2.2.1-Identify incentives,
including the promotion of density
bonus, that encourage development of
suitable housing sites currently planned
and zoned for non-residential use with
mixed use projects to contribute to the
City’s fair share of the region’s housing
needs.
Eliminate program.
Provide incentives for
affordable rental unit
Adopt an ordinance for density bonus
concessions to promote more flexible
concessions and incentives to projects that
propose smaller units at a higher density, to
encourage development of suitable housing
sites currently planned and zoned for non-
residential use with mixed use projects to
contribute to the City’s fair share of the
region’s housing needs.
The Housing Element Subcommittee reviewed Program 2.1.1 and recommended
that the PTC review the program and its merits at the May 9, 2012 meeting. After
further discussion, the PTC recommended not to the revise that program. The
PTC recommended the City Council forward the Housing Element to HCD. The
minutes of the April 11 and May 9 meeting have been included as Attachment D.
The PTC changes are reflected in the Draft Housing Element.
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Review
On June 14, 2012, the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
reviewed the draft Housing Element. The Committee provided feedback primarily
relating to the proposed Housing Inventory Sites and programs. Many of the comments
from the RHMC were similar to the PTC concerns.
The RHMC requested that staff add programs or revise the proposed programs as
follows:
Add a program to encourage the acquisition and conversion of
existing multifamily developments to affordable housing to help
meet the City’s RHNA numbers.
Revise programs to strengthen the proposed language to protect
existing R-1 and low density neighborhoods.
Assure that Site and Design review is required for all developments
that exceed the 50 foot height limit.
The RHMC also discussed the potential for creating a Grocery Overlay district to
help preserve existing retail grocery uses, given the inclusion of a couple of
grocery stores on the HIS.
The RHMC recommended the following actions:
July 09, 2012 Page 17 of 22
(ID # 2724)
1. Include a program that would incentivize the attainment and
conversion of existing multifamily apartments to affordable housing
apartments, including incentives;
2. Eliminate City owned parking lots and the Creekside Inn parking lot
parcel from the Housing Inventory Sites list;
3. Strengthen language to protect R-1 and low density residential
districts;
4. Require Site and Design review for any development over 50 feet and
clarify the relationship between Density Bonus and Housing Element
incentives;
5. Review the housing overcrowding data and text and potential
conflicts with the Housing Element emphasis on smaller units and
revise the text accordingly; also adjust text for the senior housing
section to better emphasize the specific Palo Alto needs;
6. Include hotel condominium units towards the RHNA requirements;
and
7. Create a proposed program to adopt a Grocery Overlay zoning.
The RHMC directed staff to address the recommendations and return on June 26
to present staff responses to the seven recommendations. Below is a brief
synopsis of staff’s responses and proposed changes.
1. Create a program to incentivize the conversion of existing multifamily
developments to affordable housing apartments.
Staff Response: Staff will include a new proposed program that encourages
looking at existing multifamily units to convert to long term affordable
units. The new program would read:
Program 3.4.4 The City will work with affordable housing developers to
pursue opportunities to acquire, rehabilitate and
convert existing multi-family developments to long term
affordable housing units to contribute to the City’s fair
share of the region’s housing needs.
2. Eliminate City owned parking lots and Creekside Inn from the HIS.
July 09, 2012 Page 18 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Staff Response: Since the RHMC recommended eliminating City owned
parking lots and the Creekside Inn parking lot parcel, this recommendation
created a deficit of 78 units in addressing the City’s RHNA requirements.
Therefore staff proposed: a) adding alternative sites that could support 20
dwelling units per acre and higher density of 30 du/ac (likely requiring
rezoning on one site already on the HIS, and b) adding hotel site residential
unit potential as well. This effort yielded 194 new units, thus creating a
surplus of 116 units. Note that all CN zoned and RM zoned sites on the HIS
that require zoning to 20 dwelling units per acre will be addressed during
the zoning ordinance update after certification of the HE. The added and
revised sites are shown in Tables 2 and 3 below:
Table 2: Added Sites to HIS
Added Housing Sites Current Zoning Acreage
Potential
Yield with
Current
Zoning
Potential
Yield @ 20
du/acre
Net
Yield Note
587 Maybell
Ave. (Clemo) RM-15/R-2 2.47 34 49 45 Existing 4
units on site
3707 El Camino Real CN 0.18 2 3 3
Purchased by
PAHC with
3705 ECR
4151 Middlefield Rd. RM-15 .93 13 18 18 Existing Office
Building
Hotel Condos* 113
Total 179
* Please see subsequent discussion regarding hotel condominiums.
Table 3: Revisions to Proposed HIS Parcels
Housing Sites
Current
Zoning Acreage
Potential
Yield with
Current
Zoning
Yield
with
Increase
Density
Net
Yield Note
4146 El Camino Real RM-15 .77 11 15 4 Assumed 20du/acre
130 Sheridan Ave. GM/PTOD 1.13
23
(at 20
du/acre)
34 11 Assumed 30du/acre;
requires PTOD
Total 15
July 09, 2012 Page 19 of 22
(ID # 2724)
3. Strengthen language to protect the existing R-1 and low density residential
neighborhoods.
Staff Response: Staff will include a new policy to read:
Policy H1.4 Assure that new development provides appropriate transitions
from higher density development to single family and low
density residential districts in order to preserve neighborhood
character.
4. Require Site and Design Review for any development exceeding the 50 foot
height limit.
Staff Response: Program 2.1.1 would be revised to include language that
all developments that exceed the 50 ft. height limit will require Site and
Design review.
The revised Program 2.1.1 would then read: “Consider allowing high
density residential in mixed-use projects in commercial areas within a half
mile of fixed rail stations. Explore limited exceptions to the 50-foot height
limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a quarter mile of fixed rail stations
to encourage higher density residential development. In all instances
where the height limit exceeds 50 feet, Site and Design Review is required.”
5. Revise the Housing Needs chapter to revise the text and conclusions
regarding overcrowding data and senior housing to be consistent with the
proposed housing policies and programs.
Staff Response: Staff reviewed the existing narratives and the proposed
language is included in Attachment A.
6. Include hotel condominiums toward the RHNA requirements.
Staff Response: Current zoning allows that up to 25% of new hotel FAR and
25% of the units may be developed for residential use. Under RHMC
direction, staff has added the potential yield of a 113 housing units from
July 09, 2012 Page 20 of 22
(ID # 2724)
the approved Hilton Homewood (Palo Alto Bowl), Hilton Gardens and
Ming’s hotel developments to the Housing Inventory Sites list.
7. Create a proposed Grocery Overlay District.
Staff Response: A Grocery Overlay District or zoning would likely take the
form of limiting mixed use development on an existing grocery site (e.g.,
Whole Foods, Molly Stone’s, etc.) such that a residential component would
not be allowed unless a grocery use of at least the same square footage is
provided. Staff noted that the City could not generally require only a
grocery use in a commercial zone, but could preclude mixed use without
the grocery.
At the June 26 meeting, the RHMC accepted staff’s proposals to its June 14
recommendations with a few other minor changes (see Attachment A). The RHMC
recommended that the Council forward to PTC a recommendation for initiation of
a Grocery Overlay Zone for grocery stores on designated sites with the intent that
housing be permitted only where the existing grocery (or a similar sized store) is
retained. This would apply to any application submittal after June 26, 2012. Staff
will accept that direction from Council as effectively initiating the zoning revision,
although that item was not specifically noticed for this agenda. The Housing
Element will not reflect the zoning ordinance change.
The RHMC unanimously recommended that the Housing Element be forwarded
with the above changes to the City Council for its review. A list of the
recommended text revisions for Chapter 2 and a few other minor edits to
programs are included in Attachment A of the report.
Timeline
On May 9, 2012, the PTC recommended that the City Council forward the draft
Housing Element to the State Office of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for a compliance review with state law. The Council’s Regional Housing
Mandate Committee reviewed and suggested revisions to the draft on June 14
and June 26, 2012. If approved by the Council, the Housing Element will be sent
to HCD for review. HCD has 60 days to provide comments on the adequacy of the
City’s draft Housing Element. If revisions of the document are required, which is
likely, staff will draft revisions. The PTC will then be asked to make a formal
July 09, 2012 Page 21 of 22
(ID # 2724)
recommendation to the City Council to adopt the 2007-2014 Housing Element
and to adopt appropriate environmental clearance. After the City Council adopts
the Housing Element, it will be returned to HCD for final review and certification.
Resource Impact
The preparation of the Housing Element has been included in the Department of
Planning and Community’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment budget. Staff time,
including the retention of consultants, has already been identified in the
departmental workplan. As previously mentioned, the State is now requiring a
certified Housing Element to be eligible for many State housing, transporation or
infrastructure funding grants (including the recently enacted One Bay Area
Transportation Grant Program). The failure to enact a certified Housing Element
could impact the City’s ability to compete for this State funding.
Policy Implications
The proposed updated Housing Element is consistent with existing City Policy,
particularly the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element update
process enables the Housing Element to be updated to focus on current City
policy and to adequately reflect the City’s vision consistent with or modfied from
the goals of the existing Housing Element. Many of the proposed Housing
Element goals, policies and programs have been retained from the current
Housing Element. The updated Housing Element is intended to provide an
effective guide in meeting the State HCD requirements.
Environmental Review
It is anticipated that an Initial Study would support preparing and adopting a
Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update, particularly given that
nearly all of the potential units could be accommodated under current zoning.
The environmental review would be completed prior to City adoption of the
Housing Element after the City receives comments from the State regarding the
adequacy of the draft Housing Element and makes any requisite changes.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Regional Housing Mandate Committee Recommended Text Changes to
Housing Element (DOCX)
Attachment B: Building Block Diagram of Tiers to Meet City RHNA Numbers (DOC)
Attachment C: Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Disposition Table (PDF)
July 09, 2012 Page 22 of 22
(ID # 2724)
Attachment D: April 11 and May 9, 2012 Planning and Transportation Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment E: Menlo Park Housing Element Settlement Staff Report Excerpt, May 22, 2012
(PDF)
Attachment F: Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Hardcopies to Councilmembers
and Libraries only). (DOCX)
Prepared By: Tim Wong, Senior Planner
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Text Changes
Recommended to Council June 26, 2012
At the June 26, 2012 meeting of the Regional Housing Mandate Committee, the RHMC
recommended revisions to the text in Chapter 2 and minor revisions to a few policies, in
addition to the more substantive changes noted in the Council’s July 9, 2012 staff
report. These following changes should be approved for incorporation into the
document prior to forwarding to the State:
In addition to the recommendations, the RHMC made other noted changes. They are
listed as follows:
1. Include language in Section 1.2, page 2, at the end of the second paragraph,
stating that: “The City of Palo Alto notes, however, that ABAG’s housing
projections were 84% higher than actual growth during this planning period,
resulting in overstated housing (RHNA) targets for the City (and other cities
throughout the Bay Area).”
2. The top two paragraphs on page 25, in the section about Overcrowding, will be
revised to read as follows:
“There are units in some of the assisted housing developments in the City that
are both larger size and affordable. As an example, the Arastradero Park
development includes fourteen three-bedroom units and four four-bedroom
units. However, given the rapid rise in the rents of large apartments, more
family sized apartments are needed to help keep rental costs down as well as
reduce overcrowding. Additionally, 50 family units are under construction at 801
Alma Street (Eden Housing and Community Working Group).
The most obvious need for over crowded households in Palo Alto is, of course,
large housing units that are adequately sized for large families. Typically there is
a need for three, four and five-bedroom housing units for households that are
overcrowded due to family size. Although dDevelopers in the City of Palo Alto
are building morein the past decade have typically built three and four-bedroom
units, thosethough these units are usually expensive to rent or buy. ;
overcrowded households are in need of affordable and large housing units with
assisted rental programs. Small households in Palo Alto are sometimes also
overcrowded because of the high cost of housing. Therefore, Aaffordable
housing, primarily affordable rental housing, is needed tocan help further reduce
overcrowded households. This need is becoming more critical given the near
doubling of rents for all units between 1990 and 2001. The City of Palo Alto,
however, experiences a relatively small percent of overcrowding compared to
the County, Statewide and in nearby cities.”
2
3. The last two paragraphs on page 28, in the section about Senior Households, will
be revised to read as follows:
“The supportive living facilities for Palo Alto’s elderly include nursing care
facilities as well as non-profit and for-profit residential care facilities. Lytton III
provides skilled nursing care for approximately 145 elderly persons. Lytton III is
part of the Lytton Gardens complex (Lytton I, II, III and IV [Lytton Courtyard]),
which is the only development in Palo Alto that provides a full range of living
options for lower income elderly ranging from independent living to assisted
living to skilled nursing care.
The Fabian Way Senior Housing project at 901 San Antonio Road has 56
subsidized units for seniors. Additionally, the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish
Life at 899 Charleston Road has 24 Below Market Rate Units currently under
construction. Table 2-26 lists the existing residential care facilities available
currently for seniors. Although the City has been active in the creation of
additional senior housing facilities, there still is a great need for senior housing.
As the senior population continues to increase, coupled with the fact that 38% of
Palo Alto seniors earn less than $50,000, the demand will continue to increase.
Many of the Housing Element’s programs are focused on this escalating need.”
4. The last paragraph on page 33, in the section about Large Households, will be
revised to read as follows:
“The majority of Palo Alto’s owner-occupied housing stock (43 percent) has
three bedrooms and approximately 38 percent contain four or more bedrooms.
Most of the rental housing, however, contains one or two bedrooms (71
percent). Because Palo Alto has a limited supply of larger rental units to
accommodate large family households, most large families face an above-
average level of difficulty in locating adequately sized, affordable housing. Even
when larger units are available, the cost is generally higher than that of smaller
units. The lack of supply, compounded with the low-incomes of larger families,
results in many large families living in overcrowded conditions.”
5. The following draft Housing Element policies or programs will be deleted. They
are as follows:
H2.3 POLICY Discourage the conversion of lands designated as
residential to non-residential uses and the use of multiple family residential
lands by non-residential uses, such as private schools and churches, unless there
is no net loss of housing potential on a community-wide basis.
H2.3.1 PROGRAM Change the Zoning Code to clarify exclusive “non-
3
residential” uses in a multiple-family residential zone are not permitted unless
the project can demonstrate an overriding benefit to the public or the project
results in no net planned or existing housing loss. Planning Commission and City
Council approval would be required in such instances.
H3.1.12 PROGRAM Consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of
limiting market rate housing development to the City’s “Above Moderate”
allocation of the current RHNA planning cycle. Report the results of the study to
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council.
H3.3.2 PROGRAM Allow the construction of affordable housing on surplus
sites that are near both transit and community services and are designated
Major Institution/Special Facilities under the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Several programs will be revised. The revisions appear as underline and/or
strikethrough text.
Current Program Revised Program
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive
program within a year of Housing Element
adoption for properties identified as a
Housing Inventory Site to encourage
housing production on those sites. The
incentive eliminates Site and Design
Review if the project meets the following
criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or
fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling
units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an
incentive program within a year of
Housing Element adoption for
properties identified as a Housing
Inventory Site to encourage housing
production on those sites. The
incentive eliminates Site and Design
Review if the project meets all the
following criteria:
The project has 9 residential
units or fewer
A residential density of 20
dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
H3.1.6 PROGRAM Encourage the use of
flexible development standards including
floor area ratio limits, creative
architectural solutions and natural
resource conservation, in the design of
projects with a substantial BMR
component.
H3.1.6 PROGRAM Encourage the use of
flexible development standards
including floor area ratio limits, creative
architectural solutions and natural
resource conservation, consistent with
the provisions of the Density Bonus
Ordinance, in the design of projects
with a substantial BMR component.
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Annually monitor
the City’s progress in the construction of
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Annually monitor
the City’s progress in the construction
4
Current Program Revised Program
housing for all income levels including the
effectiveness of housing production in
mixed use developments.
or conversion of housing for all income
levels including the effectiveness of
housing production in mixed use
developments.
ATTACHMENT B
“Building Block” Approach to Meet City
RHNA Number of 2,860 Units
2,976 Total
Housing Units
331 Potential Units
In Existing Residentially Zoned Sites
959 Units
Units Built or Building Permits Issued
233 Units
In Entitlement or Building Permit Process
1,340 Potential Units
In Commercially Zoned Sites
113 Potential Units
Hotel Condominiums
1996-2006
Housing Element
NO
CHANGE REVISED MERGED REMOVED 2007-14 Housing Element
See H2.1
Policy H-1:X See Goal H-1
Policy H-2:X See H2.1
Program H-1 X See H2.1.1
Program H-2 X See H2.1.2 and H3.3.1
Program H-3 X See H2.2.1
Program H-4 X See H2.1.2
Program H-5 X See H2.1.1
Program H-5-A X See H2.1.1
Program H-5-B X X See H.2.1.1 and H2.1.8
Program H-5-C X See H3.3.2
Program H-5-D X See H.2.1.1 and H2.1.8
Program H-5-E X Deleted
Program H-5-F X Completed
Program H-5-G X See H2.1.2
Program H-5-H X See H2.1.3
Program H-5-I X Completed
Program H-5-J X See H3.1.6
Program H-5-K X Completed (SEE 2.1.3 AND 2.1.9)
Program H-5-L X Deleted
Program H-6 X See H2.1.5
Program H-7 X Completed
Program H-8 X Completed
Program H-9 X H1.1.2
Program H-10 X Completed
Program H-11 X Completed
Program H-12 X Completed
Policy H-3:X See Policy H2.2
Program H-13 X See H.2.2.1
Program H-13-A X See H.2.2.2
Program H-13-B X See H.2.2.2
Program H-13-C X See H.2.2.3
Program H-14 X See H.21.4
Program H-15 X Deleted
Policy H-4:X See Policy H2.1 and Program H2.2.1
Program H-16 X See H2.1.11
Program H-17 X See H2.2.4
Program H-18 X See H2.1.4
Program H-19 X Completed
Policy H-5:X Deleted
Program H-20 X Deleted
Policy H-6:X See H3.3
Program H-21 X See H3.3.1
Program H-22 X See H3.3.3
Program H-23 X See H3.3.1
Policy H-7:X See H3.1.14
Program H-24 X See H3.1.14
See H1
Policy H-8: X See H1.1
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DISPOSITION
GOAL H-1: A Supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing That
Meets Palo Alto’s Share of Regional Housing Needs
GOAL H-2: Conservation and Maintenance of Palo Alto’s Existing
Housing Stock and Residential Neighborhoods.
Page 1 of 3
1996-2006
Housing Element
NO
CHANGE REVISED MERGED REMOVED 2007-14 Housing Element
Program H-25 X See H1.1.1
Program H-26 X Completed
Policy H-9: X See H1.2
Program H-27 X See H.3.1.13
Program H-28 X See H3.1.3
Program H-29 X See H1.2.1
Policy H-10: X See H1.1.3
Program H-30 X See H1.1.3
Policy H-11: X See Policy H1.3
Program H-31 X See H1.3.1
Program H-32 X See H1.3.1
See H3
Policy H-12: X See H3.1
Program H-33 X See H3.1.5
Program H-34 X See H3.3.1
Policy H-13: X See H4.1.3
Program H-35 X See H4.1.7
Program H-36 X See H3.1.2
Program H-37 X Completed
Program H-38 X See H3.1.10
Program H-39 X See H3.1.6
Program H-40 X See H3.1.2.g
Program H-41 X See H3.1.11
Policy H-14: See Policy H3.1 and Program 3.3.7
Program H-42 X See H3.3.4
Program H-43 X See H3.2.2
Program H-44 X See H3.3.5
Policy H-15: X See H3.1 and Program H3.4.2
Program H-45 X See H3.4.1and H3.4.2
Program H-46 X See H3.4.2
Program H-47 X Deleted
Program H-48 X See H3.4.1
Program H-49 X See H3.4.2
Program H-50 X See H3.1.8
Program H-51 X See H3.4.3
Policy H-16: X See H3.1.7
Program H-52 X See H3.1.7
Program H-53 X See H3.1.9
Policy H-17: X See H3.1.9
Policy H-18: X See H4.2
Program H-54 X See H2.1.5
Program H-55 X See H4.2.1
Policy H-19: X See H2.1.2
Program H-56 X See H2.1.2
Policy H-20: X Deleted
Policy H-21: X See H3.5
Program H-57 X See H3.5.1
Program H-58 X See H3.5.1
Policy H-22: X Deleted
Policy H-23: X See H3.3.7
Program H-59 X See H3.3.6
Program H-60 X See H3.3.7
GOAL H-3: Housing Opportunities for a Diverse Population,
Including Very low-, Low- and Moderate-Income Residents, and
Persons with Special Needs.
Page 2 of 3
1996-2006
Housing Element
NO
CHANGE REVISED MERGED REMOVED 2007-14 Housing Element
See H4
Policy H-24:X See H4.1
Program H-61 X See H4.1.1
Program H-62 X See H4.1.2
Program H-63 X See H4.1.3
Program H-64 X See H4.1.4
Program H-65 X See H4.1.4
Program H-66 X See H4.1.5
Program H-67 X See H4.1.6
See Goal H5 and Policy H3.2
Policy H-25:X See Policy H5.1
Program H-68 X See H5.1.2
Program H-69 X See H5.1.4
Program H-70 X See H5.1.5
Program H-71 X See H5.1.6
Policy H-26: X See H3.2.1
Program H-72 X See H3.2.1
GOAL H-5: Reduced Housing Expenses for Energy
GOAL H-4: An End to Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Race,
Religion, National Origin, Age, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Marital
Status, Physical Handicap, or Other Barriers that Prevent Choice in
Housing.
Page 3 of 3
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
April 11, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
Review and Recommendation to Council of Proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan Housing 7
Element. 8
9
Our topic tonight is the consideration of the Draft Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan 10
Amendment. We are going to structure our conversation so that we spend the first half of our 11
meeting more or less reviewing what I call the technical aspects of the document. That’s 12
basically Chapters one through four. If this discussion goes to 8:30 p.m. we are going to stop 13
and assess how much longer we need to take on that part of the Housing Element and if it is 14
more than, I don’t know, if we are nearing completion of that discussion we will take on the 15
housing policies and programs Chapter five. If not we will continue until our next PTC meeting, 16
which is April 25, I believe. So Commissioners if you are good to go with that and you can hold 17
off on your comments or questions about chapter five policies and programs, we will begin with 18
a Staff report. 19
20
Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Good evening Chair Martinez and 21
Commissioners, I am Steven Turner the Advance Planning Manager and on behalf of the 22
Department I am pleased to present the Commission with the Draft Housing Element. This is a 23
very important night in that there have been a significant amount of work and effort over 24
unfortunately many years to get to this point, but Staff is very proud of the document that we are 25
able to present to you tonight and that effort was led primarily by the two gentlemen to my right, 26
Tim Wong, our Housing Senior Planner, and Roland Rivera, Senior Planner also in the Planning 27
Division who did a lot of work with regards to the data analysis within the Housing Element. 28
There’s been many people who have worked on this draft document including Cara Silver, from 29
the Attorney’s office providing legal support, our Consultant, Vivian Kahn, who helped us make 30
sure that the document would meet the requirements of the State, and finally Julie Caporgno, our 31
former Chief Planning Official who retired a year ago and just completed her work in advising 32
Staff on the development of the Housing Element. We certainly could not have done this job 33
without her and the rest of Staff participating. So a few thank you’s before we get started 34
tonight. Tim Wong and Roland Rivera will lead the Commission through the Housing Element 35
focusing on the more salient points of the document. That will be followed by Cara Silver from 36
the Attorney’s office will talk a little bit about the environmental review and perhaps some of the 37
timing pressures that we are under for adopting this document, and after that we would be happy 38
to take any questions that you may have. So with that, I think we’re going to be starting off with 39
Tim Wong. 40
41
Mr. Tim Wong, Senior Planner: Good evening Commissioners, I would like to start off by 42
providing a brief background about the Housing Element. It is a State requirement that the 43
Housing Element gets updated every five years, and it’s the only Housing Element of the seven 44
mandated elements that requires State approval. As part of their review they will look into how 45
the City accommodates their RHNA numbers. In other words, the regional housing needs 46
Page 2
allocation. The approval deadline for the Housing Element was June 30, 2009, so we are a little 1
bit beyond that date, but still moving forward. Lastly, the City of Palo Alto is the only 2
jurisdiction in the County that has not submitted a Housing Element at this date. 3
4
There has been significant public outreach in the preparation of the Housing Element. There 5
were two citywide Housing Community Outreach meetings done in late 2010. There was a 6
developer focus group meeting, that’s solely with developers, a non-profit organization group 7
meeting, and there were also two property owner meeting as part of the formulation of the 8
Housing Inventory Sites. There were 14 technical assistant group meetings; the last one being 9
March 19, 2012, in which they were able to review the Draft Housing Element in front of you. 10
There have been 10 Planning and Transportation Commission meetings as you all know. Of 11
those there were two joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meetings. 12
In the May 2010 joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meeting the 13
Council provided direction on where to focus the Housing Inventory Sites. They provided a 14
number of points, some of them including: the sites should be a half a mile of transit stations or 15
well served by transit, not to include parcels zoned R1, R2, or RMD. Lastly, to focus on existing 16
sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to those transit and other services. They also 17
provided direction on the types of housing and that the emphasis was more on smaller units 18
including senior housing and to also again focus smaller units in higher density settings along the 19
California Avenue and Downtown areas. 20
21
Some of the highlights of the Housing Element. Of the goals, policies and programs, 22
approximately 80% of them have come from the existing or the current Housing Element. Based 23
on Council direction there are no rezoning of sites except for the proposed public facility or 24
parking lots and a few CN zones to be compatible with Staff proposed incentives. Lastly, the 25
subcommittee has been working with Staff from June 2010 to April 2011 approximately working 26
on these goals, polices, and programs. As stated many of them were carried over from the 27
previous Housing Element and all the goals and policies do reflect the City Council’s direction 28
for higher density and smaller units. The City Staff has proposed a number of incentives when 29
there are higher densities and smaller units involved. And last, also, of the new programs that 30
have been proposed, a number have been focused on the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) 31
program. Those policies stem from the March 2008 Council meeting in which they reviewed the 32
City’s BMR program and from that meeting they provided direction to the BMR program, and so 33
these programs have wrapped in that Council direction. I would like to now pass over the mike 34
to Roland to explain about the Housing Inventory Sites. 35
36
Mr. Roland Rivera, Senior Planner: Thanks to Tim. Good evening, Commissioners. I’m just 37
going to briefly talk about the Housing Inventory Sites and sort of the evolution of how we got to 38
where we are now. As Tim mentioned, Staff went ahead and had a joint City Council and PTC 39
meeting last May of 2010 and from that the Council gave specific direction on where to focus 40
our search for Housing Inventory Sites. After that meeting we went ahead and met with the full 41
PTC on August and September of 2010 with some Draft Housing Inventory Sites and again, 42
Planning Commission gave us direction and refinement to the inventory. The last meeting we 43
had on the Housing Inventory Sites was December of 2011 and at that point we determined that 44
we can meet the RHNA number of 2,860. 45
46
Page 3
Just to highlight some of the Council direction, they wanted us to focus on commercial sites that 1
currently allow mixed use development and half mile radius around the fixed transit stations, 2
specifically University Avenue and Cal Ave. Also, they wanted us to focus our search on a 3
quarter of a mile buffer from El Camino Real Transit Corridor. Some of the direction that we 4
got from the two property owner meetings that we held with the potential Housing Inventory 5
Sites also gave us more direction on refinement of the inventory. Particularly we focused on 6
sites that were not significantly remodeled or rebuilt in the last 20 years. We also focused on 7
sites that are over 10,000 square feet in size, at which at the calculation of 20 dwelling units per 8
acre will yield approximately five dwelling units per acre. 9
10
A couple of refinements from the December 14, 2011, meeting. We did eliminate one site from 11
that list because we found out that particular site had been redeveloped in the last 20 years. Also, 12
we calculated the site on Sand Hill that’s owned by Stanford right now at a higher yield. Right 13
now it’s zoned RM 40. We originally calculated at 20 dwellings per acre, we calculated now at 14
30 dwelling units per acre. 15
16
Some of the other criteria we did to refine the inventory was focus on sites that have one to two 17
story structures. We believe that anything over that the likelihood of it redeveloping into a 18
residential mixed use was not very likely. Also, based on the two property owner meetings that I 19
mentioned earlier, they recommended that we go ahead with an incentive program as opposed to 20
a required mandatory mixed use requirement on their sites. We came up with an incentive 21
program which we presented last December 2011. If a site is to redevelop with a residential 22
mixed use component at 20 dwellings per acre and an average size of 1,250 square feet that we 23
proposed to go ahead and waive the site and design review. 24
25
Here is the map of the sites. As you can see most of the sites are either in the downtown area 26
near the University Ave. Caltrain station, along El Camino Real, the site right here along Page 27
Mill, Upper Cal Ave., I should say, is part of the Mayfield development agreement site so we 28
went ahead and included that because that will become residential due to the development 29
agreement. As you can see we went ahead, and focused our sights on a quarter of mile of El 30
Camino Real and within the Cal Ave./University Ave. Transit Stations. I will have Tim talk 31
about the next steps. 32
33
Mr. Wong: Ok, thank you Roland. So the next step is that after consideration by the Planning 34
and Transportation Committee it will go to the City Council for their review and their approval. 35
Once it goes to the City Council and hopefully get their blessing, it will be sent off to HCD 36
where they have 90 days to review the Draft Housing Element. Then during that time, Staff will 37
initiate environmental review, which Cara will talk a little bit more about during her 38
presentation. Then after the 90 days the comments will return to the City and then Staff will 39
address those comments. Once Staff addresses those comments it will come back to the 40
Planning and Transportation Committee and then to the City Council for one last go through. 41
Those are the next steps. I would like to turn it over to Cara. 42
43
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Asst. City Attorney: Thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 44
Attorney. I wanted to amplify on two points that were made in the presentation. First is the 45
environmental review. This of course is a planning level document that requires environmental 46
Page 4
review. We have not yet preformed that environmental review. It will likely be a negative 1
declaration or a mitigated negative declaration. It possibly could be an EIR, but that is very 2
unlikely. We will look at primarily the traffic impacts associated with siting some of the new 3
housing in the areas that were identified as additional sites on the parking lot areas. So I think 4
that’s the primary focus of that environmental review. That will be done concurrently once the 5
draft has been submitted to HCD, then Staff will start the environmental review process so that it 6
will be underway by the time we receive the comments back from HCD and then the document 7
will come back to the Planning Commission and then the City Council for one final review. We 8
will be in a position for that document to be adopted. 9
10
The other point that I wanted to amplify on and we have discussed this in the past, is the 11
ramifications for not having a Housing Element in place. Since we are very near the tail end of 12
this Housing Element cycle, you may think, well, why don’t we just forgo this and start fresh 13
with the new cycle? There are some problems with that approach. The first problem is that there 14
are some grants as we have talked about in the past that are dependent on having an effective 15
Housing Element on file. We don’t want to lose that opportunity in the next year or two to 16
receive that grant funding. Second, as the economy begins to pick up and we will expect more 17
residential development there is a process in the Housing Element law that allows developers to 18
sue the City for not having an effective Housing Element and can actually require that the City 19
issue permits regardless of zoning or entitlements in place. The grounds for that drastic remedy 20
is the fact that there is not a Housing Element that has been certified by the State. So there are 21
some serious ramifications with not having a certified Housing Element. 22
23
Also, when we look at our Housing Element RHNA number for the next cycle, one of the 24
penalties for not having a current Element on file is what’s called the carryover effect. So any of 25
the unmet RHNA allocation in the current cycle that has not been built will actually carry over to 26
the subsequent cycle and so our RHNA allocation will be increased by the units that have not 27
been built in the previous cycle. Finally, there is a new provision in State law which provides 28
actually an incentive for having an effective Housing Element. That is the period of time to go 29
through the whole Housing Element process again and the time period is shortened to five years 30
if you do not have an effective Housing Element, but it is increased to eight years if you do have 31
a certified Element. So it provides an incentive to get a Housing Element on file even though 32
there is only a small window left of this current housing cycle. I will be happy to answer any 33
questions. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Planning Director, did you have some comments? 36
37
Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Yes, thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. I 38
just wanted to add a couple things to what the City Attorney just mentioned. One is in terms of 39
some of the implications of not having a Housing Element. One of the things we found a little 40
more than a year ago was one of our non-profit housing groups could not get funding from the 41
state that they had anticipated because the criteria included having a certified Housing Element 42
for the City. They managed to make the project work ultimately, but I think it was a million 43
dollar State grant that they were in line for and didn’t meet that criteria so weren’t able to get 44
that. 45
46
Page 5
I just wanted to reinforce what Ms. Silver said, that since we’re only a couple years away from 1
the end of this cycle, what you are looking at tonight is really covering through that 2014 time 2
frame. I know there can be concerns in looking at a document like this that we’re sort of paving 3
the path for the future of housing in Palo Alto and certainly some of the policies that are in here 4
do I think begin to push that way, but as far as some of the specifics in here and housing sites and 5
all that, we’re looking at the next two to three years essentially. So, your ongoing Comp Plan 6
amendment work is really defining from a land use standpoint where different types of 7
development are appropriate and work that’s going to be coming out of the Sustainable 8
Community Strategy. 9
10
Next housing cycle, which will begin shortly after this one ends, probably in 2014, will define 11
that next eight year period in terms of housing. So just be aware that we are essentially adopting 12
or recommending adopting a document that focuses on the next two to three years of housing 13
opportunities. Again, it’s zoning and as you’ve seen, planning and zoning that would 14
accommodate a certain number of units. It does not commit the City to construct those and then 15
we’ll be into the next cycle. If you have questions later on we can talk about sort of what that is 16
looking like right now because those deliberations are going on in terms of setting numbers for 17
that cycle. Thank you. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, before we open the public hearing, do you have questions on 20
what the Staff just presented? Specifically, yes, Commissioner Tuma? 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: Question for the City Attorney, a follow up on these next steps that were 23
on slide 10, the last step here says, “City evaluates and responds to HCD comments.” I guess the 24
question here is to meet the legal requirement, that we have a certified Housing Element, what do 25
we have to do and how long do you anticipate it is going to take from that last next step to 26
getting it done? Getting it certified, and can that be done before our whole Comp Plan is done? 27
28
Ms. Silver: I’ll take the last question first. We do anticipate that the Housing Element will 29
precede the Comp Plan update. Legally that’s fine. With respect to how much time it will take 30
HCD to review, legally they have 90 days. I believe they have been making those comments 31
within the 90 days. I don’t know if planning Staff has any more information on that, but I 32
believe that they typically do make those comments within 90 days and then it all depends on 33
how extensive the comments are. Hopefully they will be minor and we can quickly turn around 34
another draft or final. 35
36
Commissioner Tuma: It doesn’t sound like I asked that question very well. There’s the 37
comments that come back to us, there’s what we do with it, but then what is the step for 38
certification? In other words, for putting that to bed? The reason I’m asking that is because the 39
follow up question is going to be, and Planning Director said something about, “Oh we’d start 40
looking at the Housing Element again maybe sometime around 2014.” But, other than Housing 41
Element fatigue, why wouldn’t we start looking at the Housing Element sooner than that in order 42
to try to get it done by 2014 or 2015, or are we anticipating that the certification process is going 43
to take us until 2014? 44
45
Page 6
Mr. Williams: Yeah, that’s a good question. Hopefully we could look at it before then. The 1
Housing, HCD’s process is pretty unpredictable. I’ve been through several of these before in 2
different cities and you know sometimes it’s an issue of after that initial 90 day review how long 3
they take on subsequent reviews. Depending on the nature of their comments to us, how long we 4
take to try to address their comments, if at some point in time during that process we come back 5
to the Commission or Council that adds time to it. Ultimately we obviously do have to come 6
back to the Commission and Council before adoption so it’s kind of unpredictable. 7
8
There is a new Director at HCD; the longtime Director has left, so we don’t know whether that is 9
going to maybe speed up the process or slow down the process or what, at this point. Typically 10
you get assigned a person on their staff that reviews your Housing Element, they frankly aren’t 11
consistent and who you get is sometimes important. Some of them are very helpful and some 12
maybe less so. So, there’s just a lot of unpredictability there and it would be hard to say without 13
knowing the nature of their comments on how long it would take us to get back, but it could take 14
a while after we get that initial. Like Cara said, I think we’ll get the initial comments back 15
within 90 days. They are pretty much statutorily obliged to do that and I think they have 60 days 16
isn’t it, after another, you know, if we resubmit something to them. So generally the way it 17
works is there is a lot of negotiation back and forth between Staff and HCD staff and then again 18
if there is something really substantive in there that we need to come back to Commission or 19
Council for direction we would do that. Otherwise it’s just a lot of back and forth until we get to 20
a point where we’re pretty comfortable and they sort of say, “That looks like, yes, we would 21
certify that if you adopt it,” then we would come back and go through that. So it could be 22
another 90 days after we get those comments, it could be six months before we are finaled. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: One last closing thing is that I think there is some wisdom in trying to 25
begin the next Housing Element fairly soon on the tail end of this one. If we do that then at least 26
we will have sort of the benefit of all the thinking that we have been doing and try to get that on 27
the plate quickly because that way we won’t run these various different risks that City Attorney 28
has outlined for us and the thinking won’t have changed that much. I mean it always changes, 29
but if we wait another two or three years and then we get new Council and new direction that 30
will tend to prolong the process. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Maybe I missed it, but did we hear an estimated date when we would have a 33
certified Housing Element considering the environmental review and Council approval and all 34
that? What are we looking towards? 35
36
Mr. Williams: Well, let’s say that if Council approves this document, or directs us to send this 37
draft to the State in June, with 90 days that’s September. We get comments back and 38
optimistically it’s probably 90 days to get everything sort of ironed out and then come back early 39
in 2013 for final approval. So maybe by March of 2013 it will all be buttoned up. 40
41
Chair Martinez: So almost a year from now? 42
43
Mr Williams: Is that unrealistic? Tim, you’ve done this. 44
45
Mr. Wong: Best case scenario that sounds realistic. 46
Page 7
1
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So, I take it that the process is somewhat iterative? So after 4
we submit this we get feedback, we then show them things that they… you sort of negotiate, and 5
then you give them another draft and they either accept it or give you more comments? 6
7
Mr. Williams: Yeah, it can be pretty informal as far as getting back to them. Here’s language 8
that we would use to address the comment that you have brought up, we don’t have to create the 9
whole draft, usually they’ll concur with certain language and then we’d put that language in the 10
draft to come back to you with for your adoption. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: And with respect to Commissioner Tuma’s comment about doing the 13
next iteration of the Housing Element, I assume that we can’t do that until we augment the 14
housing inventory sites based on new RHNA allocation, is that right? 15
16
Mr. Williams: Yeah, we can’t do it until we have our RHNA allocation and then we have to as 17
part of that assess, right. You can’t just take this one and basically adopt it over again. We have 18
to have our new numbers and see what the increment is, but a lot of the sites in here, in this 19
document, should still be available. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: The un-built ones will still be available, but the ones that were built that 22
we are counting as built ones, we have to find new sites for that. 23
24
Mr. Williams: Right. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: And so, give us a timeline of when the new RHNA expects to come out. 27
28
Mr. Williams: The draft RHNA numbers will probably be out in June of this year and then there 29
will be a process though early 2013 of cities being able to review those, appeal them, object to 30
them, etcetera, etcetera, and a formal appeal process that will take us again into early Spring of 31
2013. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: So we will get the final numbers basically in the spring of 2013? Thank 34
you. One last question and that is, I understand that when we do a Housing Element or the 35
Comp Plan if you will, the only time we can consider school impacts and that we can’t consider 36
school impacts for any individual development project. Will the CEQA process evaluate school 37
impacts, and in particular will they evaluate the traffic impacts and the capacity impacts of 38
schools, or is the timeframe so short that there’s nothing to study? 39
40
Ms. Silver: The Statute that you are referring to that limits the City’s ability to look at school 41
impacts has been amended to include all legislative acts, so that would include not only projects, 42
but legislative acts such as the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element. So it’s actually now, 43
it really isn’t possible to evaluate school impacts as part of the Housing Element process. 44
45
Page 8
Commissioner Keller: So our hands are tied. We can’t even look at school impacts ever, in a 1
legislative act, except as a study session? 2
3
Ms. Silver: Well, you know, obviously school impacts are something that’s addressed by the 4
School District, and there are certain compatibility issues that you can look at, but you can’t in a 5
Housing Element limit units due to impacts on the schools. 6
7
Commissioner Keller: But if we reach capacity and that requires new schools, which requires 8
more traffic, which has land use implications and environmental implications, are those fair 9
game for a CEQA analysis for a Housing Element? 10
11
Ms. Silver: Yes, you can look at that. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: Perfect segue. When will the MND or more environmental analysis be 18
conducted, be prepared? You talked about going to Council in June, so does that mean the MND 19
is going to happen sometime between now and Council or after Council and before the State? 20
21
Ms. Silver: I think we would want to wait until June to begin the environmental review to make 22
sure that what is in the Housing Element is an acceptable policy direction. So we would want to 23
get both the Planning and Transportation Commission input and the City Council input on the 24
actual sites that have been designated on the inventory and once they are sort of in review at that 25
level then the environmental review would begin, so I imagine it will begin shortly after the City 26
Council reviews the draft Element. 27
28
Vice Chair Fineberg: But before it goes to the State then, or concurrently? 29
30
Ms. Silver: Concurrently. 31
32
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok. Would it be appropriate given that we cannot consider impacts at the 33
project level, impacts of new housing on schools, and now you’re saying there is some new 34
legislation that we cannot consider it at the comprehensive plan level, but we can consider the 35
secondary impacts of new construction of schools triggered by the new housing? Would it be 36
appropriate, and will this Housing Element consider the construction projects that are happening 37
at 13 elementary school sites, 3 middle school sites, 2 high school sites and potentially 3 new 38
sites over Cubberley? Are we at the point where the impacts trigger looking at all 21 of those 39
construction projects? 40
41
Ms. Silver: The School District has already done environmental review on those projects, so 42
they’re the lead agency on those construction projects. 43
44
Vice Chair Fineberg: So none of the impacts on those projects is analyzed in either our Housing 45
Element or in the Comprehensive Plan, when we look at cumulative impacts? 46
Page 9
1
Ms. Silver: It serves as a baseline that those projects have already gone through environmental 2
clearance, and so the expanded schools will serve as the baseline for the environmental analysis 3
that we do for our Housing Element. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: I guess the place I’m losing the thread here is, we had an old Comp Plan, it 6
said if we build 2,500 units there is going to be significant unavoidable impact and Council said 7
save their overriding considerations, the benefit is so valuable to the community we will live 8
with those negative impacts and the good outweighs the bad. We’ve come along 10 years or so. 9
We’ve had 19 construction projects. We haven’t ever looked at those when we look at our Comp 10
Plan. We’ve looked at them as you’re saying, the School District has looked at them on the 11
individual school projects, but when we look at our citywide environmental analysis in the 12
Housing Element and in the Comp Plan it hasn’t looked at the past projects, you’re saying it’s 13
not going to look at the future projects, so when do we ever look at the impact? When does the 14
City and the Comp Plan ever look at the impact of those new construction projects? Just because 15
it’s a different agency that has the authority, it sounds to me like it’s not coming into the Comp 16
Plan or the Housing Element. 17
18
Mr. Williams: My comment would be that the construction of the schools as Cara said, have 19
been addressed and the School District is the lead agency responsible for addressing those to the 20
extent that there are, that that feeds into the overall traffic impacts for the City or something like 21
that. I think that’s part of what our Comp Plan EIR needs to consider, so it needs to look at all of 22
those factors as well as other development, private development that’s happening in the City as 23
well in that context. We’re not looking at individual construction sites, school construction sites 24
to see what impacts are there. That’s the responsibility of the School District to do that, and then 25
relative to the Housing Element I would just make the distinction that what we’ve really focused 26
on doing here, and going back to the current Comp Plan and overriding considerations that 27
included a lot of potential and likely rezoning and new designations and all that kind of stuff. 28
This Housing Element, and maybe the next Housing Element does something like that too, but 29
this Housing Element is essentially relying 90 plus percent on existing zoning, so the only zoning 30
changes that we’re talking about, and using the ground up type of approach of trying to identify 31
sort of what could already be done so what we would really be focusing on here with the 32
Housing Element is the increment of what new might be done. Like on the parking lot sites, 33
which would require rezoning or maybe some small increment of the incentives that we’ve 34
provided to get a few more units on some of these sites, but again it’s a very small increment 35
which is why we think that a negative declaration probably would work for here, negative 36
declaration isn’t going to work for the Comp Plan. Because we know that the Comp Plan has 37
much broader implications and much more potential for growth. 38
39
Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. You touched on my last question. You talked about the time 40
frame for the implementation of this Housing Element. It’s going to have a life ending in 2014, 41
so is the environmental analysis conducted with a view that if everything that is being 42
recommended in the Housing Element is built over any period of time, what impact would that 43
have, or is it only what is likely to get built in the limited time of the life of the document? Or 44
maybe there’s some other way, but could you talk a little bit about how the impact is determined 45
based on the very short timeframe, the short life of the document? 46
Page
10
1
Ms. Silver: You know frankly we haven’t addressed that issue yet. I think that we could take 2
both either approach and we need to think that through a little bit more. Obviously you want 3
environmental coverage for the maximum build out in the Housing Element. On the other hand, 4
you want a document that really addresses realistic build out, and so I think there are pros and 5
cons to both approach. 6
7
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok, because I don’t know what the right answer is right now, but I see a 8
danger in if we take the position that we’re only going to analyze the impact of what gets built in 9
the short two years after adoption, then there is the potential for huge impacts to hit in the five 10
years following it. When we might be in this, forgive me but, the window that Commissioner 11
Tuma referred to where, if 2014 it takes us four or five more years to get a Housing Element 12
we’re not going to be doing additional new environmental analysis and then we’re going to be 13
building the things that we said, “Oh, we don’t have to analyze, because they weren’t going to 14
happen before 2014.” And then we’re going to be in this perpetual state of not having analyzed 15
what’s getting built in the next cycle but then it counts. So I’d like us to not go to that weird 16
place. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: Two quick follow up things. One is a distinction. I understand that the 21
projects, where there is a project that for which the environmental analysis was done by the 22
School District, then obviously the impact has been considered. That provides the capacity of 23
the School District, if you will. To the extent that housing production means that there are more 24
students that exceed that established capacity, for example, the three schools that I’ve considered 25
for Cubberley have not been studied by any CEQA process. Then those would be fair game for 26
study here because that’s over and above whatever the School District has already studied. Does 27
that make sense? 28
29
Ms. Silver: If the housing units that are contemplated in this Housing Element would trigger 30
those additional schools, then yes, that would make sense. If not, then it would be outside of the 31
scope of the environmental analysis here. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: So in other words those things have already been studied are considered 34
within the scope of what, if you will, is about to exist and anything that exceeds that, that means 35
that the capacity that’s being increased beyond that whether it’s an existing school sites or new 36
school sites, is a consequent that has to be studied. 37
38
Ms. Silver: Yes. 39
40
Commissioner Keller: And the second thing, very quick, is in follow up to one other thing that 41
Commissioner Tuma said about starting the next Housing Element right after we get the RHNA, 42
if you will, there are some places in this where we talk about doing studies and things like that. 43
It would be nice to get the results of those studies to incorporate into the next Housing Element 44
so that we could update it to reflect those. Thank you. 45
46
Page
11
Chair Martinez: I want to go from the worst case scenario to the Sustainable Community 1
Scenario (“SCS”). Planning Director Williams, you touched on the SCS, but what is the 2
relationship, the connection to the Housing Element that we are adopting at this time to the SCS 3
strategy? 4
5
Mr. Williams: Thank you for that question. In many respects there isn’t a relationship, this 6
period ends before the Sustainable Community Strategy begins, which is the next housing 7
period, which basically is the beginning of the Sustainable Community Strategy implementation. 8
So mid-2014 to 2022 time period is the beginning of the implementation of the Sustainable 9
Community Strategy. The vision, the scenarios that you have seen before, we’ve got an item on 10
your agenda next meeting to update you on the latest version, which is called the Draft Preferred 11
Scenario. So that has specific housing numbers in there, most housing numbers have come down 12
very substantially since we saw them last. The RHNA period, the next 8 year period, will be 13
lower than even those numbers. We don’t have final numbers yet but right now it’s looking like 14
it’s around 2,000 units for Palo Alto. That’s in the next period. All of that is geared towards 15
starting with that Housing Element period. This one is essentially they have assumed that 16
obviously for most cities it’s true that Housing Elements are in place and plans are developed up 17
through the 2014 cutoff period. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, it’s going on 7:00, we’re not even out of the gate yet. So let’s 20
open the public hearing. We have four speaker cards and we welcome more, so if there is 21
anyone else that cares to speak. Each speaker will have three minutes 22
23
Commissioner Keller: Can they talk about both topics, or are they talking twice? 24
25
Chair Martinez: It would be too complicated. The public is welcome to speak on any topic 26
related to the Housing Element that they choose at this time. Yes, both the policies and 27
programs, Chapter five and Chapter one through four or any other comments you have on the 28
Housing Element, you are welcome to speak on. Vice Chair Fineberg. 29
30
Vice Chair Fineberg: First speaker, Mr. Douglas Moran, second speaker to follow will be Elaine 31
Meyer. 32
33
Mr. Douglas Moran: No green light yet. Hi, I’m Douglas Moran of Matadero Avenue in the 34
Barron Park neighborhood. I’m a member of the Technical Advisory Group, the “TAG,” one of 35
the representatives of neighborhood groups. This process has been extremely frustrating. The 36
question of what Palo Alto needs and what is good for Palo Alto has been almost entirely 37
missing from the considerations. Instead it has focused almost entirely on satisfying the wildly 38
unreasonable demands of ABAG. 39
40
None of the concerns I’ve brought to the process were addressed by these recommendations. 41
First, Palo Alto has a long history of seemingly well intentioned policies having produced the 42
opposite effect and this draft exacerbates those problems. It stands to decrease the jobs/housing 43
imbalance have been used to create large amounts of office space with only small amounts of 44
housing, thereby making the problem worse. Programs H2.1.1 and H2.2.2 seem designed to be 45
abused. Those are the ones about eliminating design review and other incentives. When the 46
Page
12
issue of abuse of incentives and unintentional consequences was raised in the TAG meetings, 1
they were dismissed by statements that this Housing Element represented what the City hoped 2
would be done. Reminders that hope is not a strategy fell on deaf ears. A persistent fallacy of 3
these considerations is that increasing housing supply increases affordability. This observation 4
doesn’t work if you are driving up demand even faster than you are increasing supply, but again 5
that fell on deaf ears. 6
7
The proposal continues the fallacy that locating housing near some form of transit confuses that 8
with the distinction of it being usable transit. If transit takes three, four or more times longer 9
than driving, it’s the equivalent of not being there, but this is not considered in this. This 10
proposal continues the City’s hostility to retail, especially retail at walkable destinations that’s 11
affordable or within a short trip. The City’s prior decision to effectively expel Fry’s Electronics 12
with hostile zoning is an example. 13
14
The desired housing will generate 5 to 10 Caltrain riders, but you are losing hundreds or 15
thousands of daily customers going there who will now have to drive out of the City, generating 16
far more greenhouse gasses. This is not a sustainable community, but this is what Palo Alto 17
looks for. The City has been told time after time the importance of surface parking lots for retail 18
with confirming studies, yet H2.1.5, the city continues to target the elimination of these lots for 19
conversion to housing. This proposal calls for rapid redevelopment targeting commercial 20
buildings that are merely 20 years old, that haven’t been redeveloped in 20 years, and ones that 21
are one to two stories. This is going to increase the cost of retail by having higher and higher 22
rents and creating more and more small ones. The vision here is of two Palo Altos, one for 23
residents for whom price is no object, and another for residents who need to be subsidized in 24
order to live here. Thank you. 25
26
Vice Chair Fineberg: Elaine Meyer, to be followed by Phyllis Cassel. 27
28
Ms. Elaine Meyer: Good evening Chair Martinez and members of the Commission. I’m hoping 29
the Planning Commission will listen to the people who live here and not just to those for whom 30
Palo Alto is a cash cow. Our schools are overcrowded; our roads are jammed and unsafe. You 31
don’t have enough playing fields or enough child care. You know all that. So what can you be 32
thinking when you propose more development? Unfortunately the answer is a few people can 33
make a lot of money by building more and bigger. So what if we don’t get some transportation 34
grants? Our success in proposing road changes is, to say the least, not very good. 35
36
The weekly newspaper had a story about this Housing Element and I printed off the comments 37
today in the thread on the weekly’s town square. By noon today, 20 different people wrote to the 38
online story about these proposals, every writer except 1 is opposed to the densification and 39
removing the 50 foot height limit. For as long as I have time I am going to read little excerpts 40
from the different people because you know what I think, but you need to pay attention to what 41
everybody else thinks as well. 42
43
Ok, one person, “Why would one want to ask the seniors or the needy to live in this expensive 44
area?” Another person, “Smaller units will just mean that families will cram themselves into 45
smaller spaces to get into our schools. Accordingly, are we going to see an improvement in 46
Page
13
transit?” Another person, “I bet these assumptions are all nonsense. If the intent is for the 1
seniors, then they should plan to build more parks and golf courses.” Later on someone 2
mentioned, “If it’s for seniors you should build health facilities.” Another person, “Who gets to 3
pay for the infrastructure? We do. We just raised $76 million for the library. What’s next, more 4
school bonds?” Another person, “It’s been the same policies and strategies for the last 30 years, 5
more high density housing near the train stations. Unfortunately, the train ridership has not 6
increased in proportion to the amount of high density,” and so forth. “At our elementary school, 7
the probability of getting into an elementary school has gone down and has gotten worse.” The 8
last one I’ll read because you can read them yourself online, “Other Cities have told ABAG 9
where to go, ABAG has close ties with the building industry and those developing mass transit. 10
Do the research and find out, it’s all there led by developers and we are the sheep being 11
planned.” And there’s more. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 14
15
Vice Chair Fineberg: Phyllis Cassel, to be followed by Robert Moss. 16
17
Ms. Phyllis Cassel: I am Phyllis Cassel and I’m reading a letter from The League of Women 18
Voters of Palo Alto, signed by Mary Alice Thornton. The League of Women Voters of Palo 19
Alto has reviewed the latest draft of the Housing Element that is before you tonight. As we have 20
said previously in our testimony before you, we approve most of the proposed new Housing 21
Element. Goal H1 supports a major league housing goal, maintain the quality and vitality of 22
both the immediate and larger neighborhoods, and goal H2 and its policies and programs, as we 23
advocate a diverse housing supply with emphasis on economic diversity. As it is difficult to 24
build affordable units, it is appropriate to place special attention to mechanisms that will support 25
affordable housing. We are glad to see the variety of programs to support goal H2 and to note 26
that the possibility exceeding the 50 foot high limit is still included. Our land shortage requires 27
such measures. We also approve goal H3 with its measures to strengthen our BMR program and 28
goal H4, emphasizing continued efforts against housing discrimination. 29
30
We do have some serious concerns. We still believe that the vision statement of a Housing 31
Element should clearly mention that the community seeks to provide an adequate supply of 32
diverse housing opportunities. Not only has the goal that the City meets its fair share of regional 33
housing need not been included, it is not now included in even a policy or a program. It is 34
vaguely mentioned in program H2.2.1 that perhaps some initiatives might help contribute to the 35
City’s fair share. The League recommends a stronger statement. 36
37
We also believe that it is necessary to encourage an increase in the supply of housing by 38
instituting minimum density requirements for multiple family units. The League of Women 39
Voters of Palo Alto believes it is important to have a valid Housing Element. Without an 40
approved Housing Element it will be difficult to set up appropriate controls on development and 41
the State could limit funds. We urge you to move the Housing Element forward quickly. Thank 42
you. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. 45
46
Page
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: Robert Moss to be followed by Adam Montgomery. 1
2
Mr. Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and the Commissioners. I have to agree with the 3
comments that Doug Moran and Elaine Meyer presented. I think there are some real problems 4
with this particular version of the housing plan and I have some specifics I want to talk about. 5
6
First of all on schools, several of you raised that point, you should be aware of the fact School 7
District is already talking about having to build three new schools to accommodate the housing 8
already built or approved and underway. So, this additional 2,900 housing units is going to crush 9
the School District, no ifs, ands, or buts. Specifics, there is absolutely no reason to have an 10
incentive program for housing in Palo Alto, specifically program H2.2. You do not drop site and 11
design review for projects in Palo Alto. Some of the biggest complaints I’ve had about housing 12
built in Palo Alto is how ghastly many of them look. So we don’t want to drop that. Some of the 13
other programs that are inappropriate, H1.1.2, an amnesty program to legitimize illegal second 14
units. Terrible idea. I could cite a number of places around the City where I have seen garages 15
and outbuildings converted illegally into housing. You don’t want to legalize people who are 16
criminals. Bad idea. 17
18
Second, there is a proposal to encourage, and I think this is appalling, duplexes in the R1 zone. 19
Been there, done that, it was a disaster. That’s why it was removed. Because it caused 20
tremendous problems with parking, congestion, and traffic. So you’re going back to something 21
that was found out to be a mistake 20 years ago. Bad idea. 22
23
Finally, when you’re talking about looking at commercial buildings that are 20 years old or older 24
and identifying them for redevelopment I think it’s totally inappropriate to pick on those 25
buildings and try to encourage their removal because those are the buildings, especially along El 26
Camino, which provide most of our retail and make our neighborhoods walkable. So anything 27
you do to encourage people to remove or replace them is going to end up raising rents and 28
making retail unaffordable. So, ignore how old they are. If you want to point to the CN and CS 29
zones and say in theory if somebody wanted to come along and build housing on top of them 30
they can do that, and they’ve done that in six or seven locations along El Camino in the last 35 31
years, put that in, but don’t do anything to encourage it. We don’t need to lose any more retail 32
vitality in Palo Alto and we don’t need to have additional housing in places where it doesn’t 33
belong. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. 36
37
Vice Chair Fineberg: Adam Montgomery to be followed by Herb Borock. 38
39
Mr. Adam Montgomery: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners, Adam Montgomery 40
representing The Silicon Valley Association of Realtors. I first of all just wanted to thank Staff 41
for putting our letter into the record for today as well as including our organization and myself in 42
the Technical Advisory Group meetings over the last several years. I think it’s been going on for 43
almost four years now, meeting sporadically and we’ve either had our members or myself attend 44
those meetings. 45
46
Page
15
I just wanted to quickly comment that when we started this process the landscape of affordable 1
housing and how affordable housing is paid for has completely changed over the last five years. 2
One of the biggest changes has not only been the redevelopment agencies going away from other 3
cities, but that one change of this City impacts is the Palmer decision happened, I think it was 3 4
years ago and the impact of the Palmer decision really hasn’t been reflected in this document. 5
The biggest change, it has in one of the policies and I’ll address that in a second, biggest change 6
is the inclusionary zoning or BMR mandates cannot apply to rental housing development. There 7
is a policy in there; I think its H3.1.2 J that talks about creating an impact fee for affordable 8
housing that will apply to rental housing. Mountain View tried this a few months ago and they 9
weren’t able to get it through the Council. The reason, why is the Nexus study said the only way 10
we can apply the fee is if we say the increase in supply of rental housing creates a higher demand 11
for rental housing and it increases the cost of rent. And that those two, you’re saying increasing 12
supply increases demand increases rent. There’s a conflict there with some key economic 13
principles of supply and demand. And, so there’s, that way when I look at that out of the City 14
Council, so they’re still working on that now. There’s an issue there. Our concern dragged over 15
a 10 to 15 year process is developers coming in for rental projects will have an advantage over 16
individuals wanting to build ownership housing. We don’t want to see the homeownership rate 17
drop over the next 10 to 15 years. So, that’s one of our major concerns is all these aggressive 18
policies for inclusionary zoning is not going to be applied evenly to both ownership and rental 19
housing. 20
21
A second main issue is there is a pretty big change to inclusionary zoning policy included in this 22
draft and we are opposing H3.1.2 I, because it’s going to apply the rules for inclusionary to 23
zoning and not to the number of units built. This is a huge change and there are a lot of problems 24
that I don’t think really have been talked about or really gone through on this. The main one it 25
was, it’s either going to force the hand of the Planning Commission or City Council to approve 26
the max zoning for development or if they take it down, it’s going to really impact the cost of the 27
developer not being able to finish the project. This is something new, and that definitely needs 28
to be a discussion about this one policy because it’s a pretty big change. With that, thank you 29
very much for your time. Hopefully this meeting doesn’t go all night. 30
31
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 32
33
Vice Chair Fineberg: Herb Borock to be followed by the final speaker, Irvin Dawid. 34
35
Mr. Herb Borock: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. This meeting on this 36
agenda item violates the California Environmental Quality Act that requires you to be making 37
recommendations on an environmental document at the same time you make a recommendation 38
on the project. As Senior Assistant City Attorney said, this process at this point is going to be 39
choosing housing inventory sites. That is a project on the CEQA. So, oth this Commission and 40
the Council need to have the environmental document at this stage in the process so the public 41
can review it as well. 42
43
In regard to inclusionary zoning I have two suggestions. I’m not sure which one at this time is 44
preferable. One is that you should only have inclusionary zoning for projects that come into you 45
on the government code Section 65915. The second suggestion is that if you want to have an 46
Page
16
inclusionary zoning required in all Palo Alto projects, that it be a percentage of total floor area, 1
so the amount of floor area for affordable housing is a percentage of the total floor area rather 2
than doing it by number of units. 3
4
In regard to the regional housing allocation, I believe there should be a quota system established 5
for each income category. In that once the number of units for that income category is reached 6
during this period of time, that you don’t have any more in that income category unless they 7
come in under the State governing code section that I’ve already cited. 8
9
In regard to housing on parking lots, these are assessment district parking lots and of course we 10
still need to keep the same number of assessment district parking spaces, but I don’t think there 11
should be any parking for any of those housing units because I believe they should be 100% 12
subsidized housing. These are probably low income or very low income units and they are in 13
areas where you don’t need a car. So we could get more units out of that. 14
15
In terms of the reproduction black and white copy that I have of the report, it’s hard to read the 16
column headings because of the shading on the heading. I suggest black and white so for 17
reproduction the public can actually read what the titles are of those headings. In terms of the 18
tables with housing sites, they show only parcel numbers. They should also show street address, 19
the site address, and in the case of parking lots, the parking lot letter designation. There should 20
be maps, so that you can link the tables to the site addresses, or in the case of the parking lots, the 21
parking lot letter designation. Most people don’t look at sites and think of them as a parcel 22
number, they think of it as a site address and they think of it in the parking lot as the parking lot 23
letter designation, and that’s how the table should be and there should be maps that are of 24
adequate size that people can read them. 25
26
In regards to the comments of the previous speaker, I say call their bluff. Let them build rental 27
housing. I don’t think they will, but give them a chance. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 30
31
Vice Chair Fineberg: Irvin Dawid. 32
33
Mr. Irvin Dawid: Thank you Planning and Transportation Commissioners. Irvin Dawid, 753 34
Alma. I came in a little late and I just wanted to first comment the first thing that got me was 35
when Director Williams indicated that one of the downfalls of not having an approved Housing 36
Element is that, if I heard correctly, you may not be able to get State housing grants and that can 37
have pretty serious implications. As a recipient myself of subsidized or affordable housing at 38
Alma Place in Palo Alto, I would hate to think that because we don’t have a Housing Element 39
that others will not be able to enjoy the affordable housing that I myself have had. 40
41
A prior person referred to two Palo Alto’s and I think he mentioned it as one in which people 42
who come in here purchasing a home or renting are using the market and the others who are, I 43
guess perhaps like me, who are subsidized, the amount receiving subsidized housing is so pitiful, 44
I don’t really think there is much of that second Palo Alto. However, I think there really is two 45
Palo Alto’s and that is the amount of people who would like to live here and the people here, 46
Page
17
who I think to some extent are doing everything possible to prevent them from moving here. I 1
think you heard some of those comments. I think it’s very important that we not just think of 2
ourselves, that we do think of the future. And that is the definition of sustainability. 3
4
I thought that the question, Mr. Chairman that you asked about the relationship of the 5
Sustainable Community Strategy to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation was very good. As 6
Director Williams said the timing is still off for this current one, but I really would urge you to 7
go to the, and members of the audience as well, to go to onebayarea.org. That’s where you can 8
see the two regional documents that have just come out. One was since March the jobs/housing 9
connection scenario and then one that just came out in April is the draft Bay Area Transportation 10
Investment Strategy. I think because of Senate Bill 375, we are finally seeing that merging of 11
regional planning and perhaps State and local. Although how much the local gets in, it’s all 12
carrots. There really are no sticks. So I’m really hoping that we do everything possible to get an 13
improved Housing Element. 14
15
I will just say going back to that two Palo Alto paradigm, if you will; it’s my understanding that 16
Menlo Park has not had an approved Housing Element since the early 1990’s. It’s just really not 17
a priority for them. I hope we don’t go in that direction, that we are the City that does think of 18
all income strata. Thank you. 19
20
Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. Commissioners, before we close the public hearing, I think 21
if you have questions for any members of the public that spoke it’s a good time that we engage 22
with them. Ok. I’m going to close the public hearing forum now. Commissioners let us start 23
with a round of questions regarding the Chapters one through four. Commissioner Keller. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Can I just go ahead and make comments, or do I need to ask 26
questions first? 27
28
Chair Martinez: No, you’re free to do your comments. We’re going to give you five minutes to 29
start. We’ll have a second round. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: So, firstly, a technical issue and that is we should not be modifying the 32
PF zone to allow for affordable housing. Rather what we should do is create affordable housing 33
overlay district that we assign to specific parcels within the PF zone. Otherwise we cause 34
ourselves problems with, for example the Post Office. If it’s bought by a private entity then that 35
could have housing on it, or for example, the El Palo Alto Park, which belongs to Stanford. It 36
reverts back to Stanford, its PF zone; they could put housing on it. So we have to be very careful 37
that we assign which sites have this overlay, not just blanket for the whole district. 38
39
On the next thing, and I’ve said this before is the concept that no good deed goes unpunished. 40
To the extent that housing is built based on the housing inventory sites then all we have to do the 41
next Housing Element is find more sites. To the extent that housing is not built on these sites we 42
can reuse them. So there is no reason to incentivize the creation of housing on those sites. Let 43
the market do its work, we don’t have to help it any further. That means that the housing density 44
bonus law is enough. That has the incentives we need. We don’t need to remove site design, we 45
don’t need to do other things, although I have a wording change if we do keep that, but we’ll talk 46
Page
18
about that later. We don’t need to provide additional incentives over what the State mandates us 1
to have. 2
3
No matter how much housing we build in Palo Alto, I probably would be willing to bet my 4
bottom dollar that we’re not going to have any increased VTA transit in Palo Alto from any kind 5
of housing. The increase in housing in San Jose and thereabouts is going to soak up all the 6
available increase of transit that VTA wishes to provide anywhere in the City. They continually 7
try to cut our transit. So we’re not going to see anymore transit. That being said, Caltrain is a 8
bright spot and in fact in 2012 Caltrain reached a new peak. It has surpassed the old peak. It 9
went down and came back up. So we have a new peak in present use in Caltrain and Palo Alto in 10
fact has gone up dramatically in the last few years, including last year’s, the highest it’s ever 11
been. 12
13
An adequate supply of housing is just not possible in Palo Alto. The demand greatly outstrips 14
supply and any amount of supply you have is a drop in a bucket. So the question is how many 15
drops in a bucket do you provide, but it’s not going to make that much of a difference. Except it 16
will make a big difference of impacting our schools. 17
18
Now we do need to provide housing for seniors because there are people who live in Palo Alto 19
who want to stay in Palo Alto when they get old. So senior housing especially is a need for 20
skilled nursing and assisted living and such, that’s the kind of housing that will allow people to 21
age in our community that we do need to have. There is a need for small units, not just 1,250 22
square feet as the average size. That’s a pretty big unit, but small units for 20 and 30 23
something’s that want to live here and work here so that they don’t have to commute into our 24
City to work at our local high tech businesses. Those are the real needs. That’s what’s not been 25
satisfied from the market. That’s what we need to do. It’s not a matter of the market doing its 26
thing, it’s a matter of us providing structures that create the kind of housing we want and 27
discourage the kind of housing we don’t want. 28
29
I think that we are required to provide a Housing Element, there are problems if we don’t provide 30
a Housing Element and Palo Alto has a big red target painted on its back if we don’t have a 31
Housing Element and people decide to sue us. We’re wonderful targets people like to make an 32
example out of. So we should have a Housing Element. We should create a housing inventory 33
sites to the extent it’s possible to satisfy the requirements, but we shouldn’t bend over backwards 34
to have those sites being built, because as I said no good deed goes unpunished. It will just make 35
our life harder later on. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: So first I wanted to thank Staff for putting this together. I realize it’s 40
been a lot of work. I also want to thank the subcommittee as well as all of the members of the 41
public and members of the TAG for going through all the different years and putting this all 42
together. I think we’re getting closer. I had a quick question for Staff. I didn’t realize this. So 43
Menlo Park doesn’t have a Housing Element; and I guess how can that be if it’s true? Can 44
someone respond? 45
46
Page
19
Mr. Williams: They have not adopted one; I think the speaker is correct, since the early ’90’s. 1
They just haven’t at this point. They haven’t suffered any repercussions from that I presume. 2
They certainly could be sued for that and I don’t know if they are concerned about it now being 3
tied to transportation grant funding and not being able to get that or not, maybe not. To this 4
point they haven’t done that. 5
6
Just to clarify one thing too, because Tim mentioned that all other cities in Santa Clara County 7
have submitted, that’s the case, but not all other cities in Santa Clara have certified Housing 8
Elements. So there are a couple that either did not get it in… this goes back to the issue of, you 9
know, going back and forth with the State, the City of Santa Clara went back and forth with the 10
State for a long time, maybe still is, did not get it and just said, “Okay, we’re adopting it as it is, 11
and we think that’s good enough.” I don’t know whether a court would uphold that or not, but 12
they did it. Mountain View, I don’t know if theirs is certified yet. I know they have been 13
working with the State. It is certified now? 14
15
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Well I just found it interesting that our neighboring city has had a 16
long standing effort of no Housing Element. Kind of an interesting strategy. I’m just going to 17
go through some of these items until my time is up and then I’ll pass it on. I also do agree with 18
my fellow Commissioner that more senior housing is needed and more smaller units are needed. 19
So I think the Housing Element is actually headed in the right direction. I think small units is the 20
key, right? Some of these numbers are actually pretty big units. So to keep them small and 21
affordable is the right way of doing it versus trying to create a lot of different incentives. 22
23
I think we reviewed one senior housing project where I think each unit was only 200 square feet 24
but had a lot of common areas. So I think these units do not have to be very large to be effective. 25
There’s maybe a central kitchen. These are more just rooms or suites that people have. So I 26
think that kind of thinking actually makes a lot of sense and encouraging more smaller units I 27
think is probably the right way of trying to meet the Housing element versus trying to create a lot 28
of new single family homes. Which I think doesn’t make a lot of sense given impact to schools. 29
30
I think one of the speakers mentioned APN numbers and I actually had the same thought as well. 31
Definitely having good maps and having the addresses of the parcels would be really helpful 32
because I had a lot of trouble actually trying to figure it out myself. For instance, one comment 33
that I think Mr. Keller and myself made last time was 195 Page Mill. Is that still on the Housing 34
Element? I couldn’t tell by looking at the parcel numbers. 35
36
Mr. Rivera: 195 Page Mill is included, not as a housing inventory site, but as one of the projects 37
that we included in the end process. 38
39
Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, I see, Ok. The other thing is I also agree with the idea that site 40
design is kind of essential especially when you’re having really dense projects and so making 41
that a bonus, which I don’t think there needs to be a bonus, doesn’t seem to be the right idea. I 42
think there should still be site design review; I don’t think there should be an incentive for 43
people, so I’m agreeing with Commissioner Keller’s comments as well. On Page 133, I saw that 44
it was talking about the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. I guess one question I have is, first of 45
all because I can’t tell by the APN numbers, is this on the housing inventory list as well? 46
Page
20
1
Mr. Rivera: No, it’s not. 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, it’s not. I know that this is being encouraged to be preserved, but if 4
you wanted to actually improve the quality of life, this could be a denser area. So did Staff 5
consider that in terms of maybe having that as a possible housing inventory site? I think you 6
could probably have a pretty high density there of smaller units that are more affordable instead 7
of trailer homes. If not, what was the rationale behind that? 8
9
Mr. Turner: Well, the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park is recognized actually in program 10
H3.1.11, and it recognizes that area as providing low and moderate income housing opportunities 11
and that any redevelopment of the site must be consistent with the City’s Mobile Home Park 12
Conversion Ordinance that was designed to preserve those existing units. So I think what the 13
City is trying to do with that program is to find ways to retain those existing units, but if there’s a 14
way that they could be rehabilitated, get funds to make perhaps more amenities or a perhaps just 15
upgrade the facilities that is a program the City should be focusing on. 16
17
Commissioner Tanaka: I guess my point is more efficient land use. You have trailers versus 18
maybe condos. If there’s an area that could actually possibly benefit from being on the housing 19
inventory list, I think this one is a site for that. So that’s my recommendation. Director? 20
21
Mr. Williams: If I could just clarify, you know the housing inventory list and looking toward the 22
housing numbers and the RHNA specifications is important, but, the State also is very focused 23
on preserving existing affordable units. 24
25
Commissioner Tanaka: I’m not saying build a mansion here, I’m talking about smaller 26
affordable units that probably a lot of the people that live here now could actually afford. I’m 27
not advocating turning this into you know, some luxury condominiums, I’m talking about… 28
29
Mr. Williams: I understand, but I think the way the State looks at it is these are units that exist 30
now, there are people in there that are accommodated there, that even if you built something with 31
the intent that say it’s 100% affordable housing units, they are going to be displaced by that. 32
Maybe some of them will be able to move back in, a lot of them won’t because it’s going to be 33
two years of construction going on out there. We kind of have to balance between the programs 34
that are intended to preserve and conserve existing lower income housing. It’s certainly is a 35
prerogative of the Commission and the Council to say let’s put that in the housing inventory 36
instead and that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to turn over anyway, but to look at it from 37
that perspective as well. I just want you to know that in the other components of the Housing 38
Element that the State looks at, that’s a key element because that’s the only mobile home park 39
we have. You’re right there are detriments to it from terms of the impacts of that and the 40
aesthetics of that and such that are tended to it, but that’s why it’s not on the inventory list. 41
42
Commissioner Tanaka: Well, I think it should be considered because I think there are more 43
efficient ways of using the land to keep it affordable. I think it could also possibly improve the 44
people’s lives that live there. I think that’s something that should be considered. Thanks. 45
46
Page
21
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Michael. 1
2
Commissioner Michael: Echoing Commissioner Tanaka’s comments, I want to thank the Staff 3
and all the members of the community for hard work which has gone on for several years it 4
would seem and I’m only into this for several weeks. I’m going to be very modest in my 5
comments. 6
7
The introduction goes into some of the context that Palo Alto has as a City which doesn’t have a 8
lot of vacant land, with 99.5% of the land developed needing sort of infill development. Then 9
whether or not one agrees with ABAG, it seems that there will be changes in the demographics 10
and the population so there will have to be some increase in, I understand there is a lot of, 11
attention on questions of density and height, but it seems to me that these are questions that 12
shouldn’t be addressed as absolutes. Perhaps as that, as we go into the future and change is 13
inevitable with the site design review and the notion of proximity to transportation services and 14
other aspects of the living experience of residents and visitors try to optimize what seems to be 15
inevitable. I’m going to continue to try to understand this more and be attentive to the 16
comments, but I would generally favor being open to accepting that this will be part of our 17
future. 18
19
The implications of the Palo Alto Housing Element in relationship to the regional needs, as I 20
recall we were looking at that issue awhile back, there were a number of different scenarios that 21
were considered as a basis for what the regional housing and job patterns might be over the next, 22
I think, 20 years. I wonder if even though Palo Alto has some unique or special kind of 23
characteristics, if we are not immune from those patterns. Which scenario we think would be 24
most likely or which would have the most relevance to our housing planning. If there is no 25
answer to that, just consider that an open question. 26
27
I had a chance to attend a community workshop put on by San Mateo this morning at Facebook 28
that was primarily related to commuter solutions. There were a number of things which were 29
surprisingly relevant to the jobs/housing imbalance. One that I thought was fairly provocative 30
and I haven’t really had a chance to reflect upon what the implications might be, was the 31
Assistant County Manager for San Mateo suggested they had had a recent project quite 32
successful with one of the employers in San Mateo County, which was Accenture, and evaluated 33
the needs for certain office space, not housing, in relationship to having increased teleworking 34
and whatnot. They actually found that they could successfully use half the office space if they 35
were clever about teleworking and all the different aspects of doing that. So it occurs to me that 36
the implication for housing is that there would be more people sort of working remotely, more 37
home office behaviors, and that will probably be good in terms of reducing greenhouse gasses 38
and sustainability and a lot of the transportation demands and so forth. And really will be 39
something highly relevant to the people who do live or would like to live in Palo Alto and the 40
nature of businesses that seem to spring up here because of our innovation and all that. I 41
wondered if this anticipation of smaller and smaller housing units makes sense in terms of 42
demographic pressures, considers the possibility that the utilization of housing will increasingly 43
be home office teleworking and that this would be a good thing. 44
45
Page
22
On Page 30 there was a statistic and on Page 31 there was another statistic about the percentage 1
of the population that had a disability and one of those numbers is wrong. So just figure out 2
which one it is and fix it. On Page 30 it says that 19% are disabled and 31 says that 93% are not 3
disabled, so figure that one out. I think I’ll stop for now. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: A couple of comments and then a couple of questions. The first is I 8
would agree with fellow Commissioners this notion of eliminating site and design review as an 9
incentive to me doesn’t seem to make sense. I’m all for incentives. We have them for a variety 10
of other techniques that we’ve used, giving bonuses, increased density, FAR, etcetera. 11
Eliminating site design review while maybe certainly an incentive because it’s less expensive for 12
the developer to go through the process, we’re more likely to wind up with a project that we’re 13
not happy with. I would support not having that as an incentive but coming up with different 14
incentives. 15
16
I was curious about; given the chart on Page 5 of the Staff report that says essentially we were 17
able to designate more sites than we need in order to meet the RHNA allocation, whether it 18
makes sense to continue to include surface parking lots in this go round. We’re going to need 19
sites down the road, I don’t think given the life of this plan that we’re necessarily going to get 20
into that, so I would just question whether we need that 185 units. If you take it out of there 21
we’re still ok. So I question whether that’s necessary. 22
23
Word of caution, which I seem to recall that I raise every time we have this discussion about 24
smaller units and senior housing units, that doesn’t necessarily translate into no impact on 25
schools. I think we’ve seen over and over where seniors move out of their single family homes 26
into these smaller units and who moves into the single family homes is new young families with 27
children. We’ve seen that over and over, so I don’t think that the building of small units is the 28
panacea to not having impacts on schools. 29
30
I have a question for the Planning Director, and I don’t want to talk about a specific project 31
which is still pending, but as a matter of public record, recently the City Council looked at the 32
Gateway project, for lack of a better term, replacing the Shell. I wasn’t present. I’ve heard and 33
read different things, but my understanding is that their recommendation or direction was to 34
come back and essentially eliminate the floor that would have the extra BMR units on it. Is that 35
a sort of fair characterization of what their direction was? 36
37
Mr. Williams: Yes, it was to eliminate the top floor which had not only the BMR but all the 38
residential units on it. I think a lot of the reasoning there was that those were very expensive to 39
construct, and being very valuable being on the top floor as they were, and that perhaps it would 40
be better for them to as a public benefit contribute dollars that would then go into providing more 41
affordable units elsewhere in the City. They have yet to come back with a proposal, but I know 42
they are working on that. 43
44
Commissioner Tuma: I hear it on this dais from time to time and I hear it from City Council 45
where people say, “Well, geez, we’re just going to build a couple of BMR units here and a 46
Page
23
couple of BMR units there, and so one or two people win the lottery and they get lucky.” But 1
that sort of talk and discussion seems terribly inconsistent with what we’re trying to do here, 2
which is create incentives and meet these requirements, and so I think as we go through projects 3
and we look for opportunities for BMR units we shouldn’t dismiss them as readily as we 4
sometimes do as not being that terrific because it’s only a handful. To use Commissioner 5
Keller’s term, it may be a drop in the bucket, but a bunch of drops in the bucket begin to create a 6
puddle or something like that. 7
8
Then the last question that I have is we received a letter from Dr. Skelly at the School District 9
today. We saw it today; I’m not sure when it was dated. It said essentially that there was, don’t 10
put housing in certain places, put it in other places, because that’s better for the School District. 11
That letter and then City Attorney Silver’s comments about sort of how much we can consider 12
school impacts has me all very confused. Maybe this is a discussion for another day. We’ve had 13
these study sessions over time about how we can or can’t include impacts on schools in our 14
discussions and our considerations, but how should we be thinking about the input from the 15
School District, which, quite frankly, seems like a relatively limited input given the scope of 16
what’s going on here. A very focused input, but how should we be considering those in the 17
context of what we’re talking about tonight? 18
19
Ms. Silver: I’m not sure if that was a question but I think you made a very important point that I 20
would like to address and that is in terms of the School District’s input, I don’t think that because 21
of the statutory prohibition you can’t as a policy matter decide not to comply with the Housing 22
Element requirements because it will have an impact on schools in and of itself. That’s not a 23
legitimate reason for not designating sites on the inventory. However, in terms of environmental 24
impacts on where to locate particular units, that is something that you can examine. Certainly if 25
the issue of redirecting school children to another district or to another school site, if that is going 26
to have some traffic impacts that is certainly something that you can analyze at the 27
environmental phase of this. That is a legitimate consideration. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: With the Chair’s indulgence? That sounds like a project specific type of 30
analysis, the impact of putting a particular school in a particular location. We’re at a much 31
higher level at this point talking about our Housing Element and what impacts housing would 32
have on the need for these schools and by putting designating certain sites in certain locations in 33
theory that could cause the School District’s boundaries to have to change. I think that was his 34
point in the letter. So my question is not so much about looking at a specific project and saying 35
what are the environmental impacts and traffic flow about that project but rather looking at what 36
we’re talking about here tonight which is the housing element and what sites to designate and 37
what numbers to have in there. How are we supposed to or are we supposed to take the impacts 38
on schools in account at this stage? Not at the project level about a particular school, but at the 39
Housing Element level about sites to designate? 40
41
Ms. Silver: You certainly do look at it at a very high level, but then when you do, do the 42
environmental analysis as Curtis was saying for this particular Housing Element we would be 43
focusing in on the actual rezoning of actions that this Housing Element would require. So that 44
would be that the change in kind of the existing baseline because you would anticipate, or we’re 45
telling the State that we would be making some rezoning’s. So to the extent those 185 units that 46
Page
24
need to be rezoned are going to have some kind of traffic pattern that is certainly fair game for 1
the environmental analysis. 2
3
Mr. Williams: If I could just add that just taking from Superintendent Skelly’s letter the issue the 4
sort of geographic distribution and also getting back to your issue about smaller units. So I 5
understand the issue that having smaller units doesn’t necessarily mean less impacts, although I 6
think overall it does mean that to some extent. One of the things, his comments related to where 7
these housing units may go, concentrated around Cal Avenue and Downtown, etcetera. To the 8
extent that we are proposing units that are smaller in those areas that should be less in those 9
areas, less of the student generation there, doesn’t necessarily mean, like you’re saying there 10
aren’t going to be more students generated in the other areas. It does to some extent address 11
what he’s bringing up. Which is, if you’re planning for more housing but you are planning 12
smaller units with less generation in school as opposed to planning for three bedroom units 13
everywhere, then you know clearly that starts to have more of an impact. 14
15
I just wanted to say, because I know several of you had made the comment, if you don’t mind, on 16
the site and design and we’re talking about it as incentive and I understand why it gets worded 17
that way. I really would like to be sure that you understand that the reason that is in there is 18
really because we have identified and we know that HCD will identify the site and design review 19
process as a disincentive to housing. It takes longer; it costs more, it’s more uncertain, and 20
almost always drives the number of housing units down. And, so the constraints in terms of our 21
regulations to housing are an impediment to their approval process. So our thought was if we 22
provide a way to #1 streamline that approval process, still requires design review, but not the full 23
site and design review process, and then in conjunction with that if somebody’s doing that then 24
they have to go to smaller units. I’m not saying 1,250 is the magic number. Maybe it’s less than 25
that. That’s where we get to the smaller units as well then we’re sort of accomplishing a goal 26
with that in both respects. We could send this to the State and not have that in there and our 27
anticipation is they will say, if they see anything in one of the reasons why we wouldn’t include 28
say anything in the industrial areas. They require use permits for any housing. State’s going to 29
say if you require the use permit for housing then we’re not going to count it as a potential 30
housing site. They will go with design review, but we’re thinking they are not going to go for 31
design review when it involves three different boards on that too. That’s that reason it’s in there. 32
It’s more of a potential for overcoming that, and we did talk to the Commission previously about 33
potential FAR and parking incentives and this seemed to be a preferable alternative to that we 34
thought when we had that discussion so that’s what’s here. 35
36
When we visited with the property owners who were on the list they all talked about parking. 37
They appreciated the process issue but they would like to have FAR and parking incentives, 38
probably more than this as well. Anyway, that’s why it’s here. We could send it forward 39
without that in here and see what happens but that’s really the reason why. Correct me if I 40
misstated any of that, but that’s the really the reason why that is in here. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Ok, Sumir, Quickly. 43
44
Page
25
Commissioner Tuma: Very quickly I wanted to respond to that. I think it is horrible policy on 1
behalf of the State or HCD. To sort of force cities into getting out of that business of site and 2
design review, I think it’s terrible and we should have the ability to do that. 3
4
Mr. Williams: It’s not design. There still is a process. 5
6
Commissioner Tuma: Site and design. 7
8
Mr. Williams: Yeah. Three different stages. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: I understand. If you talk about one of the things that allows Palo Alto to 11
retain the character that it has, I think is that level of control. Some people may call it the Palo 12
Alto process. It is more onerous, I understand all that, but I think as a community the 13
implications of that are significant. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg, five minutes. 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: Reviewing this Housing Element is an exercise of being pulled in two 18
directions. One, we are attempting to produce a State mandated document and our intention 19
should be to comply with those State mandates as much as possible. The pull in the other 20
direction is balancing that with what we as a community want and what we can afford, and 21
where we prioritize what we need and what we can afford. I think that as a matter of policy, as a 22
matter of how we should govern ourselves, we should have a certified Housing Element. We 23
should move forward with something that can be certified. It’s not good not to have a certified 24
Housing Element. 25
26
I’m not however convinced that the draft as it is now is the document that should move forward. 27
So, I think its incumbent on this body, upon the citizens of Palo Alto, to figure out what it is that 28
we want and what’s going to get moved forward. And, we need to do it sooner rather than later. 29
30
At the low, I shouldn’t say low importance, but at the level of exacting detail on policies and 31
programs we’re going to go into depth at our next meeting. So staying up at the sort of the high 32
policy level, I’m going to go into some specific comments that I think are important for 33
consideration. 34
35
I would agree with several other Commissioners that have said that giving up site and design 36
review as an incentive for affordable housing is an unwise choice. The occurrence of mixed use, 37
PC zoning, the way in which we do architectural review and the elimination of site and design, 38
would be basically no zoning whatsoever. There would be such minimal level of zoning that we 39
would be losing control in any area of the housing inventory. I don’t think that is a risk worth 40
this community experimenting with to achieve affordable housing. 41
42
I also think at a top level, we’ve said this in the past, but it might have been two or three years 43
ago, we are not going to build the affordable housing that we want or need if we’re doing it three 44
and five units at a time. We’ve talked about if we keep building market rate units and we have 45
inclusionary zoning we’ll get a little bit of in lieu money and if we build 5, 10, 15 units, no 46
Page
26
matter how much we try, we’re going to have 200, maybe 300 units in an eight year cycle and a 1
seven year cycle. In order to meet the goals that are out there we need to be building, to generate 2
the money from our in lieu fees, we would need to be building tens of thousands of new homes. 3
We’re not going to get there using the method of generating in lieu fees or BMR units in 4
inclusionary housing. 5
6
I understand that that‘s in conflict with our desires to build this housing. It’s a conflict we will 7
have difficulty navigating as a City and we simply have to have public discussions and decisions 8
of where our values are when this document moves forward. 9
10
I have a couple quick questions for Staff if I can take a step back. Mr. Borock had mentioned 11
that in order for us to take action on this document there needs to be environmental review. At 12
what point does this become a project that requires review and can we after our next meeting 13
make a recommendation that it go forward to Council? And how can we do that in the absence 14
of any knowledge about, yet this may have no impact, or it may be horrific and we don’t know 15
what. So how do we recommend whether it should go forward without any concept of that? 16
17
Ms. Silver: This is just a draft Housing Element at this stage and it will come back to you again 18
with some HCD comments. At that time you will have the environmental review. 19
Environmental review really should be done at a time when the project or the sites have been 20
identified and there’s a clear understanding of the potential sites and that’s what you want to 21
analyze. If we had done environmental review earlier, the environmental review would have 22
been on completely different sites that are not included on the inventory at this stage. If you 23
remember we started with a top down approach and ended up with a bottom up approach, so 24
environmental review recognizes that you really should do it at a stage when the project is well 25
defined enough to really have some meaningful review. It’s completely acceptable to do that at 26
any time before your final recommendation to the Council on the final Housing Element draft. 27
28
Vice Chair Fineberg: So you’re saying after it goes to HCD and it comes back and Staff 29
renegotiates and HCD buys in, we’ll have had the environmental review and then let’s say 30
there’s significant impacts we’re not comfortable with. Then we would actually have the 31
possibility of saying, well, we’re changing our mind, we don’t want to move forward with this? 32
I don’t see that as a process that makes any sense when it’s the 13th hour and oops, we’re waiting 33
to adopt it. We have no sense right now of no impact or medium impact or high impact. We 34
won’t until it’s a hair from being adopted. How do we not get there? 35
36
Ms. Silver: Again the sites on the inventory don’t require any for the most part any rezoning. 37
And so, all of those sites that don’t require rezoning have already had environmental clearance 38
though the EIR that was done in connection with the current Comp Plan. So for the most part 39
there has already been environmental review. So you know you have some sense of what the 40
environmental impacts are with respect to those sites. Really we’re only talking about 185 units 41
on the parking lots and as Commissioner Tuma mentioned, it may even be less than that because 42
we really have an overage at this point. You will have the environmental review on those sites 43
and if you think that there are impacts, that’s what the environmental review process is for and 44
it’s important that you have the opportunity to impose mitigations in connection with any of 45
Page
27
those impacts that are identified. You will have the opportunity to do that as the process moves 1
along. 2
3
Vice Chair Fineberg: I appreciate that. So the last EIR for the Comprehensive Plan said that if 4
we built 2,500 sites there would be significant negative impacts. The School Board wrote a letter 5
that said that it would significantly negatively impact the schools. Council had to issue a 6
statement of overriding considerations. Now I understand that the 2,500 sites analyzed in that 7
probably contained maybe 90% of what’s on this inventory list. A few have been added. Let’s 8
say we drop the 185 that we don’t need. We would have the same conclusion that building 2,000 9
or 2,500 sites when we last analyzed it was a significant negative impact that required overriding 10
considerations from Council. So how do we get to an MND and how do we recommend 11
something that if we’re relying on our last review and the EIR, it’s got a significant negative 12
impact on many, many schools, traffic, community services, parks, I mean the list went on and 13
on. So, we’re not going to have visibility to that till its too late and I’m really concerned about 14
that as a way to run a process. I keep saying this, but it’s one of those things that I don’t want us 15
to go that way. 16
17
Chair Martinez: I want to just go on record saying that I support the Housing Element going 18
forward. Not that I agree with everything in it, but I think that it represents something that we 19
have to do. I do have a couple of comments about things I would like to see. I think the 20
introduction reads a little bit like a travel log and I would like to see us really treat it more like a 21
summary. An executive summary. A little bit more about the challenge of building housing in 22
Palo Alto. I know you touch on it in the analysis section, Chapter 2, but I think one of the 23
constraints is that we’re not a strategically located community. Because, we’re somewhat 24
landlocked. We’re not located right off the freeway; you have to drive through our 25
neighborhoods which are impacted with traffic. It’s not that easy to propose the growth of 26
housing in Palo Alto and I think that needs to be clear, that this is a significant challenge. 27
28
The second part of it is that in our housing inventory we talk about the fact that sites have been 29
chosen that are roughly 10,000 square feet, or that’s the ideal site, yet when we look at the 30
inventory, housing inventory, I would say 75% of the sites we can build fewer than 10 units on. 31
That’s probably the greatest challenge for development to build. I think Vice Chair Fineberg 32
touched on that. To build five, three units on a site, and I think that should also be mentioned in 33
the analysis, that the cost of housing when you are building under ten probably goes up 50%. 34
You still need that same $150,000 elevator and you still need sewer lines and so much that a 35
larger building could prorate among many more units. The cost of housing isn’t only in the land; 36
the cost is in the construction of housing. 37
38
I think that’s a significant point. That it isn’t going to make it easy for us to reach these goals. 39
And I think that has to be clear because I see us now at a point with less than two years to where 40
we are going to start the next cycle of reaching less than half of what our current RHNA goals 41
are now. We’re at 900 and we have to get the adjusted number to a little bit over 2,000, and we 42
may not even get to the halfway point of that. Now some may say that’s good, but I think it’s 43
going to create new obstacles in the next round where HCD may say, “you’re not really serious 44
about this and we’re going to really want to see something more significant.” So I think creating 45
Page
28
the groundwork now for that kind of argument is I think is strategically important. Not that we 1
want to do it, but that it is not the easiest thing to achieve. 2
3
I’m concerned about the “smaller” units because smaller units could be code for not families. 4
And I think that’s not what we want to say. I think we want affordable housing to be affordable 5
to everyone and I know other communities like San Francisco are trying to build smaller units, 6
but they are also including the language “but at least 40% have to be two bedroom units.” That’s 7
a significant acknowledgment that we really also need to include low income families, smaller 8
families, people that can’t afford the houses that are being vacated by seniors. 9
10
I am also concerned about giving away our parking lots, our Downtown surface parking lots, to 11
the housing inventory. I think in some cases that will work. In many cases there are probably 12
better uses for some of those sites including open space, open space above parking. Not all are 13
suitable for housing and I’m concerned about the impact of giving away all of those sites for 14
housing. I’m enamored with Mr. Borock’s suggestion that we should build affordable there. 15
That would be great if we’re going to do it over subsurface parking that’s a huge constraint and 16
I’m not sure it could be done, not with subsidies or finding another way to build parking. So I’m 17
concerned about that resource that the City has and other possibilities for development or use of 18
those sites and if it’s possible to pull back from some of those sites to really take a second look 19
and pull half of them off. I think it would be wise for us to consider or really be prepared for the 20
consequences of what happens in the next round. 21
22
I think I’m going to stop there. We’re doing pretty well in terms of our time. We’re about 8:00, 23
Commissioners you want to take about a 10 minute break? Ok. You want another round of 24
questions for this round and then comments and then we’ll take a break. Yes, Mr. Williams? 25
26
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to make a comment/suggestion about the parking lot issues. I fully 27
agree with you that not all the parking lots should be residential. I think we’ve put a number in 28
there that equates to 20 units per acre on all the parking lots, but we don’t expect that’s the way it 29
would be developed. I think most likely since they are public parking lots we’d have a chance to 30
plan these. It’s not reacting to a development proposal, etcetera. That what we would look for, 31
and I don’t think there’s a program like this in here already, but maybe there should be a 32
program to analyze the parking lots to determine which are appropriate for, this is assuming you 33
keep the parking lots in at all, which are appropriate for residential development and how much. 34
With perhaps a goal of 185 units’ total, but it may be 50 units on one site and 40 units on another 35
and 60 units on another. Some for open space and some for parking garages and whatever mix it 36
should be, but certainly agree that we’re not thinking that every surface parking lot is now going 37
to have 20 units per acre built on it. But it did give us a number sort of to work from. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: Just a comment directly on that. Given that we don’t need those sites to 42
meet the RHNA number and if we took that out of this Housing Element we would be in a 43
situation where all the sites we’re looking at have previously been analyzed for purposes of 44
CEQA. What you just touched on, perhaps having a program in here to analyze that for the 45
future, could that have a significant positive impact in terms of the ability to get this thing 46
Page
29
approved and have us more likely that we could with an MND or something like that? Because 1
we’re not looking at sites that have been reviewed before but nonetheless take the opportunity to 2
look at these sites along the lines of what you’re talking about but actually take them out of the 3
inventory. That seems like perhaps a way to streamline our approval process here. 4
5
Mr. Williams: Our thought on having them in and essentially having this cushion is that most 6
likely HCD is going to find some sites they don’t concur with so we have more now. That’s just 7
a strategic kind of issue and maybe the strategy is we just provide the number that meets our 8
RHNA number. Then when they come back and we see what they do to it, if they reduce it and 9
we’re 50 short after that then we look for 50 units elsewhere or if they do or, maybe they will 10
feel more comfortable with it knowing that we’re doing a study about the parking lots and that 11
kind of thing. It’s just a different way to go on it. 12
13
As far as environmental review goes, definitely. I mean I think as Cara was saying, what we see 14
is that the environmental review is really going to focus on that increment that’s not already 15
zoned for that, because right now on all those other sites you can basically do, you have to go 16
through site design and review, but you can basically do the number of units that we’ve 17
specified. So there really is, should be negligible impact associated then with this because there 18
is really no change in zoning to effectuate the number that we need. 19
20
Chair Martinez: Steven, did you have a comment? Ok. Let’s do a three minute round. 21
Commissioners, I’ve heard a lot of sort of on the negative side of our Housing Element. Why 22
don’t we try to also come up with some recommendations to strengthen it? Incentives perhaps 23
that you would propose instead of those that are currently being proposed and the like. With 24
that, Commissioner Keller, three minutes. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the invitation to do incentives but I don’t want 27
any incentives. That’s the whole point I have been making. In terms of the parking sites, it is 28
not the case that we don’t need any of the 185 units. We are 116 units ahead and that means we 29
need somewhere in the order of 80 or so of the parking lot sites. We can’t eliminate all of them. 30
We can possibly eliminate 116 of them, but not all of them. 31
32
The second thing is that if Staff really feels that we need site and design review, 1,250 square 33
feet units to my definition is not small. The average size house that was built in the 1950’s and 34
1960’s in the south end of Palo Alto is 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. So therefore those are not 35
small units. Small units is 500 square feet. So if you really want to do it put a maximum average 36
of 500 square feet and consider that as one of the incentives for the density bonus law. So 37
double whammy. If you really want to do it, do it that way. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Excuse me; can you repeat your recommendation? 40
41
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I’m saying if you really want the site and design review to stay 42
there, as the possibility of eliminating it as an incentive, then first of all that incentive counts as 43
one of the incentives for the density bonus law. Secondly, that the maximum average unit size is 44
not 1,250 but 500 square feet. Because that’s small units, 1,250 is not small units. Ok? 45
46
Page
30
Next issue. A member of the public mentioned and I think its Herb Borock, I think the accent is 1
on the first syllable not the second syllable. He had mentioned a quota on market rate housing. I 2
appreciate that. I agree with putting the addresses not just the parcel numbers. In terms of the 3
chart, I believe it was Page 32, not Page 30 that was referenced on chart table 2-27. The problem 4
is that the title on that page has the word “disabled” in it as a percentage of disabled. If you just 5
drop the word percentage, it actually makes sense. It’s the percentage of Santa Clara County 6
residents and not the percentage of the disabled. Or the percentage of Palo Alto residents, not 7
the disabled percentage. That’s what actually makes sense. 8
9
The way we get moderate rate housing, moderate income housing is through our inclusionary 10
zoning law. That is the only way we get moderate income housing essentially. Although it 11
comes in drips and drabs, it does come. I do agree with Commissioner Tuma that drips and 12
drabs makes a puddle when they come together. Drops in a bucket make a puddle. The issue is 13
a small amount that we’re providing but that’s what the State wants us to do is provide some 14
amount of housing. We are not going to get moderate income housing through building projects 15
with City funds. You just don’t get grant money for moderate rate housing. 16
17
On the other hand, low and very low income housing is achieved through projects for which the 18
BMR in lieu fees can be used, for which the grant money can come and the like. The thing is 19
that it’s not necessarily the case that you want to fungibly replace the amount of money that 20
comes from the moderate income housing that is built in inclusionary zoning or in place of the 21
low and very low. It’s a tradeoff that you need to think about. If you really want to satisfy the 22
moderate income housing the only way to do that is through inclusionary zoning. 23
24
We also have to be careful about the ghettoization as you create regions that are all low and very 25
low income housing. That might create some sort of ghetto region of lower income. So we have 26
to be careful about that. What inclusionary zoning does is it creates more of a mixture of people 27
of various income strata in an area and that’s a better environment. 28
29
Finally the thing about parking, building on top of parking, is that the City has control of it. We 30
own the lots; we can decide when it’s done. We can decide who does it. We can decide who to 31
do it with. We can optionally create that if we don’t do it by right, but we do it through an 32
overlay district. Then we have complete control over that and so I don’t necessarily see the 33
problem with that. It certainly has to be studied, but the issue is putting it in there isn’t going to 34
automatically make it happen. We have the most control over those parcels than practically any 35
housing development that happens in the City. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Martinez: Ok, instead of incentives, let us try to put substance in our Housing Element 38
that says we’re serious about building affordable housing. It’s not some kind of dodge or some 39
kind of game, it’s a serious proposal. Site and design might not be the target we want to hit, but 40
what is it that we can do to make our proposal for building housing a serious proposal? 41
Commissioner Tanaka. 42
43
Commissioner Tanaka: I don’t know if I can do that, but I’ll try. Let me go through a rapid fire 44
since I have three minutes here and I think you want this to be the last round. So first of all I do 45
agree with the Chair’s comment that our introduction, and I forgot I mentioned this earlier, I 46
Page
31
think we should talk a little more about why it is hard to build housing in Palo Alto. I think all 1
the reasons Chair mentioned are excellent. I think we’re at a point that could be made, that 2
Commissioner Keller has made quite often, and that is jobs near transit actually cuts down 3
greenhouse gas a lot more than housing near transit. I think that’s another piece in that. 4
5
I also agree with the point that smaller is not 1,250 square feet. That’s actually pretty large. It’s 6
bigger than the house I bought here in Palo Alto. Small is definitely below 500 square feet. In 7
some areas of the world 500 square feet is a whole family. I think the American house, the 8
definition of a house, has gotten a lot bigger over time. I think we should have a reset on what is 9
the definition of small. 10
11
Then in terms of the parking lots, I think one thing that we need to consider carefully is that our 12
Downtown’s both on Cal Ave. as well as University there is actually a lack of parking. I think 13
we have to be careful of that as we plan for converting some of these parking lots to housing we 14
actually need more parking, not less parking. So, I don’t know if the idea is to keep it the same, 15
but I think we should actually increase it. 16
17
I think one of the speakers before made something about giving amnesty for all the second illegal 18
units. I think that’s also not a really great idea. I’m not a big fan of that concept of basically 19
giving everyone amnesty that has illegally converted their garage or things like that. That 20
doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. 21
22
I don’t necessarily agree also with having a minimum zoning requirement for the RM-15, which 23
I guess we’ll get into more in Chapter five. I think also that we don’t want to impact our retail. I 24
think the City right now is in kind of dire fiscal straights and we want to make sure that we have 25
the base of income to actually provide the services to our residents. I think it’s important to 26
make sure we consider that. 27
28
The same thing if you start putting in a lot of housing you also have to consider the impact on 29
existing homeowners and make sure they are not impacted in terms of their own housing values. 30
So I think that’s something we should also consider. That’s it. Thanks. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Great. Commissioner Michael. 33
34
Commissioner Michael: I’ll make my comments brief because I completely don’t have the final 35
solution to offer, nor do I have the most insightful questions. But, I’m curious about, going back 36
to the question posed by Commissioner Tuma at the outset about the timing of submitting this 37
document relative to the period beginning in 2007 and ending in 2012, which will take at least a 38
year it seems to complete the approval process and the environmental impact analysis, if any. 39
Then by the time we get to the period for which this was intended, it may in fact be 40
implemented, it will have some benefit in terms of immunity from frivolous litigation from 41
contractors who might otherwise compel the issuance of a permit that we might not otherwise 42
want to give them. All that suggests to me is that we have a need to have a vision for what we’re 43
going to do with the community and housing is clearly an important part of that vision. Planning 44
is important, but there is something about how the planning relates to market forces. We talk 45
about market rate housing, below market rate housing, the job/housing imbalance. It seems to 46
Page
32
me at a time when sort of around the State of California and the Country there are countless 1
number of communities that don’t have the same bounty that Palo Alto enjoys in terms of so 2
many jobs and such a desirable place to live. What we have here is there is a clear surplus of 3
potential buyers or renters with sufficient funds that no matter how much housing is created it 4
will be snapped up instantly. Whether that’s a public benefit or not, I think that if we have X 5
number of new units, whatever X is, it will just instantly be absorbed by the market. Wherever 6
with the zoning and the site design review we allow them to sort of be existed, they will be 7
snapped up instantly. To me part of what’s maybe missing from this is the vision for the kind of 8
community not only that we’d like to preserve the characteristics that we like that are here now, 9
but again that we would like to sort of evolve it in a way which is positive and progressive. 10
11
The concern about the impact on housing on schools I think is hard for me to kind of see us as 12
providing a solution here tonight. The issue about the impact on parking, again going back to the 13
regional commute solutions workshop this morning, which is part of a continued effort to 14
address issues like parking, it seems to me that it is not a given that we need as much parking as 15
we think we need to the extent that there’s innovative solutions and better transit systems, which 16
is all underway locally and regionally. With that I’ll stop. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 19
20
Commissioner Tuma: I really only have one additional concept or thought to think about or talk 21
about here. That’s sort of in direct contrast to what the gentleman from SILVAR had to say 22
about rental housing and agreeing with what Mr. Borock had to say, which is if you talk about an 23
affordable way for someone to live in this town, rental housing is the way to do it. Rental 24
housing, market rate rental housing doesn’t work from a developer perspective. So if we could 25
do something here. I can’t pretend to come up with what the right incentives or scheme would 26
be, but I could envision a significant number of relatively small rental rate housing in Palo Alto 27
that would serve a lot of the goals or the things that we talk about in terms of providing 28
economic diversity and in terms of smaller units. 29
30
I look at a project like the Tree House, which I thought was a great project, but it took a very 31
unusual set of circumstances to get there. Maybe there’s a way we can create incentives or 32
bonuses or other things, but focusing on rental housing as opposed to for sale housing. I think 33
that would also go some ways towards alleviating this concern that is expressed from time to 34
time about one or two or five or ten families win the lottery. With rental housing perhaps there’s 35
more people who get that benefit over time. People come, people go. That would be maybe the 36
one other piece here that maybe we’re beginning to talk about in this document but maybe 37
there’s some more ways to incentivize that and make it happen. 38
39
Not to belabor the point, because I understand the concern the HCD has already identified site 40
and design as too much of an impediment but what we’re talking about is… I will point to a 41
specific project which is Hyatt Rickey’s. Hyatt Rickey’s only had to go through ARB and that’s 42
what we’re talking about here. There’s maybe a mixture of opinion, but you don’t hear a lot of 43
good things about how that projects looks from the City’s perspective generally. So I think 44
that’s the kind of risk we run by giving that up. Maybe there are other things we can do to 45
mitigate that with process streamlining or other things that would satisfy the people that we need 46
Page
33
to satisfy. I just think abandoning this process in this town is a recipe for disaster and there’s got 1
to be other ways to do it. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: Quick question for Staff on the concept of the waiving site and design as 6
an incentive when there is a density of 20 units an acre. Is the density a measurement of how 7
many actual units are built in the parcel? So for instance, I’m going to make some easy numbers 8
that isn’t real, let’s say it’s a one acre property and it’s a 10 story building with 10 very small 9
units. But if you built more of those units it would be at a density of 20 units an acre. Would 10
that count, or there would actually need to be 20 units on the one acre? 11
12
Mr. Rivera: The calculation would have to be on a 20 dwelling units per acre, so for example a 13
site that’s less than an acre will probably yield less than 20 units. If they build at a density of 20 14
dwellings per acre then they can, with the proposal, take advantage of the waiving of the site and 15
design. 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok, let me get real specific. One acre, 10 units, teeny tiny little units, but 18
if I built dozens of them it would be at a density of 20 units an acre, would that count? 19
20
Mr. Williams: Why don’t I give you a specific example? Half an acre site. If on that site they 21
build at least 10 units, that’s when the provision would kick in. That’s 20 units per acre, is 10 22
units on a half-acre. Those units would then have to be smaller than 1,250 at this point. 23
24
Vice Chair Fineberg: So it’s measured by the actual units built on the site, not just that they are 25
teeny tiny little units and if you cloned them and built more, hypothetically they are at a density 26
of 20 units an acre. So it’s the actual units. Not that their size is small? 27
28
Mr. Williams: It’s what you’re building on the site. If you’re not building it, if you theoretically 29
could but you’re not, you don’t have to take advantage of that. 30
31
Vice Chair Fineberg: It doesn’t count against it. Ok, thank you. I have to say one more thing 32
global and then I’ll try to honor Chair Martinez’ request to make constructive suggestions. Right 33
now the way this Housing Element reads appears to exacerbate our jobs/housing imbalance. It 34
appears to continue doing much of the same that we’re doing, that we’re going to favor mixed 35
use buildings with lots of office space, a few houses on the top, more of the pieces that we’ve 36
been seeing and I don’t think that’s a path we should continue. We’re damaging ourselves doing 37
that. 38
39
We need to find ways to accomplish getting the housing we want, satisfying HCD, so I have a 40
couple sort of out of the box solutions. It may well be that these have to wait for the next 41
planning cycle that hopefully Staff will start soon. Strategically, I can’t believe that HCD would 42
turn us down with one year left if we’re 50 units short, or if we come in with what we think is 43
our best effort compliant and they knock out 50. That’s a better strategic position than to come 44
in with a cushion where they’ll take them. So it’s a little bit of a game of strategy there. 45
Unfortunately that’s the realty. I would agree that we take out all the parking lot units and I 46
Page
34
don’t know if there are other sites that there’s potential for higher yields that we can make it up 1
or if the program that will analyze parking lots going forward would satisfy them, but we don’t 2
need to come in with more than the demand. 3
4
The out of the box ideas, one is a concept, and I don’t know the legality as it hasn’t been 5
explored, but co-housing. What’s the difference between four seniors living in a four bedroom 6
house versus four seniors living in four, 400 square foot units? The difference is they have a 7
private bathroom and a private oven. I don’t know if there’s any way that we can tweak that if 8
there’s any program or process that we can have a different zone, maybe an R1? It’s exactly the 9
same as what’s on the ground now, but there’s four unrelated adults living in it. We do it right 10
now and we call it roommates but it counts as one unit. I don’t know if there’s a way that we can 11
do something with that. I’m seeing a head nod and I think it was Phyllis Cassel that talked about 12
this, that sort of planted the seed in my mind for this. She said this at a prior meeting. I don’t 13
know if that’s a way we can build our inventory. I’m not saying to do it in a false way, but a real 14
way. I know we can’t get grant money to do it, but there will be ways that we can generate sites 15
that we might be able to do that. We might have to wait for the next round. 16
17
The second is not going to generate sites but things about general concepts in the plan. On Page 18
140, in Chapter 4, there is a section about fees and exactions. It talks about a program, I’m sorry, 19
I would like to suggest, and it may not be in this round, keep this on your list of forward looking 20
things. We need to have a program to determine nexus and possible fees to pay for new public 21
safety buildings. I know three years ago the City was advertising for a contract for someone to 22
conduct those studies and it stalled. The State gives us the legal right to impose impact fees to 23
cover the incremental costs for public safety created by new dwelling units, new buildings, 24
commercial and residential. We are as a community choosing not to take advantage of that right 25
in a time when we’re about to go out to our voters and ask for money to build those facilities. 26
We’re going to get that money if a bond measure or something pass from the taxpayers and we 27
ought not leave it on the table. I don’t know if that goes in as a program later or if it just needs to 28
go and we talk about that more next week, or if it can go in as descriptive text, simply as a 29
description that we are not currently imposing that impact fee, but have the opportunity to do so 30
after analysis. 31
32
The second thing on Page 142 it continues to talk about that Palo Alto has mid-level impact fee 33
relative to adjacent communities and we have the lowest entitlement fees in surrounding areas. 34
We are struggling to pay for our infrastructure; we are struggling to pay for a number of our 35
essential services. Then I’m reading in the housing element that we’re not collecting fees where 36
we can. So to counter this sense of the community saying this is all impacting us, we have the 37
option to raise those fees. And what that does is it puts the cost on the projects that generate the 38
expenses as well as the other current residents. So there’s a fairness element. So those are my, 39
hopefully they’re positives. 40
41
Chair Martinez: A couple things to wrap up this session. Hopefully the graphics of the report 42
are not, I want to say it positive. I’d like to see them be better. If that could be put in a positive 43
light? I’m taking it that as a draft that goes to the State it can be plain vanilla with maps that are 44
just kind of taken out of the Assessor’s parcel maps, but if we saw a nice graphic of Cal Avenue 45
with the sites that have been identified as part of our housing inventory along Cal Avenue, that 46
Page
35
would have such an easy way to understand the impact, the intention, where we were going with 1
that. That and Downtown, the parking lots. Hopefully when we see the final draft there’s going 2
to be someone that’s empowered to take a look at the graphics of it. 3
4
Related to that I think there’s some analysis that would really help the public and the 5
Commission understand this report better. For example on housing inventory it was mentioned 6
about the addresses. That was kind of a flag that went up I think to everyone who looked at it. 7
Also, if we saw the number of larger sites, versus the number of sites under 10 in some kind of a 8
graphic format we could also understand that challenge that lie ahead and how this is not going 9
to happen overnight. Again we’ve talked about sort of the distribution of these sites. If it could 10
be made really much more graphic? 11
12
The second thing that I want to close with is although there have been several public meetings, 13
it’s really obvious from the public comments tonight that there’s this big chasm between what 14
the intentions of this Housing Element is and the public’s perception. So something more has to 15
be done to engage the public to see sort of that it’s not the intention to change Palo Alto into 16
something it’s not. I think not for, you know, what the current obligation we have to get this to 17
the Council and the State before it’s a final… give me an extra minute like you had. Before it’s 18
in its final form that there really be a serious town hall meeting about it in which we can engage 19
the community to talk about what this report is supposed to achieve. Thank you. 20
21
Commissioners, we’re doing pretty well. A 10 minute break and then we come back, you good 22
with that? Yes sir. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: What are we doing after the break? 25
26
Chair Martinez: We’re going to talk about the policies and programs section. So you don’t want 27
to take a break? I think our cutoff was 8:30 p.m. I think we’re close enough to that and Staff 28
would like us to continue this discussion to try to complete this portion of the review. 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: So we’re talking about another round of 5 minutes each kind of thing? 31
32
Chair Martinez: Yeah, Probably another couple of hours. So we’re close to being on track. If 33
you feel this has been enough as you want to take on tonight, I’m ok with that. I’d like to keep 34
going. 35
36
Commissioner Tuma: I’m fine to keep going. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: If we get it done we get it done, if not we can continue, but let’s do our 39
college try to get it done. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Ok, then 5 to 10 minute break. 42
43
Break 44
45
Page
36
Chair Martinez: We’ll start on Chapter 5, the Housing Element policies and programs for the 1
proposed Amendment. I’m going to do something a little bit different, I’m going to give 2
Commissioner Keller a little extra time to present his suggestions for the policies and programs 3
and then we’ll do a round of 5 minutes. 4
5
Does everybody have a copy of it? He’s going to go through it, so you can just follow along. 6
Commissioner Keller. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you and also there are copies in the back of the room for 9
people, members of the public who wish to have one. 10
11
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry. I apologize for interrupting so, we all have copies of this 12
and I assume that you’re going to hit sort of the highlights. Because a lot of these things are 13
fairly minor wording changes, so you can let us know, I think, whether you need to have 14
discussion on them or not. The other things we’ll certainly take into account and make wording 15
changes if they are not what you consider to be substantive. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Certainly I won’t go over the ones that are editorial changes. And some 18
of the things that are substantive they are actually pretty trivial, so I will not go into them in 19
detail on those. Thank you. May I? 20
21
Chair Martinez: Yes, please continue. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: Ok, so the first one is H2.1.4, which is on Page 136. It says, “revise the 24
PF zoning district.” Here’s where I suggested that instead of “revise” we “develop” and I’m not 25
sure whether we want these to be 100% affordable or not, but actually develop in this case 100% 26
affordable housing overlay district. I think that create an overlay is much safer than just 27
modifying the district as a whole. 28
The next thing, H2.1.5 is the controversial one, and I’m assuming that the City Attorney will 29
probably not let me do that. But I have an alternative. Is that correct the City Attorney won’t let 30
me do that? 31
32
Ms. Silver: Yes, that probably would not be advisable. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Great, so I have an alternative wording, which is instead of the wording I 35
have on this sheet, I have the wording “and locate housing with school children near schools 36
with available capacity.” Will that pass muster? 37
38
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, why don’t you try to go through these? 39
40
Commissioner Keller: Ok, that’s just one for which the Attorney should weigh in because that 41
one may matter. 42
43
Chair Martinez: I think what we’re going to try to do is give our comments afterwards. 44
45
Page
37
Commissioner Keller: Ok. Thank you. The next one is H2.2.1, I don’t think we really need that 1
incentive, that’s “identify incentives and encourage development of suitable housing sites.” I 2
don’t think we need any more incentives. That’s what the density bonus housing law is. There 3
is a couple places where I think the housing we develop, especially in mixed use, should be 4
compatible with surrounding uses, so you’ll see that in several places. 5
6
In terms of H.3.1.2A, there is “may need to provide a 25% component.” That doesn’t make any 7
sense. “May” sort of is ambiguous. So I changed that to similar wordings as the other ones. 8
H.3.1.2, that sentence I think is misplaced so it should be in the previous one, the idea of how 9
that fee works. It really belongs in D, not E. However, E is a technical problem that we don’t 10
explain how to deal with the problem of when you have partially in lieu and partially not in lieu, 11
so I gave a sentence that describes that. 12
13
I deleted a thing that a member of the public complained about, which was in H.3.1.2G, delete 14
the duplexes in the R1 zoning districts. He has talked about that being tried and not working and 15
I agree with that. H3.1.6 talks about encouraging flexible development but that really should be 16
part of 3.1.10, which is the housing density bonus law, so these are ways of implementing that, 17
not a separate program. So just add it to the end of 3.1.10. Again 3.1.7 neighborhoods 18
compatible adjacent uses, at 3.1.8 there is a reference to the nexus study, so that was talking 19
about in 3.4.3. In 3.1.12 the idea says, “Consider conducting a study.” Just conduct a study, 20
considering conducting is too many weasel words. Just conduct the study. 21
22
3.1.13 talks about implementing. I’m not sure if that’s the right word, but anyway. 3.3.2, Again 23
the issue is the overlay district for the housing on surplus sites. So you want to do that and not 24
just by right. In addition 3.6.1, since School District employees are allowed to go to the School 25
district, allowed to have their students go to the School district, I don’t know why we should 26
include workforce housing for the School District as part of this. 27
28
Just a few other comments that came up. One is in terms of 3.1.2J, which is on Page 160. I 29
think that SILVAR has a good reason why that should be dropped, so I would drop that. In 30
terms of 3.1.2I, rather than say “calculate” I would say “evaluate calculating” because we 31
shouldn’t make a policy change like that in this way, we should evaluate doing it. 32
33
In terms of 2.2.2, which I already talked about 500 square feet instead of 1,250 square feet, I 34
would say “treat as a housing bonus density law incentive as well as require that housing be at 35
least 50% of the FAR,” So that you don’t have just a small amount of housing with a couple tiny 36
units and the rest of it being a big project that really should be substantially be housing for this to 37
really work. So the housing is at least 50% of the floor area. Also I’m supportive of the idea of 38
doing something with co-housing and a nexus study for public impact fees. So that explains the 39
gist of the comments that I have here and I think that most of them are… I mean the only one 40
that was controversial was 2.1.5, and I have a better version of that that I think, if the City 41
Attorney agrees, will pass muster. Thank you. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Thank you Commissioner, I appreciate that. Other Commissioners do you have 44
some comments, suggestions, in the policies and programs? Commissioner Tuma. 45
46
Page
38
Commissioner Tuma: I don’t. The only thing that I would say is that I’ve seen this thing I don’t 1
know how many times at this point. I think that this is going to go back to Staff, the 2
Subcommittee is going to sort of try to incorporate… I don’t think we’re going to get to any 3
consensus on all these various edits. I think people can make the comments that they want to 4
make and Staff and Subcommittee are going to have to work through that. Then it’s going to 5
move on to Council. I don’t know, do we take an action tonight? Is that what you’re looking 6
for? 7
8
Mr. Williams: We do need to have an action. It would be an action to move it to Council or if 9
you wanted it to stop at the Subcommittee to make some of the suggested changes and review 10
those before it goes to Council that’s fine too. 11
12
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. So I’m prepared to make a Motion, Chair’s indulgence? 13
14
Chair Martinez: Do you mind holding off, I just want to give the other Commissioners a chance 15
to weigh in on how they feel about what’s… 16
17
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. I won’t do it in the form of Motion, but my suggestion, just 18
procedurally here is that we go through, everyone make all the comments that they want to make 19
and then we recommend that to Council and there’s an opportunity for the Subcommittee and 20
Staff to sort of work it through together to incorporate any of the comments that have been made 21
tonight without having to bring it back. It is going to come back to the Planning Commission 22
again anyway. That’s not a Motion, that’s just a thought. By the way if it’s possible I will cede 23
my extra time to Commissioner Michael as this is his first opportunity to comment on something 24
that we’ve all commented on many times before. 25
26
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. We’ll see about that ceding of time. Commissioner Michael, 27
you have five minutes. 28
29
Commissioner Michael: So with profound gratitude to Commissioner Tuma, I don’t have a lot 30
of value to add with respect to how the policies and programs flow from the goals. Because I 31
have I guess the one-time experience to be looking at this for the first time, I did look at the five 32
high level goals and I was struck by the first goal to ensure the preservation of the unique 33
character of the City’s residential neighborhood. And I was also liked to associate my thinking 34
with Chair Martinez in terms of the importance of community engagement and having 35
significant input or a town hall discussion of the implications of this once the Commission then 36
Council have had their way with it. 37
38
To digress, when I started law school I was told that after getting a legal education you would 39
never again read a newspaper in the same way that you did before you had lost your innocence. 40
You would begin to look for facts and principles and analysis and no longer could you simply 41
enjoy the newspaper as you once did. Joining the Planning Commission, I no longer go through 42
the City as I once did. Everywhere I go I’m looking and seeing zoning and variances and 43
character and things that should or should not be preserved. I’m just making this admission 44
because I’m finding that I’m no longer taking for granted that something should be preserved 45
Page
39
just because it currently exists. Some of what we have is not really very attractive or very useful. 1
Whether we grant it amnesty or not, I see a lot of change going on. 2
3
I see a lot of projects which are seemingly quite attractive. A lot of design and thought has gone 4
into it, maybe there’s a lot of money that has been put into these pretty attractive projects. I 5
know that I have personal experience in quite a bit of the City over the last 61 years, but I think 6
the H1 goal of ensuring the preservation of the character to me doesn’t strike the right note of 7
understanding there is a dynamic characteristic to Palo Alto, which is also good. Freezing it in 8
time, that wouldn’t be what, if I just had one vote out of the 63,000 residents, my vote wouldn’t 9
be to paralyze the planning. 10
11
But the other high level goals all seem to be quite sensible. I do wonder what if any goals would 12
be there that are missing, that we’d never had before that we should have? Maybe the other 13
progressive cities express them and we should emulate that. I’ll stop there, even though I have 14
Mr. Tuma’s time. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Good job. Commissioner Tanaka. 17
18
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I just wanted to say that first of all, I do agree with I guess the other 19
Commissioners about doing some sort of nexus study about the impact fee and making sure they 20
are in line with what the impacts truly are. I do also like what was said earlier in the discussion 21
with BMR’s in terms of rental versus ownership. I think it was Commissioner Tuma that made 22
that comment. I also agree with that as well. Ownership is kind of one lucky person versus 23
rental where a lot of people actually get to benefit. Thing about income is it tends to change over 24
time. Maybe someone who is low income now may be higher income later, so I think rental 25
actually makes sense. With those kind of high level comments I just kind of wanted to blitz 26
through some comments on these programs. 27
28
H1.1.2, I’m not a big fan of legalizing illegal second units. H1.2.2, I’m not sure I necessarily 29
agree with that one. H2.1.3, I said this earlier, but I’m not a big fan of having minimum 30
densities. I think you should let the market decide and have maximum densities. H2.1.3, 31
basically, saying at least eight dwellings per acre. By the way I do agree with having the 32
Subcommittee, I’m just going to throw my comments out there and then I think the 33
Subcommittee could probably figure some of this stuff out. 34
35
H2.1.5 amends the zoning code to create zoning incentives. I think we should allow it, I don’t 36
necessarily know if we need to have additional incentives. H2.2.1, I guess on this one here I 37
think we have to make sure that this is done right in terms of not impacting some of the 38
commercial or retail sites. Then H2.2.2, I think we all talked about site and design, I think we 39
are almost unanimous on that one. We don’t have to beat that on. I also agree with H2.2.3, 40
which is the Staff that the Stanford Research Park should be compatible with the surrounding 41
areas. I made my comment earlier about 3.1.11, about the mobile home. I think the mobile 42
home park should be on the housing inventory list. That’s it. Thank you. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Ok, Vice Chair Fineberg. 45
46
Page
40
Vice Chair Fineberg: I pretty much concur with most of what I’ve heard. I’m troubled at the 1
idea of us just saying ok, fine, a Subcommittee, which I’m not even sure who’s on it is going to 2
go make the final recommendations. I think we as a body need to act and give direction and 3
have a decision on some of the items. Not talking about every last one, but I think we need to do 4
a straw poll on some of the items where one person has mentioned it or people feel differently so 5
we have some clear direction from the majority rather than leaving it for something that is going 6
to be decided in private after the meeting is over. I’d like to see that hopefully the Motion will 7
have some kind of listing of which items we’re in favor of adding or deleting and then possibly 8
some laundry list of what we’re comfortable with Staff figuring out later after the meeting. 9
10
In terms of the ones that I would like to see us voting up or down, there’s one that we really 11
haven’t talked to that’s a biggie. H2.1.1, which is the considering the allowance of high density 12
residential mixed use in commercial areas within a half mile of major transit stations and 13
exploring exceptions to the 50 foot height limit for housing inventory sites within a quarter mile 14
of fixed rail stations to encourage high density residential development. I understand the 15
Council directed Staff to consider that and that wording is reflective of Council’s direction, but 16
I’m not sure that this community… let me word that differently. This community has 17
demonstrated no force of will to abandon the 50 foot height limit, so I don’t know whether that is 18
premature because there has not been a public discussion of whether we’re ready to implement 19
that. So my question for Staff on this one is; does the current Housing Element depend on units 20
that are derived from exceeding the 50 foot height limit? If the proposed Housing Element 21
does… am I seeing a nod from Staff that it is not dependent on that? 22
23
Mr. Williams: That is correct. It’s not dependent on that. 24
25
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok. So if we can get a compliant or near to compliant Housing Element 26
without breaching the 50 foot height limit then I believe that we need to strike H2.1.1 from the 27
program. We have the option of adding it back in our next cycle that is going to start in 2014. 28
We don’t need it, we don’t know if the public supports it. From recent Council actions it’s not 29
clear whether the current Council supports it, so I think that should be struck. That’s the one I 30
want to make sure of, so far I’m the only one that has talked about that so I want to make sure 31
that we either get head nods or straw poll where the Motion includes clear direction on that so 32
we’re clear to Council what way we want to go. The others I think enough has been said on. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller, you see the way in which Commissioner Tuma wants to 35
propose we go forward with the recommendations from the Commission tonight. Do you have 36
any comment on that? 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I realize that I believe Commissioner Tuma is a member of the 39
Subcommittee, if I remember correctly. Are you? Are you not? Who’s the Subcommittee now? 40
41
Chair Martinez: It’s me. I get to make all the final decisions. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: I think that it is appropriate for this body to make policy decisions. I do 44
not think it’s appropriate for this body to delegate policy decisions to a Subcommittee. It’s ok 45
for this body to delegate drafting to a Subcommittee, and if there are policy decisions to be made 46
Page
41
to come back to this body, but I don’t think that we really want it to come back, I think we want 1
it to go to the Council next. Commissioner Tuma wants to respond to something I just said. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Are you finished with your comment? 4
5
Commissioner Keller: No. I think he wants to respond to something and then I’ll continue. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: Just very briefly. 8
Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Tuma. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: This will come back to us, whether we want it to or not. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: I understand that, but it will come back to us after it goes to HCD and 13
after it goes to Council. Therefore whatever this body sends to Council should be the consensus 14
of this body and not the consensus of merely a Subcommittee. And therefore the policy 15
decisions that we want to make should be the policy decisions of the body as a whole where we 16
give direction to the Subcommittee on what changes we want to make in general and the 17
Subcommittee can do the wordsmithing. That I agree with, but we should make decisions. We 18
should have a consensus on what changes we want to make and I don’t think we have that in the 19
form of our comments. So either we make it in the form of a Motion or we make it in the form 20
of straw polls. I would not agree with a blanket, “listen to what we said and make comments on 21
it.” Make changes to the document based on it because it would not have made a clear intent of 22
what changes we want in the form of a Motion or Straw Poll, so I don’t think we have a clear 23
consensus, so, if I may, I would actually like to make a more detailed Motion. 24
25
Chair Martinez: Go ahead and make your Motion. Let’s see where we go. Commissioner 26
Keller. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: Also I would be happy with friendly amendments and I would be happy 29
with any requests for straw polls on any item that I include in here. Ok? May I request for straw 30
polls on some things I might include? 31
32
Chair Martinez: No. Make your Motion and let’s just see where it goes, whether it passes. 33
We’ll go from there. 34
35
MOTION 36
37
Commissioner Keller: Ok, great. So the Motion is to direct the Subcommittee to make changes 38
to the Housing Element before submitting it to the City Council with the following changes, 39
these are changes in general, the Subcommittee is actually going to make the detailed changes. 40
So the first change is to drop Program 3.1.2.J, Paragraph J. The second is to add the word 41
“evaluate” before 3.1.2I. The third is to consider either severely restricting the site and design 42
review potential along the lines of what we talked about or eliminate that. I think that’s 43
something that the Subcommittee can negotiate with Staff. In terms of H2.1.5, two changes. 44
One is instead of amending the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage, that 45
should be instead consider how to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable 46
Page
42
housing units, including units for seniors. Then edit end and how to locate housing with school 1
children near schools with student capacity. 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: I’m sorry; could you repeat the number on that one? 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Yes that’s H2.1.5 on Page 156. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. 8
9
Commissioner Keller: In addition, add a program with the wording and location to be 10
determined later, which is, add a program to evaluate or study the provision of co-housing. In 11
other words, figure out how to create that. I’m not sure how to word that but that’s the direction 12
of the Subcommittee to do that. 13
14
Finally, the next thing is create a program to create a nexus study for a public safety impact fee. 15
Then the only other change that I’m going to have here, two other changes. One other change is 16
in 2.1.4 and 3.3.2 to create an overlay district instead of a zoning ordinance revision, instead of a 17
change to that zoning. Finally, in terms of 3.1.12, that we actually do the study as opposed to 18
consider conducting a study. 3.1.12, that we actually do the study as opposed to, as it’s drafted 19
now, consider conducting a study. That there’s actually a direction to do the study. That’s the 20
substance of my proposal. 21
22
Chair Martinez. Do we have a Second for that First? 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Chair Martinez: I see no Second, so your Motion fails. Ok, we do have a Second for the 27
Motion. Vice Chair Fineberg. I do have another question for you. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Sure. 30
31
Chair Martinez: What about the other items on your list? 32
33
Commissioner Keller: The other items on the list are recommendations of things that the 34
Subcommittee can consider and evaluate how to do wordsmithing. They are not really 35
substantive changes, they are really changes in the spirit of what’s already there so I think that 36
those things are things that you can consider but I’m not going to specifically add them to the 37
Motion, unless people want them in the motion. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Ok. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 40
41
Commissioner Keller: I think it is important that the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element 42
represent the interests of, the policy statement of the Commission as a whole. I am willing to 43
entertain changes to this if people feel strongly in deleting things or feel strongly about adding 44
things. I am happy to entertain making further changes, but I think that what goes forward from 45
the Subcommittee in order to save time it doesn’t come back to us, but should really represent a 46
Page
43
policy of this group. I think that it would be good to move forward with a Housing Element and 1
I appreciate the work of Staff and the various members of the public and the various other people 2
we had working on this in terms of the various groups that participated in this to try to create a 3
Housing Element that was the best we could have produced considering the constraints. And to 4
get it approved by the State as soon as we can. Thank you. 5
6
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 7
8
Vice Chair Fineberg: I seconded this because I think it’s important that we do this detail work 9
even though it’s the eleventh or twelfth time, it keeps evolving and if we can get it as good as 10
we’re going to get it by doing another hour of work tonight I think it will be a much stronger 11
presentation. A much stronger Housing Element going forward to Council. As Seconder, am I 12
allowed to make some friendly amendments? Ok. If I can repeat some that have been 13
mentioned by several other Commissioners that I think, and forgive me if I’m missing on these 14
the nomenclature for the numbers are sometimes hard to follow, so if I’m in error on this, I beg 15
indulgence. I believe that we talked about deleting H.2.1 and H.2.2 that eliminated the site and 16
design review. So if I’ve got those numbers correct, if I could offer a friendly amendment that 17
those policies be deleted. H 2.2.1, so Page 157. H 2.2.1. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: I certainly agree with dropping H2.1.1, I’m sorry, H2.2.1, which is the 20
“identify incentives and encourage development of suitable housing.” 21
22
Vice Chair Fineberg: Then H2.2.2. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: I think in this one I actually addressed it and what I said is that I’m 25
leaving it up to the Subcommittee to either drop it or severely restrict it in conjunction with Staff. 26
I think I prefer dropping it, but if Staff really wants to twist our arm to keep it and they have a 27
good reason, I’m not sure. 28
29
Vice Chair Fineberg: I think if I count noses of everyone, there was a general consensus that 30
eliminating site and design review of mixed use projects that are going to be PC’s is a disaster 31
waiting to happen. I think we as a body have spoken that we don’t want to give up site and 32
design review as an incentive. 33
34
Chair Martinez: I don’t think that’s official. 35
36
Vice Chair Fineberg: Correct. My indications of counting [interrupted by Commissioner 37
Keller]. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: I believe you’re right. Does the Staff want to comment? 40
41
Mr. Williams: May I offer a clarification on that? You said in PC’s. It does not eliminate the 42
full PC review on PC’s. It’s just site and design review is a specific part of the code that applies 43
to certain projects. PC has its own process, so it’s not eliminating full review on PC’s, even 44
though they may be mixed use. The other thing is, I think Commissioner Keller’s option 45
provides some latitude for discussion. I guess I would like to get direction from the Commission 46
Page
44
on whether you would entertain something that perhaps right now mixed use projects in 1
commercial zones that have five or more units require full site and design review. Maybe there’s 2
some flexibility that it’s eight or ten, which is a half-acre site or less that could change for that 3
and be a little bone to throw HCD or something. Anything that’s more than a half-acre site then 4
essentially would require the full. I’m not saying that’s necessarily any magic number, but that’s 5
the difference I see between the two Motions. Is one provides maybe the opportunity to have 6
that kind of discussion and the other is just no. Which is straightforward and easy to do. 7
8
Vice Chair Fineberg: I understand going forward that it might be good to have some kind of 9
incentive program, but the reality is that H.2.2 is a very contentious program that members of the 10
community have commented on as something that causes distress. The reality is if we’re lucky 11
this Element is going to get adopted in 2013 and then if the program itself says implement an 12
incentive program within a year of the Housing Element adoption, so that program won’t even be 13
adopted within the life cycle of this Element, so it’s an absolutely useless piece. So, why burden 14
ourselves with something that is contentious and argumentative and people are going to like it or 15
not like it and it’s going to be smoke and discussion on something that isn’t real. So if we strike 16
it, we simplify it, we get rid of something that’s contentious; we make the review process easier. 17
Now I understand from your comment we lose the carrot that we’re giving to HCD, but if it 18
means that this thing goes through with an easier acceptance by the community I think that has a 19
huge value. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: I will accept the motion of the Amendment to drop H2.2.2, my suggestion 22
on that is if the HCD comes back to us and says we absolutely need it then that come back to us 23
to figure out how we craft one that’s narrow enough not to cause us grief. 24
25
Chair Martinez: I think Director William’s comment really goes to the core of what we’re doing 26
here and that I believe there’s some critical thinking to be done here. We are acting less than as 27
a Committee trying to design this sausage. And I would prefer to see us take these comments 28
back to the Subcommittee, to the Staff, and let them come back at our next meeting with some 29
suggestions that may be more palatable, more creative, that address both concerns of HCD and 30
of the community who has apprehensions about site and design being removed this way. 31
32
I just believe that we are cutting and pasting something that we are kind of losing control of. I 33
don’t think it’s an orderly process for us to be striking this and taking that out and undermining 34
certain parts of the Housing Element without a broader consideration of what we’re doing. 35
Those are fine recommendations for consideration, but not for an adoption at this time of the 36
Housing Element going forward. Commissioner Tuma. 37
38
Vice Chair Fineberg: Well, I’m still making friendly amendments. So, can I finish? 39
40
Commissioner Tuma: If I could just make a comment that’s directly responsive to what the 41
Chair just said. Mr. Chair? 42
43
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Tuma. 44
45
Page
45
Commissioner Tuma: I think that’s a great idea. I think we should continue to go through with 1
the friendly amendments, put all the stuff on the table. So far I have 10 items. What I was going 2
to do next was turn to Staff and say, what do you think about each of these 10 items? Because I 3
want your input. This is sort of cherry picking a little bit. As I’ve gone through I don’t actually 4
disagree with that much of the stuff, but I think we should finish this process but perhaps instead 5
of having the vote, because we had talked about this coming back to us at our next meeting 6
anyway. So maybe we put all 10, 12, 14, whatever these suggestions are going to be, on the 7
table, give them to Staff, give them the opportunity to analyze them and then come back with 8
that time having been put into it. But let’s get them all out on the table now. That would be, I’ll 9
tell you right now the way it stands there’s absolutely no way I can support this Motion. It’s not 10
been vetted enough. 11
12
Vice Chair Fineberg: Can I finish? 13
14
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair, can I just make a recommendation that your comments be a 15
recommendation for consideration and we not go forward with it as a Motion? 16
17
Vice Chair Fineberg: My preference would be that my friendly amendments include a Motion 18
that we continue with the straw poll and have Staff make changes reflective of our comments 19
tonight and have it come back to us at our next meeting in two weeks. Would I think be exactly 20
be exactly what Commissioner Tuma and Chair Martinez has just said. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Yeah, proceed with the friendly amendments. 23
24
Vice Chair Fineberg: So, taking a step back… and I have two more programs that I want to 25
make comments on. I’ll come back to those. One friendly amendment would be that instead of 26
it reading that we recommend that the Subcommittee make the changes and have it go to Council 27
that the Subcommittee make the changes based on our straw polls and our votes tonight and then 28
it come back to us in two weeks. 29
30
Commissioner Keller: If the thing comes back to us in two weeks, then I feel comfortable with 31
the idea of doing a series of straw polls where we provide policy direction and/or if it comes 32
back to us in a month I’m not sure exactly how, I don’t think it can come back to us in two 33
weeks, that’s probably too soon. 34
35
Mr. Turner: I mean if it’s possible we’d like to come back in two weeks. I mean if we can 36
synthesize the items down to perhaps a number of five key issues that Staff can work on then we 37
can certainly do that, but if there is a longer list, as what seems to be implied, I don’t think Staff 38
can turn this around in two weeks. We would need to come back to you at a later date. 39
40
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller do you have further comments? 41
42
Commissioner Keller. It seems to me that if we have it come back to us at a date uncertain, 43
rather than a date certain. You want date certain? 44
45
Page
46
Mr. Turner: Not necessarily. I think if we can come back to you in two weeks if the items can 1
be synthetized down into a handful of five specific areas that you’d like Staff to focus on, but if 2
there is a longer list of items that will require additional Staff analysis and consideration it’s 3
going to take longer than two weeks. 4
5
Mr. Williams: I think we need to give you that estimate at the end of your discussion here and 6
let you know whether we think it’s two or four. Worst case I don’t think it would be more than 7
the four. So I think we’d like it to continue to a date certain but we can’t tell you whether that 8
date’s two weeks or four weeks until you get through your direction. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Then perhaps what we should do is have a slightly different approach, 11
which is first of all the Motion goes from the Commission to the Subcommittee and then on to 12
Council. 13
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: No, back to us. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: The original Motion. So we’re actually modifying…? 17
18
Vice Chair Fineberg: I just made a friendly amendment that would amend your Motion that we 19
will direct the Subcommittee and Staff to make the modifications based on Commission 20
comments, wordsmithing and then come back to the Commission in preferably two weeks, or 21
time uncertain if Staff determines that’s necessary. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: So the idea is that the item instead of going to Council will come back to 24
us for a quick review and the Staff will tell us whether it’s two weeks or four weeks, is that the 25
idea? I would accept that amendment. 26
27
Chair Martinez: Anybody else want to weigh in before we vote on this thing? Commissioner 28
Michael. 29
30
Commissioner Michael: I’m just curious by our process here. I think it’s dysfunctional and it’s 31
not going to produce a clear and good result. I can’t follow the individual points and I’m 32
reasonably intelligent and I’m trying to grasp all the details but I’m totally lost. I would like to 33
see before casting a vote in favor of this, although I may be favorably disposed to support it, a 34
red line version of what the changes are. It’s sufficiently important, that particularly as we get 35
into a combination of minor wordsmithing and some conceptual things about which there may be 36
disagreement. I would really like to see a clean copy of what we’re proposing to approve and 37
move on as the policy and procedures of the City with respect to housing. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma, comment? 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: I completely agree with that but I also think it needs to be supplemented 42
by the analysis from Staff. In other words, I’m not even prepared for a straw poll at this point on 43
these items. I need Staff’s analysis of what the impacts of these various things are going to be. 44
So I think if we come back in two weeks or four weeks or what have you, with a red line version 45
as well as a Staff report analyzing the impacts of these changes, then we would be in a position 46
Page
47
to move forward with a recommendation. But, I agree and I’ve been at this for 11 meetings. I’m 1
sitting here trying to feverishly take notes and understand what this means and what the impacts 2
are and there’s no way I can in good conscious vote on a policy on any of this stuff tonight. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Are you suggesting a friendly amendment? 5
6
Chair Martinez: You have to be called on. First I want to agree with that. I’m not comfortable 7
being directed by the Commission on all of this to go out and make these changes. I’m 8
comfortable in spending my time with Staff listening to the pros and cons and what other ways 9
we could tackle this and coming to a recommendation to bring back to the Commission, but not 10
sort of with this mandate that these changes are the wishes of this Commission. Commissioner 11
Keller. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: Since this item is coming back to us, I would be happy to amend the 14
Motion instead of directing the Subcommittee to make these changes, instead to direct the 15
Subcommittee to evaluate these changes. The reason I was thinking of directing the 16
Subcommittee to make these changes was because the original ideas wouldn’t come back to us. 17
As long as it’s coming back to us I’m happy for the evaluation to be done and to consider to have 18
a list of changes that the Subcommittee evaluates in discussion with Staff and then come back to 19
us on why the changes were or were not made and further along those lines. In particular, in that 20
case I would also like to change H2.2.2 instead of dropping it. The recommendation is to figure 21
out whether it should be dropped or whether there is a way of more finely crafting it that is more 22
suitable. 23
24
Chair Martinez: So that’s an amendment to your Motion that you’re proposing. Seconder? Vice 25
Chair. 26
27
Vice Chair Fineberg: I can’t accept that. We have so totally lost the thread. We are the body as 28
a group at public hearings that needs to make recommendations to Council on policy matters. 29
I’m frankly stunned that I’m hearing that we shouldn’t be making policy recommendations for 30
Staff to implement. If we have something like whether or not to have the elimination of site and 31
design review, if after all the meetings we’ve had, if we can’t say it’s good or bad to eliminate 32
site and design review requirements then what are we doing? What is Staff going to give us 33
that’s going to add more or less to that than we already know? We know what happens when we 34
do site and design review. We know what might happen if it doesn’t happen, if we don’t have 35
site and design review. 36
37
I don’t want to go down the path of having Staff having to analyze things. I understand we have 38
to temper it with not having a prudent recommendation tonight, but we need to winnow this 39
down to a final list of what’s in, what’s out, what the modifications, what the considerations are 40
and track it and vote it up or down at our next meeting. If we ask for more analysis it’s just 41
going to be more delays. 42
43
I thought that we had a majority of the body saying it would be imprudent to eliminate site and 44
design review and if we counted noses maybe people have changed their minds and there’s new 45
information or different information, but I don’t think recommending that there be consideration 46
Page
48
is a good path. I think we need to vote it up or down tonight and we need to figure out a way to 1
vote it up or down. 2
3
Chair Martinez: City Attorney, is nose counting in our policies and procedures? I’m going to 4
call for a Vote on the Motion. Those in favor, say aye. 5
6
Commissioner Keller: Point of order. According to our procedures a call for a closure vote, 7
which is a vote to end discussion, requires a separate vote. It’s not simply a Motion to end 8
discussion. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok. So anybody care to have further comment on this? Commissioner Tuma. 11
12
SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13
14
Commissioner Tuma: I’m going to make a substitute motion. Substitute Motion be simply that 15
direct Staff to work with a Subcommittee to analyze the items that were put forth in the 16
underlying Motion as well as the amendments thereto and to come back to the Commission at the 17
soonest possible date with that analysis and a redlined version. 18
19
SECOND 20
21
Chair Martinez: Motion by Commissioner Tuma, Second by Commissioner Michael. Question 22
by Vice Chair Feinberg. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: Just very briefly I agree with what Commissioner Feinberg said. We need 25
to take a definitive action. I think just to use the one example that she was referring to, on 26
eliminating site design or not elimination site design, I am very uncomfortable with eliminating 27
site design, but what I’ve heard from our Planning Director who is deeply involved in this and 28
has been through this process many, many times is perhaps there’s something else that we can do 29
to mitigate the concern from HCD. So let’s give them the opportunity to come back to us and 30
tell us what that might be. I think they are hearing pretty loud and clear that we don’t necessarily 31
want to eliminate site and design review, but maybe there is something that we can do that will 32
help through the process. By the end of the day, it’s Staff that has to negotiate this thing. So, I 33
think my proposal, allows, I’ve got it 10, maybe 11, the record will show whatever it is, items 34
that have been put on the table in the form of the original Motion and the friendly amendments, 35
let’s let Staff work through those with the Subcommittee and come back to us in two weeks with 36
a red lined version and with their analysis of the impacts of those changes. Then I think we’re in 37
a position to vote on it. That’s why I would do it this way. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Michael. 40
41
Commissioner Michael: Yes, I would just add to that that I think the importance of the goals, 42
policies, and programs here are such that we should act with clarity. I think if we go through the 43
process of proposing the revisions which have been suggested by Commissioners Keller and 44
others, which many or most or even all of which may make perfect sense, then we will have a 45
Page
49
clear understanding of what we’re doing and then we will be able to do what we need to do. To 1
act otherwise in haste or confusion would be a miscarriage of our function as a Commission. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 4
5
Commissioner Tanaka: I would like to actually make a friendly amendment to the Substitute 6
Motion, which is, I know that there’s been some friendly amendments and some proposals which 7
I don’t necessarily disagree with but there has also been a lot of comment before that amendment 8
that I think should also be incorporated and considered by the Subcommittee. And the red lines, 9
I think having comments from Staff on the red lines would be very useful. I don’t think you 10
should just incorporate just on the policy and programs that we just talked about as part of the 11
amendment. We’ve had 2, 3, 4 hours of discussion which wasn’t captured in those amendments. 12
The Subcommittee needs to think, with Staff, all this holistically together. So I want to make a 13
friendly amendment not to just include the amendments and the Motion that Commissioner 14
Keller proposed, but encompassing our discussion tonight. 15
16
Commissioner Tuma: I’m fine with that. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Seconder? 19
20
Commissioner Michael: I also accept that. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Right on Commissioner Tanaka, I was going to remind Staff of the same things 23
that we had comments on the technical document Chapters one through four, including on the 24
introduction, on adding addresses, on strengthening our argument about why it’s difficult to 25
build housing in Palo Alto and that should also be included. Can we vote on this? 26
27
Vice Chair Feinberg: No 28
29
Chair Martinez: Because? 30
31
Vice Chair Feinberg: I have a question. 32
33
Chair Martinez: Yes, Vice Chair Fineberg. 34
35
Vice Chair Feinberg: Who is on the Subcommittee? I think that we and the public deserves to 36
know that before we refer something back to an unknown group. 37
38
Chair Martinez: I may live to regret this but the Subcommittee is me and the Vice Chair. 39
40
Vice Chair Feinberg: Thank you, I guess. I also want to thank Commissioner Tanaka for his 41
suggestion that the consideration of, I’ll call them “amendments,” also include much of what was 42
discussed earlier because I too had a list that I was desperately trying to get through and now I 43
don’t have to repeat what had already been said because there were so many comments about 44
other items that we hadn’t captured yet in our list of possible amendments. I will be supporting 45
the Motion. 46
Page
50
1
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: I’m wondering if rather than making it a date uncertain if we could have 4
Staff suggest a date certain? 5
6
Mr. Williams: May 9th, is that the second Tuesday in May? 7
8
Commissioner Keller: May 9th is a date on here. It’s a date that we have just the CIP program 9
going then. 10
11
Mr. Williams: That’s the date. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: So I make a friendly amendment that it be a date certain of May 9th. 14
15
Commissioner Tuma: Yes, that’s fine. 16
17
Chair Martinez: Seconder? 18
19
Commissioner Michael: That’s fine. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I suggest that to the extent that the suggestions in the 22
underlying Motion or specific things that we’ve talked about that there was significant support 23
for are not adopted that we sort of have some rationale why they are not adopted. That would be 24
helpful. We know a reason why. 25
26
Chair Martinez: That’s not a friendly amendment, that’s just…. 27
28
Commission Keller: It’s just direction, it’s not an amendment. 29
30
Chair Martinez: I think that’s the intention why we’re doing it this way. 31
32
Commissioner Keller: Great, then I will support the Substitute Motion. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Can we call for a vote? Those in favor of the Substitute Motion say aye. Those 35
opposed? The Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Keller, Tanaka, Martinez, 36
Fineberg, Michael and Tuma voting in support. Thank you for that. Thanks Staff. 37
38
MOTION PASSED (6-0) 39
40
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
May 9, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
7
Housing Element Update: Review and Recommendation to Council of Proposed Draft 8
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok, welcome back everyone. Second item for our hearing tonight is a review of 11
the draft Housing Element and recommendation to Council. Excuse me. Let me just say that I 12
spent my entire Planning Commission Career working on the Housing Element and we’ve 13
reached a milestone tonight, so I’m looking forward to moving it ahead. Staff, do you have the 14
report? 15
16
Tim Wong, Senior Planner: Good evening, my name is Tim Wong and I’m the Senior Planner. 17
And, just Staff has prepared a brief presentation for the PTC to update them on what has 18
transpired since the April 11, 2012, meeting. 19
20
On April 11, 2012, the PTC reviewed the entire Draft Housing Element for the first time and if 21
you’ll recall at that meeting the PTC broke up that meeting into two parts. The first half of the 22
meeting was to consider the technical aspects of the Housing Element and from that first half the 23
PTC had directed Staff to A) rewrite Chapter 1.1 of the Housing Element, the introduction, if 24
you will, and also to revise the Housing Inventory tables and maps. For example, to include 25
street addresses and to make it a little more user friendly. 26
27
The second half of the meeting was to discuss the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and 28
programs. There were a number of comments made on several Housing Element programs. 29
However, a majority of the comments were focused on four Housing Element programs. 30
Specifically, Program 2.1.1, which is the, to explore limited exceptions to the City’s 50 foot 31
height limit. Program 2.1.4, which is housing on City parking lots. Program 2.2.1, which is 32
incentive, identify incentives for a mixed use development. And finally, Program 2.2.2, which is 33
the waiving of site and design, if a developer would develop at certain densities and have an 34
average unit size of not to exceed 1,250 square feet. 35
36
There were a number of; there were lengthy discussions for that meeting, so after that meeting 37
PTC directed Staff to meet with the Housing Element Subcommittee to analyze the items and to 38
return back to the PTC on May 9th. Staff met twice with the Housing Element Subcommittee to 39
review these four programs along with all the other comments that the PTC had made in regards 40
to programs. And those comments have all been recorded in Attachment A of your Staff Report, 41
along with Staff analysis of those comments. 42
43
So the Subcommittee started off also reviewing Program 2.1.1, in which it allows the in limited 44
exceptions to explore the 50 foot height limit if it’s within a quarter mile of fixed rail. The 45
Subcommittee did discuss, but it did not revise the housing, this particular program and it was 46
Page 2
decided that it would be best served to take it back to the PTC. The full PTC, to get their 1
feedback on this particular program. 2
3
The other three programs were revised significantly, or substantially. Program 2.1.4, which 4
proposes to construct or provide housing on public parking, or City owned parking lots, the 5
originally proposed program is what’s listed on top and the proposed wording, or the revised 6
wording for that program is the underlying portion. So for Program 2.1.4 it proposes to evaluate 7
the parking lots for suitability of residential housing or appropriateness and that is the revision 8
for that particular program. And I can go into the background of the reasoning for the revisions 9
if the PTC would like. 10
11
Program 2.2.1 was also revised. It is the one that identifies incentives for mixed use 12
developments and it was further clarified to say that the incentives would be part of the density 13
bonus program. So if you proposed mixed use, what the City proposes is to promote a density 14
bonus to achieve those mixed use developments, but in addition to that, Staff added wording 15
about consideration of providing more flexible concessions and incentives as part of the Density 16
Program. This stems from the November of 2011 study session with the PTC in regards to the 17
Density Bonus and Concessions. The PTC had directed Staff to provide a Density Bonus 18
Ordinance with a menu of concessions and as part of this menu, if a developer decides to build 19
smaller units at a higher density we could, Staff proposes to put in more flexible concessions or 20
incentives as part of the Density Bonus Ordinance to help incentivize that type of development. 21
22
And lastly, Program 2.2.2 received a number of comments and this proposes the waiving of site 23
and design. Originally it proposed the waiving of site and design if the developer proposed to 24
build at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher and it had a maximum average unit size 25
of 1,250 square feet. But at the last meeting there were a number of comments stating that about 26
waiving of site and design, that 1,250 square feet as an average unit size was too large, therefore 27
it went back to the Subcommittee. And the revision is that the waiving of site and design will 28
now apply to those developments that have a project yield of 9 units or less, or fewer. That they 29
still must build at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher and also, but the unit size, the 30
average unit size has been lowered to 900 square feet. 31
32
There have been other minor changes to the goals, policies, and programs and those have been 33
shown. The revisions have been shown in Attachment C of your Staff Report. It shows the track 34
changes, the underline and strikethroughs. 35
36
And lastly, the PTC had requested to revise the Housing Inventory Site maps and tables. In 37
regards to the Housing Inventory Site tables, what Staff has done is separated the, excuse me, the 38
sites based on their unit yields based on the proposed program 2.2.2. Therefore, on the tables it 39
shows those sites that have a yield of 9 units or less and then those that have a yield of 10 units 40
or more. And those parcels that have a yield of 10 units or more have been noted on the Housing 41
Inventory maps for your review, and also on the HIS maps they’ve been broken down into three 42
areas so you can better see the distribution of sites geographically. 43
44
And to conclude, so this evening Staff is requesting five things from the PTC. Number one is to 45
review and comment on the revisions to Programs 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and Program 2.1.4. Secondly, to 46
Page 3
review and comment on the merits of the Program 2.1.1, regarding adjustments to the 50 foot 1
height limit within a quarter mile of fixed rail stations. And then to also review and comment on 2
the revisions of Program 2.2.2 that could potentially discourage developers from utilizing the 3
incentive. 4
5
Oh, yeah, just to back up. On Program 2.2.2 just in reducing the unit size and the restrictions to 6
the site, or the requirements of the site and design Staff is just noting that that could, to put it, 7
you know, scare away a potential developers from using this particular incentive and maybe 8
pushing them more towards a Density Bonus. The reasoning being if the developer can only 9
design, develop between five to nine units approximately; they may want to be developing with 10
larger units to get a greater return. Yet site and design, the waiving of that is significant; 11
however, to be limited at 900 square feet might be restrictive. So, that is the third request that 12
you look at that program. 13
And then review and comment on the text revisions of Chapter 1.1 and the revised Housing 14
Inventory tables and maps. And lastly, to recommend to the City Council that the Housing 15
Element as edited and revised by Staff and the PTC be forwarded to HCD for review. And so, 16
that concludes Staff’s presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions that the PTC may 17
have. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Thanks Tim. I think we’ll open the public hearing. We have one speaker card, 20
but there is time for others. Vice Chair. 21
22
Vice Chair Fineberg: Bob Moss to be followed by Herb Borock. 23
24
Bob Moss: You’re pressing it. Thank you Chairman Martinez and the Commissioners. A few 25
suggestions on the program elements you’re discussing. First, I would suggest in H 2.1.1 that 26
you make it a quarter mile, not a half mile for increased density. A quarter mile is what’s 27
required by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and State requirements and if 28
you go a half mile you’re going into areas which are primarily residential even though this talks 29
about in commercial areas. Look at a half mile beyond the California Avenue Train Station and 30
you’re wiping out a number of single family homes, not a good idea. 31
32
On 2.1, 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 the City of Palo Alto does not need incentives to get people to build 33
housing in Palo Alto. There is no reason to have an incentive of any sort. And both these 34
programs should be deleted. There is a massive interest in housing development, more so than in 35
commercial developing Palo Alto to the extent where large commercial areas have been 36
converted to housing. To the point where the City Council finally had to take a stand and say we 37
won’t allow this anymore. So putting in incentives for housing is absurd. Along with that it’s a 38
really bad idea to eliminate site and design review because we will end up getting some 39
absolutely ghastly developments built if that’s done. 40
41
In terms of the, a few other things, on the Chapter 1 Report, on the top of page 2, where it cites 42
median housing prices in 2006, you should be citing the median housing prices in say, 2007, 43
when they were closer to $1.5 million, and in 2011 when they were $1.7 million, and then if you 44
go on to last month they were over $2 million. It would be putting a lot more accuracy into what 45
Page 4
the housing values are in Palo Alto and explaining more about why we’re not going to get a lot 1
of low income housing, because people can’t afford to build it here. 2
3
Now I had some comments on the various locations which were identified especially along El 4
Camino, which I’m extremely familiar with. I was curious why two of the three gas stations 5
were identified as being suitable for housing but not the third one. What’s wrong with Chevron? 6
Why are you identifying motels, like the Creek Side Inn as being identified for redevelopment 7
for housing? And then in some areas you’re identifying some restaurants by sites as being 8
suitable for redevelopment and others eliminated. There’s no logic to the way that the sites are 9
selected so I’d like to know why some of these sites are picked and why some of them were 10
omitted. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. Mr. Blala [NOTE—he mispronounced Borock]. 13
14
Herb Borock: I think that’s me. Good evening. The 1978 Comprehensive Plan and zoning 15
permitted housing in all nonresidential zones and then more recently the Council with 16
Commission’s recommendation has prohibited housing in certain nonresidential zones. And now 17
here we are again going back the other way with recommendations and I wish you’d make up 18
your mind. 19
20
On policy H 1.2, Program H 1.2.2, preserving rental housing, the original program when that was 21
first put in the plan required three or four conditions to be met and then it was reduced to two out 22
of three and now you only have one. I prefer going back to the way that it was originally. 23
24
Program H 2.1.7 refers to a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance. I’m not aware that we have 25
one. If this is referring to the ordinance proposed for government code 65915 then just say so. If 26
there really is an ordinance, I’d like the ordinance number if it exists. 27
28
In Policy H 2.3, Program H 2.3.1, proposes prohibiting private schools and churches, and I guess 29
they mean religious institutions not, you know, just churches in multiple family zones. And 30
generally these are the places where we would find them, in residential zones. So does this mean 31
that they can only be in single family zones? That’s typically where you have these kinds of 32
institutions because that’s what they serve. The Below Market Rate (BMR) program further on 33
in that page, since it’s talking now only about a for sale program again due to the court case, that 34
is referred to it should be mentioned that that’s what it is. The continuing on the following page 35
under program paragraph B for that program it mentions profit on the BMR units. Originally 36
there was no profit in the program and I think it should be restored to that. The profit is 37
dependent upon the form, the market rate units for which all the land cost is attributed and should 38
be no profit on the subsidized units. 39
40
On the last page referring to homeless shelters the original idea in 1985 which has continued to 41
today is that churches having shelters are under temporary use permits, which does away with 42
any kinds of hearings and therefore is limited to 30 days, one month out of the year. And I didn’t 43
know what this program was talking about, was it talking about was this the place if there’s some 44
natural disaster all these churches would be the emergency shelters or was it talking about 45
changing one month a year to twelve months a year, multiplying the population using those 46
Page 5
churches and other institutions by 12? I don’t think that’s well explained in here or thought out 1
and I believe the current program should stay as it is and if you want a place for natural disasters 2
for emergency shelters, a place like Cubberley would be much better than individual religious 3
institutions. Thank you. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you very much. We’ll close the public hearing with that. 6
Commissioners, I think we need a little structure, so we’re going to do a round of questions, 7
comments and you’ll be given five minutes each. First round. I haven’t had a chance to really 8
go through it I don’t think others have but Commissioner Keller has a series of comments. Do 9
you want to take those first, five minutes at a time? Really try to highlight the things that are the 10
most, you know, the highest priority for you. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: So, I’m gonna go through these some of them and the ones that are more 13
detailed and more critical in more detail. In terms of 2.1.1, I didn’t say this, but I do agree with 14
the member of the public who mentioned a quarter of a mile rather than half a mile and it’s not in 15
my comments. 16
17
And also, there’s one place where it says “consider” and another place where it says “explore.” 18
I’m wondering if they should both say “consider” rather than “explore,” because “explore” 19
means you do it and “consider” means you evaluate it. So exploring requires that you do at least 20
one place, I think. So that’s why “consider” would be better. 21
22
Also, I’m wondering whether in terms of 2.1.1 whether adding a tiny housing component on an 23
otherwise big nonresidential project should really qualify for 2.1.1 and the 50 foot height limit 24
particularly in the light of the City Council’s direction with respect to 335 to 355 Alma, the first 25
project where we actually explored doing this. So I think that calls into question whether that, 26
the height, the exceptions to the height limit should actually be in there. 27
28
With respect to 2.1.4, I just want to make sure this is clear that it doesn’t apply to PF zoning for 29
uses other than the parking lots. I assume that that’s the case, but I just want to make sure that’s 30
the case. 31
32
There is a typo in my list in terms of 2.2.2, that’s actually 1.2.2. There’s a 1.2.2 but no 1.2, 33
there’s a 1.2.1, so somebody had a numbering problem. So that 1.2.2 should be 1.2.1 as a 34
reference to H 1.2A, so that needs to be corrected. 35
36
In 2.2.1, again there’s an issue here where there’s an incentive and the question is whether that 37
incentive really should apply if you have a small residential component to a large nonresidential 38
component. And so, you know, I’m just asking the question. I’m not sure how to handle that but 39
that’s an issue there. 40
41
In terms of 2.2.2 the wording is kinda funny. It says, “eliminate site and design review and only 42
requires architectural review,” but there’s a whole bunch of things that you require in addition to 43
architectural review, such as, there’s other things that requires zoning approval and stuff like 44
that, so I wouldn’t use the word “only” I’d use the word “but” there. That actually is an 45
interesting thing. And also I would say maximum unit size is 900 square feet, I don’t know we 46
Page 6
have to say maximum average unit size. And I don’t think we need to encourage this, and if we 1
make it more restrictive I think that’s a good thing. 2
3
In terms of 2.2.3 that’s really an editorial comment. In terms of 3.1.1, the wording as it says now 4
is “amend the BMR Ordinance to lower the BMR requirement.” Well we’re not lowering the 5
BMR requirement we’re lowering the BMR threshold. So that word threshold actually makes 6
much more sense. You’re lowering the threshold from 5 to 3 units. 7
8
In terms of 3.1.2 A, we have their component and then you reference H.1.2.2, which is now 9
gonna be H.1.2.1, and that’s why say the 25% component it just really says 25% BMR 10
component makes it a lot clearer to understand. And similarly for D, I made a change there to 11
move that there but that should say “market rate housing” because market unit is not clear. 12
Similarly in 3.1.2 strike the “for sale projects will be paid,” that thing we’ve moved up so you 13
probably want to strike it from E. But I have a paragraph here that describes how to actually 14
compute it when you have partial units or, you know, partial in-lieu, whatever. And without that 15
I’m not sure if it’s clear, you may say that that’s not necessary, but it makes it pretty obvious 16
exactly how to compute it in an ordinance. 17
18
In respect to 3.1.2 I, the TAG and PTC evaluation of this I think was much more cursory at least 19
at Planning Commission did a very cursory evaluation of this. I don’t consider that to be the real 20
evaluation. I would suggest, as was mentioned last time by members of the real estate 21
community that you don’t want to simply say, “revise,” you want to really do an evaluation of 22
that, so I would put back the evaluate the revise. 23
24
In terms of 316… May I finish this one while I’m in the middle of it? Yes. In terms of 3.1.6 I 25
think that this should not be its own program it should be as part of the Housing Density Bonus 26
Ordinance. And so I feel strongly that we should not have stand alone incentives. That the 27
incentives should be as part of the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance and similarly H 2.2.1, 28
should, sorry H 2.2.2 perhaps should be if you eliminate site and design that’s a Bonus Density 29
Ordinance incentive, not an incentive separate from that. So I would add that to the list of, 30
making that a Density Bonus. And I’ll continue with the remaining ones later. Thank you. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, I would like us to get through the items that we struggled with 33
last time, namely the items listed in table 1. The first one, which is Program 2.1.4, regarding 34
revising the public facilities zoning to allow housing on the City parking lots. Any 35
Commissioners want to take that up? Any comment about the proposed program change? 36
Commissioner Tuma. 37
38
Commissioner Tuma: I think the proposed program change is spot on. Make it evaluate and I 39
think that solves the concerns that I heard last time. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 42
43
Vice Chair Fineberg: I have two issues. The first is exactly if you change it from “consider” to 44
“evaluate” so it would read “evaluate allowing high density.” And the second is a technicality of 45
whether it should be the half mile or the quarter mile. As it reads in our draft, I’m sorry. I’m 46
Page 7
sorry, my brain went to 2.1.1. I agree that the “evaluate” is the correct thing. I still don’t think 1
that we ought to include it if we can meet our demand for housing in the inventory list without 2
the program, but I understand that it would be best to leave that in there so that it is properly 3
vetted and it’s there if we need it. But my preference would be for it to be removed if we can 4
meet the demand without needing to rely on those sites. 5
6
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 7
8
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, generally I like the revised program. The only thing is then some 9
areas I think the status quo of public parking is actually a problem. I think there’s actually, there 10
needs to be an increase in parking in some places. So I don’t think it should be just, reading it as 11
is, as long as there’s no loss in public parking. But I think in some areas we actually have an 12
underage in public parking so, maybe what it should say is as long as there’s no loss in the 13
forecasted need for public parking in that area or something to that effect. I don’t know the exact 14
words, but something along those lines. Because I know some sites there are, there’s really not 15
enough parking. Thanks. 16
17
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Yeah, so first of all I agree with this change. So, but I have two questions. 20
One question is if we have a parking lot in the Housing Inventory Sites list and a parking 21
structure is built on that site, does that mean we have to find another site to cover those units in 22
order to, because presumably that would then be removed from the Housing Inventory Site list. 23
24
Mr. Williams: I think that as long as we’ve got this program in here and we’re following through 25
within the time frame and that, no, I mean we’ve identified all of these parking lots in it but 26
we’ve got a program to then zero in on where it’s most appropriate among those units. I don’t 27
think that just putting a parking structure on one of them creates that need in and of itself. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Thank you and the other thing is that, in response to what Vice Chair 30
Fineberg said, if we were to eliminate all the parking lots from the Housing Inventory Site list we 31
would have a deficit of housing units. We would, because the amount of housing units I believe 32
is like, on these sites is like 170 or some number like that and the surplus we have is 80, so 33
you’re short by 90 or some number like that. I don’t remember the exact number, but you’re 34
short. And I pointed this out at the last meeting when we had all the numbers in front of us. 35
36
Chair Martinez: Commissioners are there further comments on that one? Alright. The next one, 37
which is, let me read it again, Program 2.2.1 implementing an incentive program which would 38
include changes to our current site and design review. 39
40
Several people [not over microphone]: 2.2.2 41
42
Chair Martinez: Yeah. I thought that’s what I said. Commissioner Tuma. 43
44
Commissioner Tuma: So, I mean I think I said last time I don’t think eliminating site and design 45
review is good policy. That said, our Planning Director was somewhat persuasive and we need 46
Page 8
to, we probably should do something here. If I understand this proposal, first of all this would 1
only apply to parcels that are less than a half an acre in size. Right? 2
3
Mr. Williams: That’s correct. That’s correct. 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: Because of the 20 per acre and maximum of 9. 6
7
Mr. Williams: That was one of the considerations in coming to that number. 8
9
Commissioner Tuma: So it’s a relatively small parcel that we’re talking about here that this 10
would apply to. 11
12
Mr. Williams: That’s correct. 13
14
Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so I think that’s actually quite creative, that’s pretty good. I would 15
agree with Commissioner Keller’s comment about not making it be average unit size, but rather 16
just making it the maximum unit size. If we, if we did that and given what you’ve proposed here 17
do you think this is still, and this is a question for the Planning Director, would this sort of satisfy 18
the requirement? 19
20
Mr. Williams: I think it would, you know, the maximum average, we have the 1,250 square feet 21
in SOFA, this would allow some more flexibility. I think the concern would be, you know, 22
someone has a certain allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on their property for residential and if, 23
I guess you could do all 900 square foot units, so you could meet the maximum average that way 24
too. But I don’t know have we looked at the, Tim or Roland, at the how 900 square foot units at 25
certain densities whether it would reach the maximum FAR or is this more, make it more 26
restrictive? 27
28
Commissioner Tuma: You talking about a 22,000 square foot lot maximum here or about maybe 29
even a little less than 20,000 square feet. 30
31
Mr. Williams: Right, so an RM 30 zoning for instance. Or a CS mixed use is 30 units. Is a .5 or 32
.6 FAR is 12,000, yeah. So it probably would be like 20 units all 9 units so it might not quite get 33
there. 34
35
Commissioner Tuma: Right. Ok. 36
37
Mr. Williams: But they could do more units and make it to that FAR if they could park it. 38
39
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, and this gives them the incentive. The process wise. So that’s a 40
balance. They may not get all the FAR but they don’t have to take advantage of this program 41
either if they want to maximize their FAR. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Excuse me, is this the place where Staff was concerned that developers would 44
feel there’s not an incentive to go this route with smaller units, or was that a reference to a 45
different program? 46
Page 9
1
Mr. Williams: I think the comment that I had made at the first subcommittee meeting in the brief 2
time I was there was, you know, we, I think the intent of the original language was to have a 3
fairly broad effect in terms of encouraging the smaller units and the site and design incentive sort 4
of came hand in hand with the smaller units. To the extent that we’re limiting it to the smaller 5
sites then other sites aren’t going to have that incentive and they likely won’t do the smaller 6
units. So, I think that’s kind of the tradeoff. 7
8
Chair Martinez: Tim? 9
10
Mr. Wong: Chair Martinez if I may add also part of it is, yeah, again they may be able to waive 11
site and design or pass by site and design, but if they are limited to 900 square units they may 12
choose to take the concessions available through density bonus and additional units. So that 13
would sway them more toward the usage of density bonus versus maybe this particular incentive. 14
So that was also part of the reasoning. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 17
18
Commissioner Tuma: But I thought that the reason that we were even considering this wasn’t 19
actually to incentivize the development, but rather to satisfy HCD. Did I misunderstand that 20
from our previous discussions? 21
22
Mr. Williams: That’s why we’re considering incentives but we were hoping that the incentives 23
would also have the effect of resulting in smaller units, which is what we were (interrupted) 24
25
Commissioner Tuma: If any are built at all. 26
27
Mr. Williams: Right. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: Right. 30
31
Mr. Williams: So we’re trying to tie those, our goal of smaller units with something that HCD 32
would, you know, be happy to see. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Michael. 35
36
Commissioner Michael: So, so I appreciate that I’m relatively new on the Planning Commission 37
and that a huge amount of work has gone into this draft and its current state of completion and it 38
looks to be something that I would wholeheartedly support. But, I have questions and comments 39
which hopefully will be helpful at some point in the process. The, so I want to appreciate, just 40
acknowledge that I got some good answers from Steven Turner and Cara Silver about the reason 41
why we’re going back to the year 2007 to have a Certified Housing Element, which almost 42
seems that it’s sort of a retroactive effort in planning but that for various reasons it actually has 43
importance to the City which, again gets my support. 44
45
Page
10
But I think that we should look at this not as a, as sort of satisfying regulatory hurdles that we 1
want to jump though, HCD, just to, you know, please them. But I think that our real purpose of 2
the Planning Commission should be to encourage zoning that results in good buildings and good 3
use. And so when we talk about the unit size, it’s been a long time since I’ve been an apartment 4
dweller, but I don’t know exactly what’s the size of the average studio apartment? What’s the 5
size of the average one bedroom unit, what’s the size of the average two bedroom unit? Or what 6
kind of use are we hoping to encourage, you know, in these higher density neighborhoods 7
proximate to transit, mixed use? Such that people would want to live there. And that they would 8
live there in a productive way in our community. 9
10
So, I think that the revised program for 2.2.2 is something that I’m willing to support as is. I 11
would prefer that it be the maximum average unit size, because I think a building in which you 12
have sort of cookie cutter units which are all identical isn’t somehow aesthetically pleasing to me 13
as somewhere that I would ever want me or anybody that I cared for to live in. A developer 14
might be more creative with respect to having a mixture of different unit sizes and configurations 15
that would encourage some diversity of beneficial use in that community or that building or that 16
neighborhood. But as such I think the revised program for 2.2.2 is something that I could 17
support. 18
19
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 20
21
Vice Chair Fineberg: This is the one program that if I had to say I’m the least sure of all, it’s this 22
one. In learning more about this I came to understand that we already have a program that 23
eliminates site and design and if I say the count correctly it’s for buildings with four or fewer, 24
already aren’t subject to site and design. So this is not a new wavier. It’s simply increasing the 25
threshold at which the waiver is applied. So that gives me some level of comfort, however, the 26
great discomfort I get from this, and it still may be because I don’t understand it, is that if this 27
hits that place where we have mixed use with concessions and we lose site and design I fear we 28
might be losing control that we need. So that’s my first concern and I’m not sure that we’ve 29
thought that through. We know we have a problem with how we apply SB 69, whatever the 30
Housing Density Bonus law is, when it hits mixed use. So, I think we need to better understand 31
how this jives with that. 32
33
Number two, we’ve all been talking about how small unit size will have less impact on the 34
School District. And I have to say, I was thinking of small unit sizes being things that were 35
studios and maybe one bedrooms that were 400 or 500 feet. Good move to bring it down. Well, 36
I’m not sure it’s actually a good move to bring it down from the 2,100 to the 900. I’m sorry, 37
1,200 to the 900 because either of those. Well 900’s a nice, comfortable two bedroom. The 38
1,200 would be a nice sizable two bedroom or even possibly a modest three. And the reason I’m 39
wonder, and I understand it has to be at least something big enough for two bedrooms so we’re 40
not sort of stepping into housing family housing discrimination zones. But my concern is that I 41
don’t think a 900 square foot two bedroom apartment minimizes impact on the schools. It may 42
in fact increase the impact because let’s say we build, let’s call it a 1,000 square foot unit so my 43
math is easier. Say we build one 1,000, I’m sorry, two 1,000 square foot units, so two 2 44
bedrooms. We might have four kids living there. If we build one 2,000 square foot unit, we’ll 45
have two children, two students living there. So we double the impact by having more 46
Page
11
households and the, we would have to do some math calculations, but the property taxes 1
generated on the units are less per unit and that means the contribution to the School District to 2
pay for the education is less per unit but we’re bringing in the same number of kids. If we build 3
a $5 million dollar house they would generate enough of a contribution to the School District to 4
pay for the sales, I’m sorry the property, the property taxes would pay for the education of the 5
kids. The more of these small units we build, the less able the School District is going to be able 6
to pay for the education of the children created in these units. 7
8
I get that that’s all way beyond the scope of what we do, but the reason I bring it up is because 9
I’m not sure that incentivizing a large number of 900 square foot unit gets us where we want to 10
go in terms of minimizing school impacts. It may in fact make it worse. So, I’d like to ask if we 11
can push that size down even further, or that gets us into a legal prohibited space. But I think it, 12
we have a very small one bedroom in Tree House and there’s already a toddler living in that, 13
when people said there wouldn’t be toddlers in Tree House. I think if we build 900 square foot 14
units we’re gonna have kids living in them. So, can Staff comment on whether we can push that 15
size down even further? 16
17
Mr. Williams: Well I think the more we push it down the more subject to attack or criticism from 18
HCD as to what we’re really doing here goes. And I don’t want to speculate about school kids 19
and small things. I think the Tree House is a particularly poor example of the point you’re trying 20
to make. I mean you have one toddler in 35 units. Toddler, it’s not a school kid either and I 21
question whether, you know, when that child is of school age whether they are still gonna be in 22
that facility. 23
24
So, but, you know, I think there’s just a certain level of reasonableness. I don’t know that there’s 25
a, and Cara can answer whether there’s a legal reason it couldn’t be less, but I think you also 26
have to look at what the alternative is. They come though site and design and they build 1,500 27
square foot units, and they build almost as many, maybe, and they do have school impacts. Site 28
and design is not a zoning change. It is not a use issue. It’s a how is the site laid out? You 29
know, what are the impacts of it? Not school impacts, but what are the other, so if they are 30
addressing those issues then it’s not like a zoning change or a Planned Community (PC) where 31
there’s a lot of discretion to say no the use can’t happen. 32
33
So I think it’s that sort of tradeoff to look at, it’s not just a given that, you know, if they don’t do 34
this then they’re not gonna do anything. Or they’re gonna do something that does have less 35
impacts on schools so, I think a 900 square foot maximum is pretty restrictive and, you know, I 36
don’t think that’s an unreasonable place to go, but it’s getting dicier the lower we go with it. 37
38
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 39
40
Commissioner Tanaka: So I think I understand where Vice Chair Fineberg is going. When, I 41
actually had the same thought about first of all getting rid of the average. So I think several other 42
Commissioners mentioned the same thing. But one angle I was thinking about and not 43
necessarily the school angle, for the maximum unit size was more just about affordability. I 44
think one of the goals of this is to actually provide more affordable housing and there’s a direct 45
correlation between the size of unit and affordability. And more small units there are, the more 46
Page
12
affordable it is. And, you know, some of the people that are getting priced out of Palo Alto are 1
the people who are younger, they don’t have families and also some of the elderly, who maybe 2
can’t afford it as much as they used to. So, for that reason perhaps smaller units makes sense as 3
well just in terms of our, I guess just not our goal, but some of the mandated goals of trying to 4
provide more affordable housing. 5
6
And I think if you have smaller units, and I realize in this country 400 or 500 square feet seems 7
small, but in a lot of other countries 400 or 500 square feet, even in Hong Kong, is a family. A 8
family lives there. So it’s not necessarily excluding families per se. And my wife actually told 9
me she, when we first moved into my house and we had to live in an in-law unit, which is about 10
400 or 500 square feet or so, she says “Oh yeah, this is like a whole family used to live in this in 11
Hong Kong.” It’s not Hong Kong, I get that, but just in terms of affordability it’s something to 12
think about if you want to help make Palo Alto accessible to individuals that normally couldn’t 13
afford Palo Alto it’s one way of doing it. So I actually support what Vice Chair was advocating 14
for. Thanks. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So firstly I think that there was no controversy about 19
replacing the word “only” with “but,” and so I would suggest that you go ahead and do that 20
because “only” has ambiguities that are problematic. 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: I think actually what you mean is replace the words “and only” with “but.” 23
24
Commissioner Keller: Perhaps “and only” with “but,” but the issue is you don’t want the word 25
“only,” you want the word “but,” or if you wish, delete “and.” So “and only” becomes “but.” I 26
think that that’s a clarification that shouldn’t harm anything. 27
28
The second thing is I had originally suggested last time that we reduce this to 500 square feet and 29
I got shot down. So, as a compromise I’m suggesting that we delete the word “average.” I do 30
think that it would be worthwhile considering how many, the amount in inventory of units in 31
Palo Alto based on number of bedrooms. And I would guess that off the top of my head, you 32
know, that probably 80% of the housing units in Palo Alto have two or more bedrooms. At least 33
80% of the housing units in Palo Alto have two or more bedrooms other than senior residences, 34
if you will. And so, there’s a, there is a definite shortage for studios and one bedrooms in Palo 35
Alto and there’s a demand for them in terms of seniors and there’s a demand for them in terms of 36
20 or 30 something’s without kids. We’re not meeting that demand, but that’s not what 37
developers want to build. Developers want to build multifamily, twenty 2,000 square foot units 38
or large units because they make more profits per square foot and they don’t have to deal with 39
the parking as much. The parking issue is a problem. 40
41
And so, I think and there was a comment and I’ve heard a response that we should let the market 42
do its job. Well if the market did, its, you know, zoning is a way of keeping the market from 43
doing its job in general. And the market is showing what it wants to do based on what’s building 44
in South Palo Alto. So I don’t necessarily agree with the market doing its job. I think that we 45
have, we should incentivize or require that what to be built is what we want. 46
Page
13
1
Chair Martinez: I think that we could argue that there’s a housing need for families that need 2
two bedrooms in Palo Alto and smaller units of that size. It’s the maximum size that a second 3
unit could be in Palo Alto, so we’re not talking about oversized housing. I think it’s also a nice 4
balance to what developers are looking to build now. I know it’s a matter of choice in San 5
Francisco, developers are trying to build smaller units and get as many as they can. I know the 6
demand is different here. If we let them, and by the way the City is trying to get developers to 7
build more larger units for families. 8
9
So I would support this revision as it’s written, perhaps taking out the average, leaving the 10
average to give the developers some means to design the project to fit the site. As an architect I 11
know that’s a huge problem and that you end up really designing some housing units that aren’t 12
really what you would want to live in because you’re trying to make the unit number max out. 13
So giving a little flexibility with saying the average unit size I think is a good thing. 900 square 14
foot unit, whether it’s a large one bedroom or smaller two bedroom, I think is also a good thing. 15
So I would be inclined to support it as it is. 16
17
Let’s move on to the next. Which is this one here? 2.2.1, identify incentives including 18
promotion of density bonus that encourages development of suitable housing sites currently 19
planned and zoned for nonresidential units with mixed use. Comments on that? Commissioner 20
Tuma. 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: First I have a question, the revised language says, “utilize,” right. That’s 23
ok. It says, “Utilize density bonus provisions.” What do we mean by that, density bonus 24
provisions? Is this in fact the density bonus…? Right, but I know that there’s something coming 25
to us that’s gonna define what we’re, if you could just clarify what this language means. 26
27
Mr. Wong: Sure, absolutely. The density bonus provisions per government code 65915 allows 28
for if you provide a certain percentage of affordable units at a certain affordability you get 29
additional units. Or, I guess more importantly concessions or incentives that will help make the 30
development financially feasible. So density bonus hasn’t really been used or that frequently. A 31
number of developments have used them but this would be to promote and as part of it in terms 32
of more flexible concessions that was put in because in the study session that the PTC had they 33
asked for a menu of concessions and so therefore inserting more flexible concessions for those 34
developments that are creating smaller units at a high, higher density. Might help accommodate 35
or incentivize that type of development. 36
37
Mr. Williams: So I do think the implementation of this is through the City’s ordinance 38
implementing State law. So I think that’s what we’re getting at is that as we develop that, that 39
that language can then tie these incentives to again smaller units and that kind of thing. So in 40
some of the menu of items that the Commission had when we talked about it at the study session. 41
42
Commissioner Tuma: So would you anticipate that that ordinance would be adopted before this 43
is finalized? 44
45
Page
14
Mr. Williams: Well, it probably will be adopted before the Housing Element comes back from 1
the State and is adopted, yes. But that’s, yeah, so it might be. I mean if you’re not comfortable 2
with that we could put something in here about adopt our local ordinance implementing density 3
bonus to do these things. 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I mean to me that’s the direction we go here because the way that, I 6
mean if we go that direction then this program itself kind of really doesn’t mean anything in a 7
way until we adopt that ordinance. And that’s where we’ll have the meaningful discussion about 8
what these incentives or bonuses should look like. All this does is give you the vehicle for 9
essentially for implementing it. Is that a fair sort of characterization? 10
11
Mr. Williams: Yes, but that’s just saying, I mean to some extent it’s the same as some of these 12
other ones. Like the site and design thing. Isn’t effective until we adopt an ordinance, the 13
change that somebody can’t come in even after this even after the Housing Element was finally 14
adopted and ask for site and design relief unless we’ve adopted the zoning change to do that. 15
16
Commissioner Tuma: Right, and as I think Commissioner Keller is fond of saying, the Devil will 17
be, or maybe it’s Fineberg, the Devil will be in the details on this one. So I think generally 18
speaking the way that it’s written maybe try to specify or make it “adopt an ordinance” that does 19
these things. So change the language slightly and then I’m fine with it because we’ll decide what 20
that ordinance is later. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I was going to suggest language for that, which was “adopt an 25
ordinance for density bonus concessions to encourage” etcetera. You want me to repeat that? 26
“Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to encourage.” And I think that that would 27
satisfy my concerns as well. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Moving on to Program 2.2.1. We’re doing good, and I want to mention that 30
Vice Chair Fineberg has already said that a previous program troubled her more than any of the 31
others, so I think she’s going on record here. Commissioner Tuma you want to start this one 32
again? Now we’re doing 2.1.1, I’m sorry. 33
34
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. So the, I guess I was a little bit confused as to why, because it uses 35
both half mile and quarter mile. Half mile of major transit, quarter mile of fixed rail stations. 36
Was that intentional? 37
38
Mr. Wong: Yes, that was intentional. That was based on Council direction. 39
40
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. 41
42
Mr. Wong: Correct. The half mile radius is to allow for higher densities but yes, the quarter 43
mile within the fixed is the limited exceptions for height, for the 50 foot height. 44
45
Page
15
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. I’m fine with it as drafted, the one thing that I would do, which is the 1
polar opposite of what Commissioner Keller would do, is that I would change the first word 2
“consider” to “explore.” In other words, both of these would be “explore” not both of them 3
“consider.” But outside of that I think it’s perfectly fine as drafted. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: What I would suggest is the following changes. First of all I like the word 6
“consider” starting that. Secondly, I would replace “half mile of major transit stations” to “half 7
mile of fixed rail stations,” because the only other two major transit stations are California 8
Avenue and El Camino and I don’t think we want to incur that around the College Terrace 9
neighborhood that’s within a half a mile, I think that would be a mistake. And I think the other 10
transit station that is not a fixed rail station is Charleston/Arastradero in El Camino and I don’t 11
think we want to encourage the density increase around there either especially since I don’t know 12
anybody who would be really using the Bus Rapid Transit in those locations to get to jobs. I 13
think that’s highly unlikely for most of those people. So I would replace “major transit stations” 14
with “fixed rail stations.” 15
16
The second thing is, I would strike the second sentence. And the reason I would strike the 17
second sentence is that the Council has specifically excluded the project directly across the street 18
from the train station, which was exceeding the 50 foot height limit to build housing and they 19
complained about that being expensive penthouse housing. So, if that site, which is the closest to 20
a fixed rail station feasible in Palo Alto with the exception of the already built complex at the end 21
of South California Avenue, I think that the Council has clearly indicated through their actions 22
that they are no longer really supporting this exploration. So I would basically ask the Council if 23
you don’t want to delete it, I would ask the Council to say whether they really want it or whether 24
they’ve changed their mind and let them take particular, give us particular direction on that. But 25
I, I think that their actions speak louder than their words and their words in the past were maybe 26
we ought to explore this, but their actions are to shut down exploring it. So, 27
28
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: So I think the thing to do is to put, to not delete it and put it in front of 31
them. And the reason is the particular project that you’re referring to was not a high density 32
residential development. Rather, what that project was, was a large office building with a little 33
bit of housing on top of it. And so I’m not convinced, and in fact having spoken with several 34
Council Members who were involved in that discussion I actually further believe that it wasn’t a 35
function of the “penthouse” limited housing, but that it wasn’t a large, high density residential 36
development. 37
38
We can debate that back and forth. I think you’re suggestion about leaving it in there and putting 39
it in front of the Council and let them hash it out is the better way to go because I’m not 40
convinced that they’ve abandoned that idea. I, it’s perhaps that in that particular instance where 41
it was, there was a lack of support for some of the BMR houses, there’s a lot of other issues but it 42
wasn’t a high density residential development as contemplated in this language. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair, you ready? 45
46
Page
16
Vice Chair Fineberg: This is the item where the subcommittee couldn’t form a consensus. I 1
believe that this program should be struck from the Housing Element. Council’s directive was to 2
consider it for identifying housing sites and if I can get a confirmation again from Staff we were 3
able to meet our demand without any sites that had to be counting units where we would allow 4
them to be in excess of 50 feet. So if we follow Council’s directive to build the Housing 5
Inventory Sites from the bottom up, we don’t need this. We need to keep the analysis for the 6
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as simple as possible so it can get through. We need to 7
minimize the angst we create in the community for a plan that has a limited amount of life. I 8
understand that this may be smart growth. It may make sense, but if we want to delay the whole 9
process and have a full discussion and members of the community coming out, it can happen in 10
two years when we work on the Housing Element that’s 2014 to 20 whatever the five or seven 11
year review cycle will be next round. 12
13
I think it should be struck, but I think as Commissioner Tuma said, it needs to be Council that 14
makes that decision. So my inclination would be leave it in for now, let Council review it, make 15
their decision and it’s good from there. 16
17
Chair Martinez: I think I agree with everyone here. Yeah, even myself. We saw from the 18
project that Commissioner Keller referred to how really difficult it was for us and for the Council 19
to really come to reckon with this idea of changing a tradition. It’s not that easy to do. It’s not 20
widely popular. It may be smart growth. It may help with our greenhouse gas emissions in a 21
small way, but it’s not something that’s gonna happen up and down El Camino Real or over 22
Mollie Stone’s or wherever you could imagine this to be a candidate for that. It just won’t 23
happen that easily in Palo Alto. I believe that the Council created this interest in exploring this 24
and I think the Council should be the one to put it to rest one way or another. So, I would 25
support leaving the policy program as it is. 26
27
Commissioner Keller, you have a final comment? 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I’m wondering whether people would at least agree with if this thing 30
is going to be remaining with pointing out to Council that they should consider whether they 31
want to drop it or amend it. I think we should change “major transit stations” in the first 32
sentence to “fixed rail,” and I’m wondering if there’s consensus at least for making that change? 33
34
Chair Martinez: I don’t know. You want to start with a Motion and, because I’d like to see 35
rather than pick it apart that we have a Motion with some recommendations. 36
37
MOTION 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Sure. I will move that we adopt the Housing Element and make a 40
collection of changes to it and the first change that we’re making to it is to amend H 2.1.1 so to 41
the first sentence says, instead of saying, “major transit stations,” says, “fixed rail stations.” 42
43
SECOND 44
45
[people speaking without a microphone at the same time] 46
Page
17
1
Chair Martinez: I’m sorry. Ok, so where was I? We have a Motion by… 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: I think you were saying “good evening, welcome to…” 4
5
Chair Martinez: That sounds about right. Motion by Commissioner Keller, second by 6
Commissioner Tuma. And would you care to speak to your Motion? 7
8
Commissioner Keller: I think I’ve spoken enough with respect to the fixed rail issue. And my 9
suggestion is that we keep this Motion open for a period of time for people to make further 10
suggestions on changes that we might want to make and some of them I’ve already made, but I 11
haven’t made it as part of the Motion. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Good. Commissioner Tuma. 14
15
AMENDMENT 16
17
Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so I would offer the following friendly amendments. That with 18
respect to Program 2.2.1 that we strike, and the new language, strike the language that says 19
“utilize density bonus provisions” and instead add “adopt an ordinance for density bonus 20
concessions to.” 21
22
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I accept that. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: To provide more flexible concessions, etcetera. 25
26
Commissioner Keller: Is that exactly the wording you said, “adopt?” 27
28
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, so I was just mirroring your language from before. So, strike from 29
the beginning of that paragraph which is the word “utilize.” 30
31
Commissioner Keller: I think the word is actually “promote,” as revised. 32
33
Commissioner Tuma: I’m on 2.2.1. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Yes, the word currently says “promote the utilization of density bonus” 36
and that’s being replaced by “adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions.” And as I 37
originally said it, “to encourage development of” and I think that that still works. 38
39
Commissioner Tuma: We must be looking at different documents because 2.2.1, the very first 40
word is “utilize.” “Utilize density bonus provisions.” 41
42
Commissioner Keller: I’m looking at; I’m looking at the thing back here. Which, I’m not 43
looking at this; I’m looking at the actual description of the language in the back, not the stuff that 44
is in the front, which is a summary table. I’m looking at the actual revised, on page, I don’t even 45
Page
18
notice a page number here but it’s in the back. That’s what I’m trying to amend rather than the 1
stuff in the front. 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: Ah! So they’re different. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Because I think that’s what matters. Thank you. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: Should we be working off of the PowerPoint slides or the attachment? 8
9
Mr. Wong: No, my apologies. That, the, for Program 2.2.1, the revised Program about flexible 10
concessions that change should have been made in the, in your attachment of the revised goals, 11
policies, and programs. So my apologies, Program 2.2.1 is in the revised goals, policies, and 12
programs should say “utilize density bonus provisions with consideration” etcetera, etcetera. So 13
my apologies to Commissioner Keller for that confusion. But… 14
15
Commissioner Tuma: It doesn’t matter because we’re getting rid of it anyway. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: So maybe we should go from the one in the back, because that might be 18
easier to amend? If we take the wording that’s in this document and revise it to say “Adopt an 19
ordinance for density bonus concessions to encourage development of suitable housing sites 20
currently planned and zoned for nonresidential use of mixed use projects to contribute to the 21
City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs.” I think that that would work. So see if that 22
makes sense to you and if it does, that’s, then… 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask Staff, does that get across what we’re trying to say? 25
26
Mr. Wong: Well as a Staff we’d like to see the wording of the “flexible concessions” be included 27
versus adopting a local ordinance just to encourage or to promote, we’d like to see the “flexible 28
concessions.” 29
30
Commissioner Tuma: I’m gonna continue with my version of my… 31
32
Commissioner Keller: Sure. Please. 33
34
Commissioner Tuma: So, that paragraph would read as follows, “Adopt an ordinance for density 35
bonus concessions to ensure more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that propose 36
smaller units at a higher density to encourage development of suitable housing sites currently 37
planned and zoned for nonresidential use with mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair 38
share of the region’s housing needs.” 39
40
Commissioner Keller: If I may can I suggest just a slight simplification of that? 41
42
Commissioner Tuma: Sure. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: And what I would say is, “Adopt an ordinance for the density bonus 45
concessions to increase flexibility in the development of projects.” 46
Page
19
1
Commissioner Tuma: That’s not what I’m proposing. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Ok. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, it was a slight change. Why don’t you just let it go? 6
7
Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that the way that it’s done, what he said is “Adopt an 8
ordinance for density bonus concessions to ensure more flexible.” I don’t know how you ensure 9
more flexible. That’s the problem I have. 10
11
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. Well we’ll use the word “provide,” “promote,” promote is a better 12
word. 13
14
Commissioner Keller: To “promote more flexible.” 15
16
Commissioner Tuma: Yes. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: “Promote more flexible concessions and incentives.” 19
20
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah. If you just work off of the most recent version of the language 21
which is in the PowerPoint presentation that’s what I’m working off of. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: You’re working off PowerPoint I’m working off this, which one is it? Is 24
that the same as? I think the PowerPoint is the same as this one. 25
26
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: So what you’re saying, is delete, is this one says “Adopt an ordinance for 29
density bonus concessions to promote more flexible concessions and incentives to projects that 30
propose smaller units at higher density,” etcetera. That’s what you’re saying? 31
32
Commissioner Tuma: Correct. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Ok, I’ll accept that. 35
36
AMENDMENT 37
38
Commissioner Tuma: And finally for program 2.2.2 in the revised language and this is again off 39
of PowerPoint slide number seven. Delete the words “and only” and put in the word “but,” and 40
in the very last sentence where it says “maximum average unit size of 900 feet” just delete the 41
word “average.” 42
43
Mr. Williams: May I make a suggestion? 44
Commissioner Tuma: Sure. 45
46
Page
20
Chair Martinez: Planning Director. 1
2
Mr. Williams: On that where you put in the, take out “and only” and replace it with “but,” is 3
there a reason maybe we shouldn’t just say take out the whole thing of “and only requires 4
architectural review” and just say “the incentive eliminates site and design review for mixed use 5
projects if the project meets the following criteria.” What I’m thinking is there are other things 6
beside architectural review that could be required too and the implication to some may be that 7
architectural review is all that’s required. Which is maybe why this language is in there because 8
we wanted to show that to HCD, but on the other hand there are PC’s and variances and things 9
like that that may be required separate from the whole site and design issue. So I’m just thinking 10
just eliminate site and design review for it, but it doesn’t eliminate anything else. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Ok. Wait a minute. Vice Chair Fineberg had a question first. 13
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: Could Staff clarify whether it would make sense to say site and design 15
review by the Planning Commission? Would that be better, or, because will some people think 16
that Architectural Review Board (ARB) doesn’t need to do review if they consider ARB as 17
design review a site and design. I’m just trying to figure out how to make it really clear. 18
19
Mr. Williams: Well this is, I mean, this is at a level that’s higher than the specifics of the review 20
process, so I would and I mean that might be unclear if you leave just architectural review in 21
there, if you take that out entirely then that isn’t an issue cause you don’t see the words 22
architectural review and you’re not thinking was that the Commission or is it ARB or who is 23
involved? I don’t know. So, Tim is there a reason we can’t just take out “and only 24
architectural?” And only requires architectural review. 25
26
Mr. Wong: No, that should be fine. 27
28
Mr. Williams: I think that’s just much simpler language and it doesn’t, it doesn’t bring up the 29
question of somebody looking at this and saying, “Well if I don’t have to do site and design 30
review then all I have to do is architectural review,” but they have a variance that’s required due, 31
so. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: Is it fair to say that our ordinances for site and design review are 34
specifically referred to that that occurs by the Planning Commission? 35
36
Mr. Williams: No, I mean the site and design review process specifically outlines the Planning 37
Commission, and Council, and ARB. All three bodies. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Ok, so we’re simply saying is we’re eliminating site and design review 40
but we’re continuing all the other stuff in this way. 41
42
Mr. Williams: Right. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 45
46
Page
21
Chair Martinez: Next time, make sure to be called upon. 1
2
Commissioner Keller: Sorry. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Because Commissioner Michael has been patiently waiting. 5
6
Commissioner Michael: So Chair Martinez I just have a sort of a observation and suggestion 7
about our process. I think that you’ve focused us on the major issues and now we’re setting up 8
to have sort of an up or down vote on a collection of many major issues and it sort of makes it all 9
or nothing if there’s an individual Commissioner who has some concern about a particular detail 10
the only way to register their concern with that would be to vote against the entire Motion. And I 11
think it would be served and would have better quality output if we approved these one by one. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Not so fast, we’re not done yet. I wanted to get through the major items from 14
our previous discussion and which we’ve been trying to deal with through this point. There are 15
some additional items that you’ve brought up that I want to make sure are brought into the 16
discussion before we vote, including some of the comments made by the public. I was troubled 17
by some of the issues brought up and wanted to ask Staff about them when the time comes. So, 18
we shall hold the vote, give you a chance to raise additional concerns and perhaps they can be an 19
amendment to the Motion. Commissioner Tuma you had something else to add. 20
21
AMENDMENT 22
23
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I had one last friendly amendment, which I’m sure is not going to be 24
so friendly, but that’s Program 2.1.1 changing the very first word to “explore” from “consider.” 25
26
Chair Martinez: Are we gonna fight over a word tonight? I see no objections to that. 27
Commissioner Keller. 28
[ 29
Commissioner Keller: 2.1.1 which, where is it on our chart? Ok. I’d actually prefer “consider” 30
only because it doesn’t require that we actually do it, it just means we have to consider it. And if 31
you say “explore” I interpret that means that you’re expecting that it will occur. 32
33
Chair Martinez: I don’t see the difference, so. 34
35
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. That’s fine, I will withdraw that. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Ok, I’m gonna [interrupted] 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: So I think that pretty much frames it up and then that’s [doesn’t complete 42
the sentence]. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael you had some other things to stir up? 45
46
Page
22
Commissioner Tuma: If I might just, by way of explanation I think I know where he’s going and 1
maybe I can clarify something there? Not substantively, just procedurally. 2
Chair Martinez: Ok. 3
4
Commissioner Tuma: So, not that this isn’t necessarily right, but our practice in the past has been 5
to sort of lay out, lay the Motion out in the way that we have where we put all the elements into a 6
single Motion. Not necessarily always the most productive, but it seems to work and then we go 7
back and debate pieces of it. And so, for example if you’re not comfortable with use of, the 8
elimination of the word “average,” you might bring that up in the discussion and we can modify 9
the Motion to take that out if people are persuaded. So we may be able to get to consensus as a 10
single Motion through that type of discussion. That’s just by way of history. Doesn’t mean it’s 11
necessarily right but that’s how we’ve done it sometimes in the past. 12
13
Commissioner Michael: So I’m impressed by the parliamentary acumen of the group and I’m 14
humbled by all that I have to learn. The process of doing complex drafting in a public hearing 15
format strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. And I think that there’s a risk in terms of, you’ve got 16
six very independent, very bright people with, you know, linguistic specificity, just passion to get 17
it exactly right and we’re gonna be here either forever and then we’re gonna start to get tired and 18
then we’re just gonna make mistakes. 19
20
So, I think when you break down the particular issues of great importance eliciting the public 21
input, our comments, when we have agreement and clarity on a particular major point we should 22
vote it up or down. I’m willing to go with the tradition, it just baffles me. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Ok. I did have a question about some of the comments made by the public. For 25
example, I didn’t remember or recall that we had revised the use of churches for homeless 26
shelters on a thirty day period. Can Staff comment on that, whether, what we’re doing with that 27
particular program? 28
29
Mr. Wong: Sure, I believe that policy that the gentleman was referring to was, hold on let me get 30
that specific policy. It’s policy 3.5.1 and it’s talking about entering into discussions with local 31
churches participating in the City’s year round Hotel DeZink emergency shelter program. 32
33
Yes, right now it’s a month program at the 12 churches and they rotate the care, if you will, of 34
the homeless in their shelter for 30 days and it’s about a 15 bed facility in each of the churches. 35
This program is proposed because of the State legislation SB 2 that requires that each jurisdiction 36
zone for a homeless shelter or emergency shelter to meet its unmet homeless need. And so this 37
was to say instead of to approach the churches and saying instead of you caring for or having a 38
15 bed shelter for a month each, that if all twelve churches participated with 15 beds each then 39
there’s a possibility that, that way the City could meet its unmet need for homeless beds. Right 40
now currently I think our unmet need is 97 beds, 94, 97 beds, so by approaching the churches to 41
see if they can go permanent, that would help fulfill the City’s unmet emergency shelter bed 42
requirement. 43
44
Chair Martinez: And on, I’m sorry, my mind’s kind of going blank, but there was some other 45
things that they brought up, did you kind of keep a list of those? 46
Page
23
1
Mr. Williams: A hotel, so the Creek Side and the gas stations. 2
3
Roland Rivera, Senior Planner: Roland Rivera, Senior Planner, Planning Department. The 4
question about whether or not, why are some hotels or motels or lodging facilities included in the 5
housing inventory sites? We did take out several of those types of uses off the Housing 6
Inventory Sites but we did retain some of them only because they either have they are currently 7
zoned for multifamily residential and the land use designation is multifamily residential, or they 8
or a part of their parcel or lot is zoned for multifamily residential. And has land use designation 9
of multifamily residential. 10
11
As far as the gas stations are concerned. Without looking at, you know, the third gas station, my 12
guess would be that the third gas station didn’t meet the lot size requirement. 13
14
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Oh, I’m sorry, Commissioner Tanaka. 15
16
Commissioner Tanaka: I just wanted to ask about Program H 1.12, so 112. And this was about 17
amnesty for illegal second units, and I think Staff said that the program does not reward creation 18
of illegal units. But I seem to remember at the last discussion on this the Commission was 19
actually fully united on this issue in terms of not allowing, or not creating amnesty for second 20
units and maybe Staff could talk about the response and why it should not change? 21
22
Mr. Wong: Well I believe that the program maintained or stayed or wasn’t revised is that 23
although the units may have been created illegally, the program specifies that they must be 24
brought up to current code. In other words, legalized, so therefore, Staff felt it was appropriate 25
to leave this particular program in. 26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: The only thing is just I remember this one being almost fairly, unless my 28
maybe my memory’s wrong but it seemed to be fairly consistent among most Commissioners so 29
I was a little bit surprised to see that one. 30
31
Chair Martinez: I was trying to get them to remove amnesty cause I think that really conveys the 32
wrong message. The idea is more related to public safety. If you have people living in a fire 33
trap, we want to do all we can to try to get those brought up to code, the wiring to be corrected, 34
the, you know, heating and ventilation and those issues and that’s why it’s encouraging people to 35
come forward and try to legitimize their living unit. It has nothing to do with, you know, 36
rewarding them or just turning the other cheek. It had to do with public safety of inadequate 37
living conditions. 38
39
Anything else Commissioner? Ok. Vice Chair Fineberg. 40
41
Vice Chair Fineberg: My final comment is not something that necessarily needs to be part of the 42
Motion, but a number of times in past reviews the Commission has asked for redacted copy of 43
the proposed Housing Element where the original Housing Element and the proposed Housing 44
Element are interlaced on the same piece of paper. So that you can track what was old, if it got 45
moved, if it got modified or deleted, and what’s new. 46
Page
24
1
And I think it’s absolutely imperative that when this goes to Council, Council get a copy of it 2
where, for instance, Goal H1 in our proposal was Goal 2. And Goal 2 is Goal 1, and then within 3
that structure they are then modified. So I sat down and said, “Ok, what happened to old Goal 4
1?” And then I had to go, “Oh! It’s Goal 2 now and we just swapped the order and then we 5
made changes.” And then I found that Goal 3 and Goal 4 were fundamentally the same, but we 6
gave them new names. Instead of “affordable housing” is proposed it used to be called “housing 7
diversity” and then instead of “housing discrimination” it was “fair housing.” But, you really 8
have to work hard to figure that out if you don’t see left column, right column, Ok, it’s a name 9
change as opposed to oh, it’s something new or different. So, I, I don’t know how to say this but 10
it really needs to go to Council where they can read the whole thing old, the whole thing new. 11
See what the changes are, see what’s the same, see what’s new, see what’s old and make it easy 12
for them. 13
14
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 15
16
Commissioner Tanaka: On Program 3.1.2 G, this was about allowing development of duplexes in 17
R1 zoning, and I guess in general I’m just a little bit troubled by having, it’s almost like R2 18
zoning if you increase it, if you allow duplexes in R1 zoning. So maybe can Staff talk a little bit 19
about, I don’t know, if maybe the… Ok, sorry maybe the chart’s not clear? ok. Sorry, never 20
mind about that one. 21
22
Ok. And then the last one is 2.1.3, I guess what’s the rational for not just letting the market 23
decide the densities for the RM 15 zoning versus forcing a minimum zoning? 24
25
Mr. Wong: In that particular program I will say it was a carryover from the previous Housing 26
Element and as about approximately 80% of these policies were carried over from the previous 27
Housing Element so they were just carried forward since they weren’t completed in the past 28
Housing Element. 29
30
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Well, I mean to me it seems to make sense to let the market set the 31
density because maybe it doesn’t fit the lot or, maybe, so I guess I’d like to make a friendly 32
amendment that for Program 2.1.3 that instead of forcing 8 dwelling units per acre that basically 33
just, maybe actually I guess the easiest thing is to strike out 2.1.3 unless there’s a good reason to 34
keep it. 35
36
Mr. Williams: If I could just mention that, you know, I think it does get back to unit sizes. The 37
market that we’ve seen and one of the reasons we have, you know, have had all these 38
developments that we’ve had have been in multifamily zoning districts or industrial districts that 39
allow you to use multifamily zoning. And one of the reason that we have 2,000, 2,400 square 40
foot units is because we did not impose a minimum density on them and so the market is let’s 41
build bigger units and have families and etcetera in there. So we’ve have this, as Tim said, 42
we’ve had this policy there in our zoning ordinance update back in 2007 or so, what’s one of the 43
items we brought forward and frankly it was shot down pretty quickly. But, I think we’ve, at 44
that time, the same issues weren’t before us. I think now if we’re serious about trying to drive 45
down the size of units this would be a useful tool to do that. So I think that’s the primary benefit 46
Page
25
of it, you know, you know, others may see it as kind of a density, you know, pushing higher 1
densities but I think to the extent that we use it to, you know, reduce the unit size that that’s 2
helpful. But it is a policy determination; it’s not something we have to have in there. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 5
6
Vice Chair Fineberg: If Staff could correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I remember that one of 7
the other reasons for having that is that if we have a site on the housing inventory list that’s RM 8
15 and let’s say it’s an acre and somebody builds 8 houses and we were expecting 15, we then 9
have to go find in the new Housing Element another site to replace those lost units that weren’t 10
built at the expected density. So it, it keeps us from having to go figure out new places to build 11
more housing in the next cycle if we come closer to the minimum required density. 12
13
Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioners are we ready to vote on the Motion? A few more, ok. 14
Commissioner Keller. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: So these are things from my list at the beginning of the discussion. So I’m 17
not gonna add this to the Motion but you have to renumber H 1.2.2 to H 1.2.1. That’s just an 18
error. Ok. The second thing is, I’m not gonna make this as part of the Motion but adding the 19
word “are” between “and are compatible surrounding uses” in H.2.2.3 makes sense. And we 20
talked about adding the BMR threshold and requirement. I’m not gonna add that to the Motion, 21
but you’ve got that, right? And I’ll give you this. And then 3.1.2 A, adding “BMR” before 22
“component” is a change. And adding “rate” between “market” and “unit” in H2 1.2.D, 3.1.2 D 23
and H 3.1.2 E, I gave you that information; I think you should do it. I’m not gonna make that 24
formally part of the Motion but I think it’s clear. 25
26
In H2 3.1.2 I, I think this is something that we should evaluate. It’s not something I brought up 27
but we didn’t discuss and that is we have a, and with respect to what was mentioned by 28
Commissioner Michael, I’ve been a fan of straw votes, but this Commission has not chosen to do 29
that. So perhaps this will persuade you to lean towards that direction. But the current thing it 30
says, “revise the method of calculating the number of required BMR units by basing a number of 31
BMR units required on the maximum density allowable on the site instead of the total number of 32
the proposed units in the development.” 33
34
And I’m suggesting that that be “evaluate revising,” rather than “revise.” And the reason for that 35
is because there are interactions such as, does that mean that you’re gonna allow smaller BMR 36
units that are smaller than the other units on the complex? There are some interactions that I 37
don’t think we’ve adequately considered and I don’t think the evaluation as was in the Staff 38
report says that TAG and PTC evaluated it. I don’t consider that a full evaluation, so I’m going 39
to suggest that this one be “evaluate revising” rather than “revise” and ask if there’s any 40
comments about that and then I’ll make it as an Amendment and then the Seconder can consider 41
that. Any comments about that? 42
43
Chair Martinez: So you’re asking that the word “evaluate” be inserted? 44
45
AMENDMENT 46
Page
26
1
Commissioner Keller: I suggested the word “evaluate” be inserted. Instead of “revise” it be 2
“evaluate revising,” and then we get to formally consider it. Do people have objection to that? 3
Ok, then I’m gonna make that as an Amendment. 4
5
SECOND 6
7
Chair Martinez: Ok, and you’re ok with it? Ok. 8
AMENDMENT 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Ok, the next thing, this is 3.1.6. This one says, “encourage the use of 11
flexible development standards for a ratio in architectural solutions,” blah, blah, blah. But it 12
doesn’t explicitly indicate that this is part of a Housing Density Bonus Ordinance. And I think 13
that that matters. So I’m gonna suggest that at the end of H 3.1.6 we say, “, as part of the 14
Housing Density Bonus Ordinance,” and I have an Amendment that I’d like to offer. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Does Staff have any comment on that before we, but is there a reason why it 17
wasn’t made part of the Density Bonus? 18
19
Mr. Wong: And please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think that was the initial intent of this 20
particular program that it be considered as part of the Density Bonus Package, but just a separate 21
program to help, another incentive if you will, to attract greater development in residential 22
housing. But I don’t believe it was ever part of, to be part of the Density Bonus Program, or, if 23
you will. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: May I respond to that? 26
27
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: I think that there’s been a sentiment at least from some members of this 30
Commission that we don’t need additional incentives for housing development and that we want 31
incentives to be part of the Density Bonus rules and then it’s unclear if you have things that are 32
part of the Density Bonus Ordinance and then things that are not part of Density Bonus 33
Ordinance what counts and what doesn’t count. 34
35
Chair Martinez: So Commissioner Keller you’re requesting that be an Amendment to the Motion 36
as well, that it be made part of the Density Bonus Program. Commissioner Tuma? 37
38
Commissioner Tuma: Let me, I’m not necessarily supportive of that in the context of 3.1.6 39
because 3.1.6 specifically doesn’t generally talk about building units. It’s in the design of 40
projects with a substantial BMR component. So what this particular provision is targeted toward 41
is incentivizing projects with substantial BMR components. And so, so, that to me that’s the 42
different then if it wasn’t pointing to specific to BMR or project with substantial BMR 43
components then I would agree with you. But here, this is an incentive targeted specifically at 44
creating more BMR units. 45
46
Page
27
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Keller. 1
2
Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what Commissioner Tuma is saying, however, every housing, 3
every for sale development housing development project in the City has a substantial BMR 4
component of at least 15%. Every one, with the exception of in lieu units, and therefore they are 5
entitled to at least one concession. And this basically says that if they have a substantial BMR 6
component they get Floor Area Ratio limits being flexible and to me, that’s a concession. And 7
that’s why I think that this should be explicitly as part of the Bonus Density Ordinance and I 8
would not want to incentivize over and above the Bonus Density Ordinance. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: Well, I suppose it. I’m sorry. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Yes, Vice Chair Fineberg first. 13
14
Vice Chair Fineberg: My question on this is how do you define substantial? And it sounds like 15
from a chuckle that that’s Commissioner Tuma’s question too. If 15% of every housing 16
development has a substantial component then it’s a freebie in excess of the ones already 17
mandated by the State’s Housing Density Bonus Laws. 18
19
If we have a 100,000 square foot office building with 10 units and 7 of them are BMR’s, is that 20
substantial? Is substantial relative to the whole mass of the building? Even though it’s, you 21
know, a little freckle on a whole body? Or is it that it’s over 100 units, or over 50 units, so, you 22
know, this is, if I can quote Commissioner Tuma maybe quoting me, what’s substantial and the 23
Devil’s in the detail. Can we instead of saying substantial have a number, like in excess of X 24
units? And we’re codifying what we mean as opposed to leaving it for decision project by 25
project and then we always struggle in a project review whereas we should have clear directive 26
from the policy. So what if we say, at least, I’m just throwing out a random number, 25 maybe 27
50? BMR units. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Planning Director, please. 30
31
Mr. Williams: Yeah, actually now in looking at this, is this a carryover from our pervious? Yes, 32
this is a carry from the previous and at that time we really didn’t have the Density Bonus Law in 33
effect. I really, I think that if you had substantial BMR we would then be talking about the 34
Density Bonus being part of it, so I don’t see it as being inconsistent to say something like 35
“consistent with the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance,” or something like that. I don’t know if 36
that’s the language Commissioner Keller was using or not, but I think you’ll find that when we 37
come forward, back to you with the Density Bonus Ordinance we’re gonna provide, you know, a 38
lot more flexibility for 100% affordable housing projects in terms of concessions than for 39
something that’s got the minimum 15% on it. So I think something along those lines is 40
workable. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller are you good with that? 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Yeah. What I had said, and I’m not sure this is, I said as part of the 45
Housing Density Bonus Ordinance and the reason I’m saying that is that we would then 46
Page
28
implement this though the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance and rather than right now try to 1
argue about 50% or some other random number let’s just do it through the ordinance and we’ll 2
consider it in detail. 3
4
SECOND 5
6
Commissioner Tuma: That’s fine. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok. So we’re adding language about the ordinance? I’m not sure what we’re 11
doing here. 12
Commissioner Keller: what we did is at the end of H 3.1.6 we added at the very end, “, as part of 13
the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance.” And I think that’s what we just did. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Ok. Alright. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: May I continue? 18
19
Chair Martinez: Ok. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: Yeah, so the next thing is in 3.1.7 there’s a question with this and the 22
question is it says now, “SRO units preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods.” And 23
I’m not sure if it’s necessary to say, “and are compatible with adjacent uses,” or not, but, in some 24
places we say it some places we don’t. It says it’s there’s a comment here about its already 25
obvious in there, but I’m not sure it’s obvious. If people, if people in a neighborhood found out 26
that this was going in there and we didn’t consider compatibility issues, I think there would be a 27
lot of complaints about that. So I would prefer if it actually added after neighborhoods, “and are 28
compatible with adjacent uses.” 29
30
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, I think the point was that we have a policy that states that and 31
under land use that development should be compatible with surrounding neighborhood uses. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: Well some places we added it and some places we didn’t. So… 34
35
Chair Martinez: Well we added it in places like Stanford Research Park where it’s sort of an 36
outlander. 37
38
AMENDMENT 39
40
Commissioner Keller: Ok, I’ll withdraw that. With respect to 3.1.8 the Staff Report made this 41
change, but it wasn’t actually made at the end. And the thing that was missing was it was, as 42
proscribed, proscribed in a nexus impact fee study. However the word proscribed means 43
prohibited. So I think you mean prescribed. So I’m going to suggest that we amend 3.1.8 adding 44
as the Staff Report said, corrected, at the end, “as prescribed in a nexus impact fee study.” 45
Page
29
Because your Staff Report said it, but it didn’t actually make it to the end. Can I offer that as a 1
friendly Amendment? 2
3
Chair Martinez: Hold on a bit. Vice Chair. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m sorry this may be version control. I’m looking at in the Staff Report 6
Attachment C, which is a revised draft, H 3.1.8 and it doesn’t have any of the language you’re 7
talking about. It says, “Require developers of employment generating commercial and industrial 8
developments to contribute to the supply of low and moderate income housing through the 9
provision of commercial in lieu fees.” So is your comment really to something other than 3.1.8? 10
11
Commissioner Keller: I am looking at 3.1.8 in the very back. This stuff here, which is what I’ve 12
been going through the whole time, because this is the actual description of the revised Housing 13
Element policies, and goals, and programs and all of that. So that’s what I’ve been basing it on, 14
and I notice that in [interrupted] 15
Vice Chair Fineberg: Is that Attachment C even though it’s not labeled? 16
17
Commissioner Keller: I don’t know if it’s Attachment C or not, it’s not labeled, it’s the thing 18
that’s labeled “Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs” and then it says “Vision.” And if you 19
look at the section with red print, 3.1.8 says, over here, if you look over here, in this section, 20
there’s before that I’m not sure what attachment this is either, but there’s an attachment which 21
refers to Commissioner Keller’s comments. Or “April 11th Commissioner Comments, Draft 22
Housing Element.” And in that one it adds a language at the end of 3.1.8 as “proscribed in a 23
nexus impact fee study.” But that language was not actually added [interrupted] 24
25
Mr. Wong: Chair Martinez, could I just clarify that real quick? Yes, I believe what 26
Commissioner Keller is referring to is, it’s Attachment B in which Commissioner Keller 27
submitted some comments and there were some responses. It’s Attachment B, it’s the one that 28
April 11th Commission Comments, where the responses from Staff or the subcommittee are in 29
red. So, in that it said that Commissioner Keller did have that comment about Program 3.1.8 and 30
the response does say, “see proposed language added.” So, where it says “as proscribed in the 31
nexus impact fee study,” and so, but, I apologize that was not transferred over to the Attachment 32
C, which is the revised goals, policies, and programs and it will be because that was at the 33
subcommittee direction to add that. So that will be added. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Great, so I’m just making explicit because I want it prescribed not 36
proscribed. I’m just making that clear as an Amendment. 37
38
Mr. Wong: Correct and that’s noted. 39
40
Commissioner Keller: I think. Ok. 41
42
Chair Martinez: But we’re adding it as a correction, not to the Motion. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: We’re adding it as a correction? That’s fine. You can add that as a 45
correction. Great, just make sure that it’s prescribed. Thank you. 46
Page
30
1
Mr. Wong: Noted. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: In terms of 3.1.2 there were various other places where we considered, we 4
talked about considering ordinance changes. So this is perhaps more substantive. So right now 5
it says, “consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of limiting market rate housing 6
development,” which is very wordy and much more complicated than it needs to be. So how 7
about, “consider modifying the zoning ordinance to limit, etcetera.” And that allows us to 8
consider modifying the zoning ordinance and we either do or we don’t and whatever’s involved 9
in modifying we, so this one is 3.1.2, “consider conducting a study to assess the impacts of 10
limiting market rate housing development to the City’s above market moderate allocation of the 11
current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHND) planning cycle.” And I’m suggesting that 12
rather than “conducting a study to assess the impacts,” we simply say, “consider modifying the 13
zoning ordinance to limit market rate housing.” And we do that as part of a consideration of an 14
ordinance and do whatever is necessary to do that evaluation. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, I think that’s a bigger leap than what you had originally asked. 17
Pardon? So, since it’s achieving what you had asked for why don’t we just leave it? 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Ok. Well, I’m not sure it’s achieving because it says you have to do a 20
study when I’m simply saying do it as part of an ordinance. But ok, since my Seconder doesn’t 21
accept that, I will drop that. And in addition, I have some editorial changes at the end and a few 22
comments I’m not gonna go into. 23
24
A few questions, quickly. One is do the unit counts for the items on California Avenue and 25
University Avenue reflect ground floor retail and have you taken into account ground floor retail 26
and calculation of the Unit counts on University Avenue and California Avenue? 27
28
Mr. Rivera: The unit yields that are on the tables reflect what is currently allowed under the 29
development standards under the current zoning for that particular zone. So yes, it does take into 30
consideration the fact that on a mixed use development you’ll have a certain FAR for 31
commercial uses. 32
33
Commissioner Keller: And also the fact that there is a requirement of ground floor retail in those 34
places. 35
36
Mr. Rivera: That’s correct. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The next issue, do any of these sites include Fry’s Electronics 39
site? 40
41
Mr. Rivera: No it doesn’t. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: And, ok, I’m not gonna bother asking the rest of the questions after that. 44
It would be helpful when this goes in the final published version if there were a list of Housing 45
Inventory Sites listed by street name and then by street address. Sorted by street name and street 46
Page
31
address, otherwise there’s so many different listings it’s hard to figure out whether your site is on 1
them or not. If it were listed by that as one of the ways it would be clear. 2
3
And lastly, there are three sites or three collections of sites that I would consider; I want us to 4
consider whether we remove. One of those sites is that one of the things on the housing 5
inventory site is Whole Foods Market and parking lot, and I really don’t think we want to 6
encourage Whole Foods being replaced by housing. Secondly, there’s a lot, the same thing is 7
now true about the California Park Boulevard site. California and Park Boulevard site with 8
Mollie Stone’s Market. That’s a site, and I was only able to figure this out by looking at the 9
map. And I really don’t think we want to include Mollie Stone’s Market and encourage that to 10
be replaced by housing. And thirdly is a small part of Encina, off of Encina on the Town and 11
Country site there’s a little piece of land there that’s on this housing inventory. And I don’t think 12
we really want to encourage housing over there behind Town and Country. So I think we have 13
enough Housing Inventory Sites that we can drop these three categories. 14
15
Chair Martinez: Staff can we get your response? 16
17
Mr. Rivera: Those sites were included because they are currently zoned for a mixed use 18
development. So, for example the Mollie Stone’s, it’s in a commercial zone so technically right 19
now somebody can, we’re not necessarily encouraging it, we’re just showing HCD that this 20
particular site can accommodate a certain number of residential units. Technically right now a 21
developer can come in Mollie Stone’s and develop a mixed use development without going 22
through rezoning and I think that’s what we’re trying to show ACD is that this site is capable, 23
has the capacity to accommodate those number of units. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Well if you ask me since we have enough extra units around on our list, 26
I’d much prioritize having a few parking lots that are major grocery stores. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 29
30
Vice Chair Fineberg: Would a sort of solution be that we leave those sites in the inventory and 31
make a commitment that this body will bring back the concept of the grocery overlay and would 32
that work then if it were to be redeveloped it either Mollie Stone’s or Whole Foods were to be 33
redeveloped as mixed use with a grocery overlay that it would have to come back with a grocery. 34
And then there could be the additional housing with the retention of a grocery. 35
36
Mr. Williams: Well that isn’t something that we could put into the Housing Element, and I would 37
question the grocery over. I mean I don’t think that we’ve discussed this before that, you know, 38
if you had a shopping center and maybe say that there has to be a grocery in it, that’s one thing. 39
If you have a site and say that site has to have a grocery store, one specific use, I think we’re in 40
difficult legal waters there. So I think it would be hard to do that. But I also, to sort of build on 41
what Roland said, I meant there are a lot of these. I’m not expecting that this designation is 42
going to make any difference on either of those parcels like Roland said, they are already zoned 43
to do that as it is. So if they’re gonna do something with it then they do. It’s not gonna be 44
because of the Housing Element. But, there are getting to be a lot of examples of grocery stores 45
with housing above them too around so and this and the zoning in both of those areas is such that 46
Page
32
it requires retail, retail at least on the ground floor. So you couldn’t come in there and put, just 1
take down the grocery store and put a resident project. A wholly residential project. There still 2
has to be retail ground floor to it. And that’s why we put it on the list. 3
4
I understand the issue of, you know, maybe we’ve got a little bit more than the absolute number, 5
but we’re not so far above that that, you know, a site here or there gets knocked out or like Vice 6
Chair Fineberg said, you know, something doesn’t get developed it gets at less than that density 7
we need to have hopefully a little bit of wiggle room. 8
9
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller is losing his voice. Maybe this is a good time to call for 10
a… 11
12
Commissioner Keller: Sure, let me withdraw that suggestion with reservations. If that ever gets 13
converted and we lose those grocery stores and find mixed use with other stores and housing, 14
don’t say I didn’t warn you. With that I’ll close my Amendment proposals. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Has anyone kept track of the Motion and the Amendments? Can we? Do you 17
want to read it back to us before we vote? 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Yes. The Motion is to recommend to the City Council approving of the 20
Housing Element with the following Amendments. In 2.1.1 replace “major transit” with “fixed 21
rail,” and also call out for the Council 2.1.1 whether the Council should drop it or whether they 22
stand behind it or portions of it, whether they want to drop portions of it. In 2.2.1 we start off 23
with the part that’s in the Staff Report but not the description in the back of the ordinance which 24
is different. It started off with “adopt an ordinance for Density Bonus Concessions to promote 25
more flexible concessions and incentives, etcetera.” In 2.2.2 we delete the phrase “and only 26
requires architectural review,” in the main body and we delete, the third bullet, in third bullet 27
delete the word “average.” In 3.1.6 we add at the ends “as part of the Housing Density Bonus 28
Ordinance.” And also at 3.1.2 I think we agreed to add revising, “and evaluate revising,” instead 29
of just revising. And I think that’s the extent of our changes, and the other ones were just 30
considered editorial that Staff can put into as they as the appropriate. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Tim do you have anything to add to that? 33
34
Mr. Wong: Just to clarify with, I didn’t catch Commissioner Keller, but with Program 2.2.2, just 35
to clarify, we are eliminating that phrase, “and only requires architectural review.” I believe 36
that’s what was agreed upon. To just eliminate that phrase completely. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Yes. We are eliminating that phrase completely and we’re also 39
eliminating the word “average.” So those are the two changes. Thank you. 40
41
Mr. Wong: Correct. Yeah. I agree, just clarifying that. 42
43
VOTE 44
45
Page
33
Chair Martinez: Ok, we’re good to go. Let’s call for the vote. Those in favor of the Motion, say 1
Aye. Aye. Those opposed? The Motion passed unanimously with… Oh, I’m sorry. Ok. You 2
abstained. Then the Motion passes with Commissioner Keller, Tanaka, Martinez, Fineberg, 3
Tuma voting in support, and Commissioner Michael abstaining. Ok. Thank you very much for 4
that. Thanks Staff, it was really a great job. 5
6
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1, Commissioner Michael abstaining) 7
.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Council Meeting Date: May 22, 2012
Staff Report #: 12-081
Agenda Item #: F1
REGULAR BUSINESS: Approval of a Settlement Agreement Regarding Housing
Element Litigation; Approval of the Work Program for the
Housing Element Update and Technical Update of the
General Plan; Approval of Overall Budget of $1,150,000
and Adoption of Resolutions Appropriating a Total of
$714,000 from General Fund Reserves for FY 2011-12;
Authorization of the City Manager to Enter Into Contracts
in excess of $50,000; Creation of a Housing Element
Steering Committee and Appointment of Two Council
Members
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a Settlement Agreement settling lawsuit filed by Peninsula Interfaith
Action, Urban Habitat Program and Youth United for Community Action, San
Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 513882, and Authorize the City
Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and enter into a
Stipulated Judgment (Attachment C),
2. Adopt a Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2011-12 budget appropriating
$114,000 from the General Fund Reserve for payment of Petitioner's attorney's
fees as required pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement (Attachment
A);
3. Approve the work program for the Housing Element Update and Technical
Update of the General Plan, which includes a community outreach process and
selection criteria for housing sites (Attachment D);
4. Adopt a Resolution establishing an overall budget of $1,150,000 for the Housing
Element Update and Technical Update of the General Plan and amending the
Fiscal Year 2011-12 budget appropriating $600,000 from the General Fund
Reserve for the consultant services (Attachment B);
5. Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts for consulting services
in excess of $50,000 for the Housing Element Update and Technical Update of
341
the General Plan, provided the total amounts of the contracts are less than the
Council-approved budget for the Housing Element Update; and
6. Authorize the creation of a Housing Element Steering Committee comprised of
two Planning Commissioners, two Housing Commissioners, appointed by the
respective chairs, and two Council Members; and appoint two Council Members
to serve on the Housing Element Steering Committee.
BACKGROUND
The housing element is one of seven State-mandated elements of the City's General
Plan, first required by the State in 1969. Housing element law requires local
governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs
including their share of the regional housing need. Housing element law is the State's
primary market-based strategy to increase the supply and diversity of housing. The law
recognizes that in order for the private sector to adequately address housing needs and
demand, local governments must adopt land-use plans and regulatory schemes that
provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. Housing
elements are specifically required to include an assessment of existing and projected
housing needs; a site inventory and analysis of land suitable for residential
development; a plan embodied in goals, policies and implementation strategies to meet
the regional housing needs; an analysis of constraints on housing development;
programs to conserve and improve existing housing stock; and the quantification of new
units to be constructed, rehabilitated or conserved.
The State also requires that housing elements be updated on a schedule set by the
State to account for changes in the local housing market and to identify parcels that can
be rezoned for possible future housing development in order to meet continuing regional
housing needs. The California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) is charged with the review and certification of housing elements and the periodic
updates. Certification of the housing element is a requirement for most State grant and
loan programs.
The City's existing Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in 1992 for the
planning period through 1999. Housing elements are required to be updated within time
periods identified by HCD, generally called "planning periods". Within each planning
period, regional housing needs are identified for each jurisdiction. The regional housing
need as well as other requirements must be met in order for HCD to consider
certification of a jurisdiction's housing element.
For the planning period of 1999 through 2006, Menlo Park was required to plan for 982
units. Although the City commenced an update of the Housing Element, the City
decided to wait to update the Housing Element until the 2007 through 2014 planning
period. For this subsequent planning period, the City was required to plan for 993 units
and complete the update by June 30, 2009. The City did not meet this deadline.
342
On February 28,2012, the CitY Council appropriated $150,000 for fiscal year 2011-12
for legal and consulting services for the Housing Element Update. Jeffery Baird of Baird
+ Driskell Planning, an expert in preparing Housing Elements, has been hired by the
City to assist in analyzing the City's Housing Element and General Plan and preparing a
work plan. On May 8,2012, the City Council held a study session regarding the Housing
Element law and process. The Council received presentations from a panel of experts
in the field.
ANALYSIS
litigation and Settlement Agreement
In January 2012, the City received a letter raising issues with the City's failure to adopt
an updated Housing Element of the General Plan in compliance with State law. The
letter contained a threat of litigation due to this lack of compliance. Subsequently, the
City Council held closed sessions with the City Attorney and City Manager during which
the Council provided direction authorizing negotiations with the parties and their legal
counsel. Consistent with Council direction, the City Attorney negotiated with the legal
counsel for the three housing advocacy organizations, Peninsula Interfaith Action,
Urban Habitat Program and Youth United for Community Action, resulting in a draft
Settlement Agreement. On May 15, 2012, the petitioners filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandate in San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. CIV 513882 suing the City for
failure to adopt an updated Housing Element, failure to rezone sufficient properties to
accommodate the City's allocation of the housing demand and seeking a court order to
compel the City to adopt a legally adequate Housing Element. Attachment C is the
proposed Settlement Agreement pertaining to the lawsuit. (A copy of the lawsuit has
previously been provided to Council.)
The Settlement Agreement includes the following activities and milestones:
• By August 31,2012, the City will prepare an Affordable Housing Analysis which
will include an inventory and analysis of potential housing sites;
• By September 30,2012, the City shall release a Draft Housing Element for public
review;
• By October 31,2012, the City shall submit the Draft Housing Element to the
State Housing and Community Development Department for comment.
• ByMarch 15, 2012, the City shall adopt a Housing Element in compliance with
State law; and
• Within 60 days of adoption of the Housing Element, the City shall adopt
amendments to the remainder of the General Plan to maintain consistency with
the Housing Element and rezone housing sites consistent with the Housing •
Element.
343
The Settlement Agreement also includes terms related to the contents of the Housing
Element, the City's Below Market Housing Program, the City's Permitting Authority and
payment of the litigants' attorney's fees of $114,000, among other terms.
By entering into this Settlement Agreement the City avoids (a) a Court order to adopt a
Housing Element within 120 days, (b) a moratorium on the issuance of non-residential
permits in the City and (c) more costly attorney fees (Pleasanton paid $2 million in
attorney fees as part of their settlement of similar litigation). Through the negotiated
Settlement Agreement, the City has obtained additional time to conduct a more
extensive public outreach process than would otherwise be possible with a court order
to update the Housing Element within 120 days and allows the City to continue issuing
building permits and processing land use applications in the ordinary course of
business.
Housing Element Update and Technical Update of the General Plan Work Program
Attachment Dis the Draft Work Program for the Housing Element Update and the
Technical Update of the General Plan. The Work Program, prepared by Baird + Driskell
Planning in coordination with staff, includes information on the following:
• State Law Requirements;
• Relationship of Current and Future Housing Element Updates;
• Future Comprehensive Update of the General Plan;
• Work Products;
• Key Activities and Responsibilities, including community outreach;
• Key Tasks; and
• Approach to the Available Land Inventory, including criteria for selecting housing
sites.
The Work Program is consistent with the timelines and content contained in the
Settlement Agreement. Given the time constraints of the Settlement Agreement, the
estimated budget for this Work Program is $1,150,000. The Work Program, especially
the Technical Update of the General Plan, will necessitate a number of consultant
contracts to supplement staff resources and provide technical expertise, such as
transportation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, water, community facilities,
and fiscal impacts and to provide additional legal services. Much of the work associated
with the Technical Updates of the General Plan will better prepare the City to conduct
the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan, which is scheduled to commence in
Fiscal Year 2013-14.
344
Contracting Authority
Given the time constraints associated with the Settlement Agreement, staff
recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts
with various consultants in excess of the current limit of $50,000 per contract. The City
will need to enter into a series of consultant contracts, some of which will be less than
$50,000, but the City will also need to enter into contracts in excess of $50,000. By
granting additional contract authority to the City Manager for this project, the City will be
better prepared to meet the milestones established in the Settlement Agreement. In no
event will overall consultant costs and staff costs exceed the overall approved budget
without additional Council direction and authority.
Formation of Steering Committee
The work program includes the creation of a Housing Element Steering Committee
comprised of the following:
• 2 Council Members
• 2 Planning Commissioners
• 2 Housing Commissioners
The Steering Committee would be a Brown Act body and is expected to have four
meetings in June and July and one meeting toward the end of 2012. Staff recommends
that the Council appoint the two Council members on May 22, 2012. Given the time
constraints associated with the Settlement Agreement, staff also recommends that the
City Council authorize the chairs of the Housing Commission and Planning Commission
to appoint the representatives from the two respective bodies based on an expression
of interest and availability by the members. This appointment process will enable the
Committee to meet in early June. Alternatively, the Committee would not be able to
meet until mid-June if Commissions waited to appoint their members at their next
regularly scheduled meetings. The Housing Commission's next meeting is June 6,
2012, and the Planning Commission's next meeting is June 11, 2012.
IMPACT ON CITY RESOURCES
The terms of the Settlement Agreement require the payment of $114,000 for the
litigant's attorney's fees. This money was not included in the Fiscal Year 2011-12
budget and requires an appropriation. Completion of the Housing Element Update and
Technical Update of the General Plan would require both staff resources dedicated to
the project, as well consultant services. The Council has budgeted $150,000 for Fiscal
Year 2011-12 and $400,000 for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Given the time constraints of the
Settlement Agreement, staff estimates that an additional $600,000 will likely be needed
for the consultant services described above. Staff recommends that the City Council
appropriate these additional funds from the General Fund Reserves for Fiscal Year
2011-12, thus establishing a total project budget of $1,150,000.
345
POLICY ISSUES
The housing element update process will consider a number of policy issues including
issues related to the rezoning of properties and increasing of residential densities in the
city.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Government Code Section 65759 provides in part that the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to any action necessary to bring a city's general plan
or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into compliance with any court order or
judgment under State Housing Element law. As required by this provision, the City will
conduct the environmental assessment, the content of which substantially conforms to
the required content for a draft environmental impact report.
l '. in Murphy ,
Development Services Manager
Report Author
PUBLIC NOTICE
Arlinda Heineck
Community Development Director
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting, with this agenda item being listed. In addition, the City sent an email update to
subscribers to the project page for the proposal, which is available at the following
address: http://www.menlopark.org/projects/comdev heu.htm This page provides up
to-date information about the project, allowing interested parties to stay informed of its
progress. The page allows users to sign up for automatic email bulletins, notifying them
when content is updated or meetings are scheduled.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of the City Council of Menlo Park Appropriating Funds for Payment of
the Petitioner's Attorney's Fees to Settle Housing Element Litigation
B. Resolution of the City Council of Menlo Park Appropriating Funds for Consultant
Services for the Housing Element Update
C. Settlement Agreement
D. Work Program for the Revision to the City of Menlo Park Housing Element and
Technical Update of the City of Menlo Park General Plan
v:\staffrpt\cc\2012\052212 -housing element update.doc
346
RESOLU1"ION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR PAYMENT· OF PETIONER'S ATTORNEY'S FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
PENISULA INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT PROGRAM and
YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION
The City of Menlo Park, acting by and through its City Council, having considered and
been fully advised in the matter and good cause appearing therefore,
NOW BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo
Park that the City Council does hereby approve an appropriation of $114,000 from the
General Fund Reserve in Fiscal Year 2011-12 for attorney's fee pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement with Peninsula Interfaith Action, Urban Habitat Program and
youth United for Community Action.
I, Margaret S. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a
meeting by said Council on the twenty-second day of May, 2012, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
said City on this twenty-second day of May, 2012.
Margaret S. Roberts, MMC
City Clerk
347
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLU'riON OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
The City of Menlo Park, acting by and through its City Council, having considered and
been fully advised in the matter and good cause appearing therefore,
NOW BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo
Park that the City Council does hereby approve an overall budget of $1,150,000 for the
Housing Element Update Project and an appropriation of $600,000 'from the General
Fund Reserve in Fiscal Year 2011-12 to fund consultant services for the Housing
Element Update Project.
I, Margaret S. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a
meeting by said Council on the twenty-second day of May, 2012, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
said City on this twenty-second day of May, 2012.
Margaret S. Roberts, MMC
City Clerk
348
ATTACHMENT C
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue ("Settlement Agreement") is entered into
by and among Petitioners PENISULA INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM and YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, and Respondents CITY OF
MENLO PARK and CITY COUNCIL OF MENLO PARK.
1. RECITALS
This Settlement Agreement is entered into based upon the following facts:
LIOn or about January 30 and February 23,2012, in letters to the City of
Menlo Park, Petitioners asserted various shortcomings in the City's
compliance with affordable housing laws and requesting that the City take
action to correct those compliance shortcomings by June 15,2012.
1.2 Soon afterwards, the Parties entered into negotiations in an effort to reach
a settlement.
1.3 The Parties have worked in good faith to arrive at this Settlement
Agreement. As reflected herein, the City has an interest in making
housing more available and affordable in Menlo Park, and has worked
with Petitioners to arrive at a resolution of the issues that promotes the
interests of Menlo Park and the surrounding communities by meeting the
housing needs of lower-income families.
1.4 Among, other things, as set forth below, the City has agreed to identify
potential housing sites that will be competitive for affordable housing
funding under the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, zone
those sites with zoning that provides incentives for affordable housing
production, and set aside a portion of local BMR funds for non-profit
development of affordable housing on those sites.
1.5 On or about May 16, 2012, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate
in the San Mateo County Superior Court entitled Peninsula Interfaith
Action, et at. v. City of Mento Park, et at.
1.6 The Parties desire to fully settle and resolve the merits of the petition for
writ of mandate that the Petitioners have filed, as well as potential CEQA
claims, without further litigation, on the terms and conditions set forth
herein.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 1 of 13 349
350
2. . DEFINITIONS
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
"DATE OF APPROV AL" means the date on which the last of the parties
has executed this Agreement.
"PETITIONERS" means Peninsula Interfaith Action, Urban Habitat
Program and Youth United for Community Action.
"DEFENDANTS" and "CITY" may be used interchangeably herein, and
mean the City of Menlo Park and its City Council.
"PETITIONERS' LITIGATION" means the action filed by Petitioners on
or about May 16, 2012, known as Peninsula Interfaith Action, et al. v. City
of Menlo Park, et al.
"HCD" means the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
"RHNA" means the Regional Housing Needs Allocation as set
periodically by the Association of Bay Area Governments pursuant to
California Government Code section 65584.
"EXTREMELY -LOW INCOME" means a household with an income up
to 30% of the area median income, pursuant to Health & Safety Code §
50106.
"VERY -LOW INCOME" means a household with an income up to 50%
of the area median income, pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 50105.
"LOW INCOME" means a household with a household income between
50% and 80% of the area median income, pursuant to Health & Safety
Code § 50093.
"LOWER INCOME" includes EXTREMELY-LOW INCOME, VERY
LOW INCOME and LOW INCOME.
"PRIOR PLANNING PERIOD" means the period covering the third
revision of the housing element, for which the Association of Bay Area
Governments assigned the City, in or about March 2001, a RHNA
comprising 982 total units, including 184 VERY-LOW INCOME units, 90
LOW-INCOME units, 245 moderate-income units, and 463 above
moderate income units.
"CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD" means the period covering the fourth
revision of the housing element, for which the Association of Bay Area
Governments assigned the City, in or about May 2008, a RHNA
comprising 993 total units, including 226 VERY-LOW INCOME units,
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 2 of 13
163 LOW-INCOME units, 192 moderate-income units, and 412 above
moderate income units.
2.13 "NEXT PLANNING PERIOD" means the period covering the fifth
revision of the housing element, and expected to begin in or about 2014.
2.14 "AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY OR OTHER ZONING
MECHANISM" means a zoning ordinance that provides a package of
incentives (such as permitting residential use in appropriate non
residential zones, increased residential density, reduced parking standards,
streamlined andlor accelerated permitting) available only to developers of
projects that will provide a significant percentage of deed-restricted
residential units affordable to EXTREMELY-LOW INCOME, VERY
LOW INCOME and LOW INCOME households. For purposes ofthis
settlement agreement, "a significant percentage" shall mean substantially
more than 15%.
2.15 "PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS" means the areas surrounding the
E1 Camino Real corridor and downtown Menlo Park, as shown within the
dotted lines in the FOCUS map attached as Exhibit A.
2.16 "LIHTC PROGRAM" means the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Program established by 26 U.S.C. § 42 and administered in California by
the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
2.17 "AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS" means the inventory and
analysis of sites pursuant to Government Code §§ 65583 and 65583.2,
which includes an analysis of the viability and competitiveness of each
site in the site inventory for funding for affordable housing under the
LIHTC Program.
2.18 "BELOW MARKET RATE" or "BMR" program means the program
established in Chapter 16.96 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code with the
purpose of increasing the housing supply for households that have very
low, low and moderate incomes and with the primary objective of creating
actual housing units.
AGREEMENT
3. RECITALS INCORPORATED.
3.1 The above recitals and definitions are incorporated into and made a part of
this Settlement Agreement.
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS
4.1 No later than August 31, 2012, subject to reasonable extension for
unforeseen delays, the City shall prepare and issue publicly a draft
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 3 of 13 351
352
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS which shall include an inventory
and analysis of sites that meets the requirements of Government Code §§
65583 and 65583.2, and shall include an analysis of the viability and
competitiveness of each site in the site inventory for funding for
affordable housing under the LIHTC Program.
4.2 From that AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS, the City shall
designate available sites in the updated Housing Element as appropriate
for affordable housing development, and rezone those sites, as set forth in
Sections 6 and 7, below.
5. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
5.1 No later than the later of September 30,2012, or 30 days from the public
issuance of the draft AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS, and subject
to reasonable extension for unforeseen delays, the City shall prepare and
issue publicly a draft updated Housing Element in compliance with
California law that accommodates, at a minimum, the City's RHNA for
very-low, low and moderate income households for both the Current
Planning Period and the unmet RHNA share for the Prior Planning Period.
5.2 No later than October 31, 2012, subject to reasonable extension for
unforeseen delays, the City shall submit the draft updated Housing
Element to HCD for its statutory compliance review pursuant to
Government Code §65585, with the goal being to obtain findings and a
determination of substantial compliance by HCD. The City shall use best
efforts to obtain such a determination from HCD for the updated Housing
Element.
5.3 The City Council shall consider HCD's determination or other findings
and adopt a Housing Element that substantially complies with California
law for the CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD (including accommodating
the unmet RHNA share for the Prior Planning Period) and includes the
policies and programs described in Section 6, no later than March 15,
2013, subject to reasonable extension for unforeseen delays.
5.3.1 If no findings are timely received from HCD in accordance with
Government Code Section 65585, the City may still take action
to adopt the updated Housing Element by the aforementioned
date.
5.4 Within 60 days of adopting the updated Housing Element, subject to
reasonable extension for unforeseen delays, the City shall complete any
and all General Plan amendments necessary to make the General Plan
consistent with the updated Housing Element and to accommodate in full
its RHNA at each income level for the CURRENT PLANNING PERIOD
and the unmet RHNA share for the Prior Planning Period.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 4 of 13
6. HOUSING ELEMENT CONTENTS
6.1 The draft and adopted Housing Element update referenced in Sections 5.2
and 5.3, above, shall include programs, policies and parameters to rezone
adequate sites from the AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS for
affordable housing and to make all necessary zoning changes to
accommodate such development and make the zoning ordinance internally
consistent. Among other things:
6.1.1 The updated Housing Element will include a ministerial
program to adopt, within 60 days of the adoption of the updated
Housing Element, an AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
OR OTHER ZONING MECHANISM to facilitate the
development of the required number of affordable units,
including units affordable to extremely-low, very-low and low
income households.
6.1.2 The updated Housing Element will include a ministerial
program to apply the AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
OR OTHER WNING MECHANISM to adequate sites to
accommodate the lower-income RHNA, including the sites
identified in the AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS as the
most competitive for the LIHTC Program.
6.1.3 The AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY OR OTHER
ZONING MECHANISM would include a package of incentives
(e.g., permitting residential use in appropriate non-residential
zones, increased residential density, reduced parking standards,
streamlined or accelerated permitting) available only to
developers of projects that will provide a significant percentage
(which shall mean substantially more than the City's
inclusionary BMR requirement of 15%) of deed-restricted
residential units affordable to and reserved for extremely-low,
very-low and low income households. The AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OVERLAY OR OTHER ZONING MECHANISM
shall also include incentives (such as higher density) for owners
of smaller sites to assemble them into larger parcels appropriate
for LOWER INCOME residential development.
6.1.4 The updated Housing Element shall include the programs
referenced in Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, below, relating to the
City's BELOW MARKET RATE program.
7. SITE RE-ZONING
7.1 Within 60 days of adopting the updated Housing Element, subject to
reasonable extension for unforeseen delays, the City shall complete all
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 5 of 13 353
354
actions necessary to implement the ministerial rezoning programs in the
adopted updated Housing Element, which are described in Section 6.1,
above, and include, but are not limited to, rezoning sites appropriate for
development of LOWER INCOME housing.
7.2 A minimum proportion, to be established during the Housing Element
update process but in no event less than 35%, of the site acreage to be
rezoned for affordable housing will be located inside of or within one-half
mile of Menlo Park's PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS.
8. BELOW MARKET HOUSING PROGRAM
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
As part of the update to the Housing Element referenced in Section 5,
above, the City shall study the City's BELOW MARKET RATE program
and the fees associated therewith, compare its BMR fees with those
charged by other surrounding jurisdictions, and analyze the BELOW
MARKET RATE program's efficacy at encouraging the creation of
LOWER INCOME housing. If any changes to the BMR program or fees
are determined to be appropriate, a program to implement those changes
shall be included in the updated Housing Element.
As part of the update to the Housing Element, the City shall include a
program to establish a clear policy and criteria for the allocation of funds
from the City'S BMR housing fund that prioritizes non-profit development
of workforce rental housing affordable to low and very-low income
households on sites the City has determined to be viable for LIHTC
funding by setting aside a substantial portion of the uncommitted BMR
fund balance and of future BMR fees received by the City for such
development.
As part of the update to the Housing Element, the City shall consider the
addition of policies and programs designed to encourage the provision of
LOWER INCOME housing within the City, and include appropriate
policies that meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law. Such
policies and programs shall include, but are not limited to, policies and
programs promoting multifamily housing, promoting extremely low
income housing opportunities, promoting housing for families with
children, promoting affordable senior housing, and prohibiting housing
discrimination. Any policies deemed appropriate shall be included in the
updated Housing Element.
Within 60 days of adopting the updated Housing Element, the City shall
issue a notice of availability of funds to non-profit developers of housing
affordable to EXTREMELY-LOW, VERY-LOW and LOW INCOME
households and not less frequently than every two years thereafter,
provided there is an uncommitted balance of at least $1 million on deposit
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 6 of 13
in the City's BMR fund, with a goal of developing a substantial number of
deed-restricted affordable units within three years.
9. NEXT PLANNING PERIOD
9.1 The City shall use good faith efforts to adopt a timely and compliant
Housing Element for the NEXT PLANNING PERIOD that fully
accommodates the unmet share of the City's RHNA at each income level
for that planning period. The City shall also use good faith efforts to
rezone additional sites in the NEXT PLANNING PERIOD to the extent
necessary to accommodate the affordable portion of the RHNA for that
planning period at each income level. Good faith efforts shall include, but
not be limited to, beginning the update process within a reasonable time
after the new planning period begins, and including the costs of updating
the Housing Element and completing the rezoning in the City's Capital
Improvement Plan and budget for FY 2013-14. Nothing in this paragraph
shall excuse the City's failure to timely adopt an updated housing element
for the NEXT PLANNING PERIOD.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
10.1 The Judgment in this action shall incorporate Government Code Section
65759, which provides in part that the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") "does not apply to any action necessary to bring its general
plan or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into compliance with any
court order or judgment under this article," and the City will conduct the
environmental assessment required by that provision. Pursuant to Section
65759, CEQA does not apply to any discretionary actions necessary to
bring the Housing Element and relevant mandatory elements of the
General Plan into compliance with State Law. The parties further agree
that CEQA does not apply to the implementation of ministerial programs
in the updated Housing Element.
11. REPORTING
11.1 Periodically, at least quarterly, the Parties will meet to discuss the City's
progress in attaining compliance with the terms of this Settlement
Agreement. The City will also collaborate with organizations suggested
by PETITIONERS who are interested in assisting in community outreach
and education in connection with the Housing Element update
contemplated in the settlement agreement for the CURRENT PLANNING
PERIOD.
11.2 The City shall annually submit to HCD an implementation report as
required by Government Code Section 65400, and shall provide a copy of
each such report to Public Advocates within IS days after submitting it to
HCD.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 7 of 13 355
356
12. JUDGMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
12.1 Contemporaneous with the execution of this Settlement Agreement, the
Parties shall execute a Judgment pursuant to Stipulation, in the form
attached as Exhibit B. This Settlement Agreement (with the exception of
Section 9.1) shall be incorporated into that Judgment pursuant to
Stipulation, and shall be enforceable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 664.6.
12.2 The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to effectuate the provisions
of the Settlement Agreement and Judgment for three (3) years from the
later of adoption of the updated Housing Element as required pursuant to
Section 5.3 and the adoption of the necessary zoning ordinances/rezoning
pursuant to Section 7.1.
12.3 In the event that any Party believes that another Party is in breach of any
of the terms set forth in this Settlement Agreement, the Party asserting a
breach shall give written notice to the other Party of the breach, which
notice shall set forth with reasonable particularity the alleged breach and
action required to remedy the alleged breach. The Parties shall meet,
confer, and attempt to resolve the alleged breach within thirty (30) days of
such notice. If the Parties cannot resolve the alleged breach within such
time, any party may seek judicial enforcement. The notice in this
subsection shall be effective upon personal service or receipt by overnight
courier or other mailed service providing for evidence of delivery/receipt,
or by facsimile with evidence of completion of transmission, or by email
with acknowledgement of receipt, to the attorney of Party to whom notice
is to be given.
13. CITY PERMITTING AUTHORITY
13.1 The City's permitting authoritY,shall not be suspended by the Court in the
judgment, provided, however, that the Court may suspend the City'S
permitting authority for failure to comply with the terms of Sections 5, 6
or 7 of the stipulated judgment, following notice and opportunity to cure
any such failure.
13.2 Nothing shall preclude Petitioners from seeking the imposition of
permitting restrictions or other enforcement remedies if judicial
enforcement of any provision of this Settlement Agreement is required.
14. NO ADDITIONAL LITIGATION; PETITIONERS' WAIVER AND
RELEASE
14.1 The City shall not pursue an appeal or further litigation from the stipulated
Judgment entered pursuant to Section 11.2.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 8 of 13
14.2 Except as expressly provided herein, for and in consideration of the
covenants made herein, Petitioners do hereby completely waive, release
and forever discharge the City, and the City'S predecessors and
successors-in-interest, heirs, assigns, past, present, and future, Council
members, staff, principals, agents, officers or directors, managers,
employees, attorneys, insurers and all other persons or entities in any
manner related thereto or acting on their behalf, from any and all claims,
demands, actions, proceedings and causes of action of any and every sort,
whether known or unknown, arising out of or relating to the City'S failure
to timely adopt an updated Housing Element and General Plan, including
any environmental assessment related thereto, for the CURRENT
PLANNING PERIOD. Petitioners covenant not to sue the City with
respect to the Environmental Impact Report in connection with any
Facebook projects and/or any other project/land use proceeding pending in
the City of Menlo Park as of the Date of Approval.
14.3 Petitioners and the City intend this Settlement Agreement to be and
constitute a full general release and to constitute a full and final accord
and satisfaction extending to all claims arising out of or relating to the
PETITIONERS' LITIGATION, whether the same are known, unknown,
suspected or anticipated, unsuspected or unanticipated. Accordingly,
except as expressly provided herein, Petitioners, by signing this Settlement
Agreement, agree and warrant that they have read, understand and
expressly release and waive the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1542, which reads as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT
TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
Petitioners understand and acknowledge that the significance and
consequence of this release and waiver of California Civil Code Section
1542 is that, except as expressly provided herein, even if Petitioners
should eventually suffer additional damages or losses arising out of or
relating to the PETITIONERS' LITIGATION, or should there exist other
undisclosed rights, obligations or liabilities arising out of or relating to the
PETITIONERS' LITIGATION, Petitioners may not make any claim for
those damages, losses or obligations.
14.4 Except as set forth in Section 14.2, this Settlement Agreement shall not
extend to any claim or cause of action arising from any transaction or
occurrence subsequent to the Date of Approval, including without
limitation any claim that Petitioners may assert in connection with the
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 9 of 13 357
358
City's new Housing Element update or other implementation actions
pursuant to this Agreement.
15. ATTORNEYS' FEES
15.1 The City shall pay Public Advocates Inc., on behalf of Petitioners and
Public Advocates' co-counsel, the Public Interest Law Project, the sum of
One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($114,000.00) in full settlement
of Petitioners' attorneys' fees and costs through the entry of Judgment
Pursuant to Stipulation in PETITIONERS' LITIGATION. Payment of
this settlement amount shall be made no later than June 30, 2012.
15.2 Except as expressly set forth herein, Petitioners and their attorneys shall
have no other claim or right to, and hereby waive and release the City
from, any and all other or additional consideration or payment of any kind
in connection with or arising from the settlement and obtaining entry of a
stipulated judgment in this matter. This waiver and release shall not apply
to claims for attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the entry of judgment
to enforce this Settlement Agreement or the Judgment, and the Court may
order the City to pay such fees expended by Petitioners' counsel to obtain
the City'S compliance with the terms of the Stipulated Judgment.
16. OTHER PROVISIONS
16.1
16.2
16.3
No Admission of Liability. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement may be
used or construed by the Parties or by any other person or entity as an
admission of liability or fault.
Effective Date: Countemarts. This Settlement Agreement shall be
effective as of the Date of Approval. This Settlement Agreement may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed
shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed
counterpart of a signature page to this Agreement by facsimile shall be as
effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Settlement
Agreement.
Integration. This Settlement Agreement embodies the entire agreement
and understanding which exists between the signatories hereto with
respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and
contemporaneous agreements, representations, and undertakings. No
supplement, modification, or amendment of this Settlement Agreement
shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties. No waiver
of any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed, or
shall constitute, a waiver of any other provisions whether or not similar,
nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be
binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 10 of 13
16.4 GenderlTense. Whenever required by the context hereof, the singular
shall be deemed to include the plural, and the plural shall be deemed to
include the singular, and the masculine, feminine and neuter genders shall
each be deemed to include the other.
16.5 Headings. The headings in this Settlement Agreement are inserted for
convenience only and shall not be used to define, limit, or describe the
scope of this Settlement Agreement or any of the obligations herein. All
attachments that are labeled Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
16.6 California Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be construed,
interpreted, and governed by the laws of California without regard to the
choice of law provisions thereof.
16.7 Additional Documents and Good Faith Cooperation. All Parties agree to
cooperate fully in good faith and execute any and all supplementary
documents and to take all additional actions which may be necessary or
appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and intent of this
Settlement Agreement.
16.8 No Inducement. The Parties acknowledge, warrant and represent that no
promises, inducements or agreements not expressly contained herein have
been made to enter into this Settlement Agreement and that this Settlement
Agreement, including all Releases herein, constitute the entire agreement
between the Parties, are contractual and binding and are not merely
recitals.
16.9 Advice of Counsel. Each Party warrants and represents that prior to
executing this Settlement Agreement, said Party has relied upon the advice
of legal counsel of said Party's choice. The Settlement Agreement, its text
and other consequences and risks have been completely explained to the
Parties by their respective counsel and the Parties warrant and represent
that they understand and accept the terms of this Settlement Agreement
and intend, by their signatures, to enter into and be bound hereby.
16.10 Authority of Signatories. Each signatory to this Settlement Agreement
represents and covenants that he or she possesses the necessary capacity
and authority to sign and enter into this Settlement Agreement and to bind
the Party on whose behalf he or she is a signatory.
16.11 No Waiver. The failure of the Parties, or either of them, to insist upon
strict adherence to any term of this Settlement Agreement on any occasion
shall not be considered a waiver thereof, or deprive that party of the right
thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of
this Settlement Agreement.
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 11 of 13 359
16.12 Binding On Successors. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, and the Parties'
successors, devisees, executors, heirs, administrators, managers, officers,
representatives, assigns, insurers, and employees.
16.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties do not intend to create any third
party beneficiary of, or any other rights under, this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned agree and stipulate to the terms and conditions stated
above:
DATED: May __ ,2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
CITY OF MENLO PARK and CITY COUNCIL
OF MENLO PARK
By: ________________________ _
ALEX D. McINTYRE, CITY MANAGER
PENINSULA INTERFAITH ACTION
By: ________________________ _
JENNIFER MARTINEZ,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
URBAN HABITAT PROGRAM
By: ________________________ _
ALLEN FERNANDEZ SMITH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION
By:~-----------------------
ISABEL ANNIE LOY A,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
360 Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 12 of 13
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATED: May __ ,2012
DATED: May __ , 2012
DATED: May 2012
By:. ____ ------------------~------
RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO
Attorneys for Petitioners PENISULA
INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM and YOUTH UNITED FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION
By:
---M-I~C-H-AE~L~RA--W--SO-N--------------
Attorneys for Petitioners PENISULA
INTERFAITH ACTION, URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM and YOUTH UNITED FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION
By:
WILLIAM L. MCCLURE, CITY
ATTORNEY
Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF MENLO
PARK and CITY COUNCIL OF MENLO PARK
Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue -Page 13 of 13 361
,Planned "and Use
/'I'Mla Pork
_ Professional £, Admlnlslla\lon
_ Retail/Commercial
III Medium Density Residential
Very t..ow Density Residential l1li £1 Caml no Real Professional/Retail Commercial
_ Public Facilities
Pub\ic Transportation
., Coltrain Roll Station
.. -Ill " • .! Priority OeYe!opment Area: Potential
Source: A.6SOClatlonofBay ",rQQ Gclvommoots,
St/. .... ea." Map co 2006 TIllell.t"'" Inc, All 'Ignu; ,....."Od
ABII.G GIS/AlJgUSt 2008
Scote:
ATTACHMENT F
DRAFT 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
(Hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries Only)
ALSO AVAILABLE AT:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31634