HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3271
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3271)
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 11/8/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Housing Element Response Letter from HCD
Title: Review of the October 18, 2012 Housing and Community Development
(HCD) Response Letter Regarding the City's Draft Housing Element
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Regional Housing Mandate Committee review the letter from the
Department of Housing and Community Department (HCD) and provide comments to City staff.
Background
On June 14, 2012 and June 26, 2012, the Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC)
reviewed the draft 2007-2014 Housing Element (the “Housing Element”). At the two meetings,
the RHMC recommended a number of revisions including removal of the City owned parking
lots from the Housing Element’s Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list and adding other programs
that emphasized converting existing market rate multifamily developments to affordable
housing and including Hotel Condominium units to the HIS. The Draft Housing Element was
reviewed by the City Council on July 9, 2012 and after some suggested revisions, the Council
approved the Draft Housing Element for submittal to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for its certification review.
The Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on August 16, 2012. City staff participated in
a September 17, 2012 conference call with HCD staff to hear initial comments and suggestions
from the HCD staff reviewer. During the same period, the City received correspondence from
two non- profit organizations commenting on the Draft Housing Element (Attachments B and
E). Staff also participated in a conference call with the two non-profit organizations to review
and discuss their comments. Responses to their comments were considered and, where
appropriate, were included in the revised document.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Discussion
On October 18, 2012, the City received a response letter from HCD (Attachment A). While the
letter acknowledged the efforts of the City’s contribution in creating affordable housing, the
letter outlined a number of deficiencies in the City’s Draft Housing Element. Some of the more
significant comments include:
Previous Unaccommodated Need: The City rezoned all but three parcels as outlined in
the 1999-2006 Housing Element. The total unaccommodated need of the three parcels
is 35 units. Statute AB 1233 requires that the City must zone or rezone sites to
accommodate the unaccommodated need, including a below market rate housing unit
analysis by income group. Although the City did provide a surplus of units during the
1999-2006 cycle, the legislation does not provide “credit” for these surplus units.
However, staff contends that two of the sites (anticipated yield of 20 units) did not
require a rezone therefore the City’s unaccommodated need is 15 units and not 35
units. Staff is searching for additional sites that will accommodate the 15 units.
Emergency Shelters: Senate Bill 2 (SB2) requires jurisdictions to identify a zone, site or
zoning overlay district that would allow an emergency shelter to be approved by right.
As described in the draft Housing Element in Program 3.5.1, the City proposed to engage
in discussions with the religious institutions that currently participate in the Hotel de
Zink temporary homeless shelter program to ascertain if they would consider providing
their services on a year round basis. The State, however, did not accept the proposed
program. Staff will include a revised program that identifies a zone district appropriate
for an emergency shelter use and will update the zoning code within one year of
adoption of the Housing Element.
Housing Programs: HCD found that a number of Housing Element Programs did not
include the City’s specific role in implementing the program, definitive implementation
timelines, objectives, and identification of responsible agencies and officials. Staff will
add all criteria to each of the programs in addition to identifying a funding source for
program implementation.
Lot Consolidation: The City’s housing sites inventory relies primarily on mixed-use
development to address its RHNA numbers. While the City has a history of mixed-use
developments on smaller sites, the State requires specific actions to promote lot
consolidation and redevelopment of underutilized sites. The City did not include any lot
consolidation programs that would in turn encourage higher density developments.
Staff will include a program with incentives to encourage developers to consider lot
City of Palo Alto Page 3
consolidation when developing in the City. This also addresses one of the comments
made by the non-profit organizations.
Hotel Condominiums: The RHMC had recommended including Hotel Condominiums in
the HIS list. Therefore, staff added 133 Hotel Condominium units to the HIS list.
However, during the conference call with HCD staff, they questioned the viability of
these units and if they could meet the Census definition of a dwelling unit. Staff will
evaluate whether the hotel condominiums could be justified as units or if the code could
be modified to qualify. Otherwise, the hotel condominiums would need to be replaced
by other units.
After reviewing the HCD letter, staff believes the City can address the HCD suggestions and
comments and will integrate appropriate revisions into the Housing Element document with
the purpose of providing HCD a draft Housing Element by the end of 2012 to meet their
requirements. City staff has also retained a housing consultant to assist with the response and
the revisions to the draft Housing Element. Staff will provide the RHMC and the City Council
with a revised Housing Element for their review prior to the resubmittal to HCD.
Staff notes that HCD staff has generally been cooperative by providing an expedited review of
the Housing Element, participating in telephone conferences to discuss their specific comments
and identifying possible revisions that would satisfy HCD requirements. Our relationship with
HCD could result in a shorter certification review period from HCD with the hope that the City
would receive certification sooner rather than later. That way, City staff can initiate the 2015-
2022 cycle of the Housing Element in the next year or so. Staff recommends that Council’s focus
should be on certification of the Housing Element (in which there is approximately one
remaining year in the cycle) and consider any significant new policies and programs for the
2015-2022 Housing Element.
Association of Bay Area Governments and One Bay Area Grant
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has asked that cities that have not attained
housing element certification request an extension of the January 30, 2013 One Bay Area Grant
(OBAG) timeline (through March 15, 2013). Attachment C is the City’s request to ABAG.
ABAG has also provided a recent update of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
allocation process and timeline (Attachment D). Responses to city requests for revisions are
expected by November 15, 2012 and the official appeal period will then run until January 11,
2013. Staff expects to bring an appeal letter (if appropriate) to the Committee at its December
11th meeting. The ABAG Board will make its final determinations by February 25, 2013.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachments:
Attachment A: Letter dated October 18, 2012 from HCD re: City of Palo Alto's Draft
Housing Element (PDF)
Attachment B: Comments from Public Advocates (PDF)
Attachment C: October 24, 2012 Letter to ABAG Requesting Extension for Housing
Element Certification (PDF)
Attachment D: October 18, 2012 Letter from ABAG re: RHNA Allocation Process (PDF)
Attachment E: Comments received by Public Interest Law Firm (PDF)
STATE OF CAliFORNIA .BII$INE$$ TRAN$PORTATIO.N AND HOII$ING AGENCy
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street. Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento. CA 94252-2053
(91 6) 323-3177 1 FAX (916) 327-2643
www.hcc\.ca.gov
October 18, 2012
Mr. Curtis Williams
Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Williams:
RE: Review of the City of Palo Alto's Draft Housing Element
EOMI INO G BROWN 18 Governor
Thank you for submitting Palo Altos' draft housing element received for review on August
21, 2012 with revisions received on October 3, 2012. The draft housing element was
submitted for the 4th planning cycle and covers the 2009-2014 planning period. The
Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the
locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A telephone conversation on
September 13, 2012 with you, Messer Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator, Roland Rivera,
Senior Planner, Steven Turner, Planning Manager, and Ms. Cara Silver, Assistant City
Attorney, facilitated the review. In addition, the Department considered comments from
Public Advocates pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c).
The Department acknowledges Palo Alto's success in assisting with the development of
housing affordable to lower-income households. The draft element addresses many
statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State
housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular, the element
must include a sites inventory and analysis of potential governmental constraints . In
addition , the revisions received on October 3, 2012 must be incorporated into the element
as part of the revised element. The enclosed Append ix describes these and other
revisions needed to comply with State housing element law.
We are committed to assist Palo Alto in addressing all statutory requirements of housing
element law. If you have any questions or need additional techn ical assistance, please
contact Melinda Coy, of our staff, at (916) 445-5307 .
:Z:I~
Glen A. Campora
Assistant Deputy Director
Enclosure
APPENDIX
CITY OF PALO ALTO
The following changes would bring Palo Alto's housing element into compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on the Department's website at
www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd. Refer to the Division of Housing Policy Development and the section
pertaining to State Housing Planning. Among other resources, the Housing Element section
contains the Department's latest technical assistance tool Building Blocks for Effective Housing
Elements (Building Blocks) available at www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2lindex.php, the
Government Code addressing State housing element law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the
relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section
65583(a)(3)). The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used
to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section
65583.2).
Palo Alto has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 2,860 housing units, of
which 1,233 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element
relies on non-vacant and mixed use sites along transit corridors. To demonstrate the
adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the
element must include complete analyses:
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (page 66) that 168 units
affordable to very low-income households and 21 units affordable to low-income
households have been built or are under construction or approved, but provides no
information documenting how affordability of the units was determined. As you know,
the City's RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since January 1,
2007; however, the element must describe the City's methodology for assigning
these units to the various income groups based on actual sales price or rent level of
the units and demonstrate their availability in the planning period.
Previous Unaccommodated Need: While the element now includes an analysis to
identify the unaccommodated need based on the total unmet need from the previous
planning period, it does not identify the unaccommodated need by income group.
Pursuant to Chapter 614, Statutes of 2005 (AB 1233), as the City of Palo Alto failed
to implement Program H-14 to rezone sites in the prior planning period, the City must
zone or rezone sites to accommodate any unaccommodated need within the first
year of the 2009-2014 planning period. The element must include an analysis by
income group to determine if there is a remaining unaccommodated need that must
be accommodated in the current planning period. Further information can be found at
http://www.hcd.cs.govlhpdlhrc/plan/he/ab 1233 final dtpdf or in the Building Blocks' website
at http://www.hcd.ca.qov/hpd/housing element2/GS reviewandrevise.php.
-2-
Realistic Capacity: For mixed-use or commercial sites allowing residential uses, the
residential capacity estimate should account for potential development of non
residential uses and could consider any performance standards mandating a
specified portion of a mixed-use site as non-residential (e.g., first floor, front space as
commercial). The element could also describe any existing or proposed regulatory
incentives and standards to facilitate housing development in the mixed-use or
commercial zones and on the identified non-vacant sites. See the Building Blocks'
and sample analysis at http://www.hcd.ca.govlhpd/housing element2/SIA zoning.php#capacity.
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites:
While the element describes market trends, and potential for redevelopment for the
corridor areas identified in the sites inventory, it provides minimal descriptions of
existing uses of identified sites. The element should describe the existing uses of
non-vacant sites sufficiently to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment during
the planning period and evaluate the extent to which existing uses may impede
additional residential development. For example, the element lists several indicators
used to determine if a site was suitable for residential or mixed-use development
including if a property was "underdeveloped" pursuant to a windshield survey (page
74). The element could describe the factors the city used in determining if a property
was underutilized. In addition, the inventory could generally describe whether the
use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could
describe any expressed interest in redevelopment. Refer to the sample analysis on
the Building Blocks' website at
htlp:l/www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/SIA home.php.
Several sites in the inventory are part of the Mayfield Agreement with the University of
Stanford. Part of this agreement is to provide a portion of the sites for housing
affordable to lower-income and the remaining to market rate housing over a 20 year
period. Pursuant to conversations with staff, proposed development plans have been
submitted for these sites including a Bridge Housing proposal for the lower-income
portion. The element should include a description of these plans including the
proposed affordability and timeframes in order to determine the portion of the housing
need for lower-income households these sites can accommodate within the planning
period.
In addition, most of the sites in the inventory are small (less than 0.5 acres). If the
small sites are necessary to accommodate the City's regional housing need for lower
income households, the element must include analyses that demonstrates these sites
can realistically accommodate new residential development, particularly new
multifamily rental development and housing affordable to lower-income households.
While it may be possible to build housing on small parcels, the nature and conditions
necessary to construct the units often render the provision of affordable housing
infeasible. For example, assisted housing developments utilizing State or federal
financial resources typically include 50-80 units. The analysis could describe existing
and/or proposed pOlicies or incentives the City will offer to facilitate small lot
development, including lot consolidation, and include an evaluation of the financial
feasibility of development for lower-income households on smaller sites, given
necessary economies of scale.
-3-
Second Units: While the element anticipates 15 new second units will be built in the
planning period based on development trends, it must also include an analysis of the
anticipated afford ability of second units to demonstrate the appropriateness of this
strategy to accommodate the housing needs of low-and moderate-income
households, The element should also describe whether or not the units are permitted
by right, the need for the units in the community, and the resources or incentives
available for their development.
Hotel Condominiums: The element appears to utilize the potential for new hotels to
develop 25 percent of their units for condominium use pursuant to the City's Service
Commercial (CS) ordinance. While the element states 113 residential units could be
provided for residential use based on the approval of three hotels, no information is
provided on whether these hotels are actually creating the condominium units as part
of the hotel development and whether the housing provided by these hotels meet the
census definition of a unit. Should the City rely on these units to accommodate a
portion of the housing need for lower-income, the element must include analysis to
demonstrate affordability, The analysis should account for all applicable costs such
as taxes and insurance and any condominium fees.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
Emergency Shelters: The element proposes to establish year-round shelters in
churches to address the housing need for the homeless population (Program
H,3,5,1), However, Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007 (SB 2), requires the identification
of a zone(s) where emergency shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit
or other discretionary action with sufficient capacity to accommodate at least one
year-round emergency shelter. The element must specifically identify the zone(s) or
potential zones and demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelters, The element should also describe the characteristics and
suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters. See the Department's SB 2
technical assistance memo at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/sb2 memo050708.pdf
2. Analyze potential and actual govemmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities
as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures, The analysis
shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder
the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with
Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities,
supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant
to paragraph (7) (Section 65583(a)(5)).
-4-
Land-Use Controls: The element states the City adopted form-based codes in 2006
(page 123). The element should include a description of the requirements of the
code including the following:
• the relationship between General Plan land-use designations and the code;
• performance and processing standards; and
• development standards regulating housing including a description of how the
code controls form, bulk, building types, performance standards (e.g., ground
floor commercial, 30 percent commercial, etc.), uses, density, and any related
design criteria.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures:
The element indicates architectural review is required as part of the approval
procedure for residential development (page 142). The element should include a
description and analysis of the design criteria review guidelines and process,
including identifying requirements and approval procedures and analyzing the impact
of the guidelines and process on housing costs and approval certainty.
Inclusionary Housing: While the element generally describes the inclusionary
housing ordinance framework (Page 111 and 124), it does not include an evaluation
of those requirements for their potential impact on the cost and supply of housing.
For example, the element should analyze the types of options and incentives the City
offers to provide flexibility and facilitate compliance with the inclusionary
requirements. Analyzing the inclusionary provisions is particularly important given
current market conditions and the cumulative impact of local regulations. The
element could include a program to evaluate the inclusionary ordinance within the
next year based on current market conditions and engage the development
community to facilitate this analysis.
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities: While the City has adopted a reasonable
accommodation ordinance in respect to the Below Market Rate Program, the
ordinance does not apply citywide. The element must include a detailed analysis of
zoning and development standards including the City's reasonable accommodation
procedure for the development of housing for persons with disabilities to identify any
constraints, and if necessary include programs to address this need. To address this
requirement, the element could include a program to apply the current reasonable
accommodation procedure beyond the BMR program.
3. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities,
including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female
heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter
(Section 65583(a)(7)).
Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010 (SB 812), amended State housing element law to
require an analysis of the special housing needs of persons with developmental
disabilities. The term developmental disability refers to a severe and chronic disability
attributable to a mental or physical impairment, such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or
autism, which begins before individuals reach adulthood (Welfare and Institutions
Code, Section 4512). The analysis could include the following:
-5-
• a quantification of the total number of persons with developmental disabilities;
• a description of the types of developmental disabilities;
• a description of the housing need, including a description of the potential housing
problems; and
• a discussion of resources, policies and programs including existing housing and
services, for persons with developmental disabilities.
Information for this analysis may be obtained from the area's local regional center for
developmental services at httn;/Iwww.dds.ca.gov/RC/RCLisLcfm. For further assistance
in meeting this requirement see the Departments SB 812 technical assistance memo
at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/NoticeCoverLttrSB812.pdf.
4. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non
low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions (Sections
65583(a)(8) through 65583(a)(9)(D)).
While the element includes an identification and analysis for units at risk between
2004-2014, the element must identify and analyze units at-risk during ten years
following the beginning of the planning period (2009-2019). If units are found to be
at-risk, the element must estimate the total cost of replacing and preserving these
units and include a list of entities with the capacity to acquire multifamily
developments at-risk. For a listing of units at-risk in Palo Alto contact the California
Housing Partnership Corporation http://www.chpc.net/.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs
are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the
planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of
regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and
state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an
identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the
various actions (Section 65583(c)).
To address the program requirements of Government Code Section 65583)( c)( 1-6),
and to facilitate implementation, all programs should include: (1) a description of the
City's specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines;
(3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible
agencies and officials. Programs with clear, quantifiable objectives will assist the City
in evaluating the effectiveness of program actions and appropriateness of goals,
objectives and policies as required in the review and revise section of State housing
element law for future updates. Programs to be revised include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Programs H1.1.2. H1.1.3. H2.1.1. H2.1.9. H3.3.1. H3.4.4. and H4.2.1: Describe
specific actions and timeframes the City will take to implement these programs.
Where applicable, estimate the number of units or households that will be assisted
within the planning period.
Program H2.1.4: Describe the incentives the City will provide to encourage the
development of smaller housing units.
Programs H3.3.6. H3.3.7, H4.1.1, and H4.1.2: Describe the City's specific role in
implementation of these programs.
-6-
2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for a11 income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups
of a11 household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program sha11 provide
for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
residential use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low-and low-income
households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in Finding Ai, the element does not include a complete site analysis and
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the
results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise
programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Please be aware should the element rely on sites which are expected to be rezoned
in the CN zoning district to accommodate the lower-income housing need (Page 71),
it must include a program to rezones sites in accordance with Government Code
Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2(h) for 100 percent of the remaining lower-income
housing need. The sites must be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental
multifamily uses by-right during the planning period and include minimum density and
development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20
units per acre. Also, at least 50 percent of the remaining need must be planned on
sites that exclusively allow residential uses.
Small Sites/Lot Consolidation: The element relies on the potential of small sites to be
consolidated to accommodate the City's share of the RHNA, particularly for lower
income households. As a result, the element must include specific programs to
facilitate lot consolidation and development of housing on small sites.
Mixed-use Development: As the City is relying on underutilized sites and the potential
for mixed-use development to accommodate its RHNA for lower-income households,
the element must include specific program actions to promote redevelopment of
underutilized sites and lot consolidation including financial assistance,
-7-
regulatory concessions or incentives to encourage and facilitate additional or more
intense residential development on non-vacant and underutilized sites. Examples of
incentives include: 1) organizing special marketing events geared towards the
development community; 2) posting the sites inventory on the local government's
webpage; 3) identifying and targeting specific financial resources; and 4) reducing
appropriate development standards.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-and moderate
income households (Section 65583(c)(2)).
While the element includes some actions proposed to assist in the development of
housing for very-low and low-income households, it must include programs that
specifically assist in the development of a variety of housing types to address the
needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households. To address this requirement, the
element could revise programs to prioritize some funding for the development of
housing affordable to ELI households, and/or offer financial incentives or regulatory
concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as multifamily,
single-room occupancy units, and supportive housing, which address some of the
needs of this income group.
4. The housing element shall contain programs which address, and where appropriate
and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted in Finding A2, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may
need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints. Please refer to the following technical assistance resource on the
Building Blocks' website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/PRO mitigate.php.
5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a). The program
for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent
necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other
urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program
may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance
(Section 65583(c)(6)).
The element identifies housing units at-risk of converting to market-rate. Therefore,
program H3.1.5 should be revised to include specific and proactive actions. For
example, the program should ensure compliance with noticing requirements and
include a tenant education component and consider pursuing funding on at least an
annual basis. The program should also commit the City to contacting non-profits
immediately to develop a preservation strategy by a date certain to be ready to
quickly act when notice of conversion is received.
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame (Section 65583(b)(1 & 2)).
-8-
Include quantified objectives estimating the number of housing units by income categorv
that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period. This
requirement could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one illustrated below:
New Conservation!
Income Construction Rehabilitation Preservation
Extremely Low-
Very Low-
Low-
Moderate-
Above Moderate-
TOTAL
Wong, Tim
From: Melinda Coy <mcoy@hcd.ca.gov>
Monday, September 17, 201211:43 AM
Wong, Tim
Sent:
To:
Subject: Public Advocates comments
Here are the initial comments from Public Advocates. I have not received anything from any other
commenters yet.
Melinda
----"----------------------'--------------------~
From: Sam Tepperman-Gelfant [mailto:stepperman-gelfant@publicadvocates.org]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:21 PM '
To: Paul McDougall; Melinda Coy
Cc: Richard Marcantonio
Subject: Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
Hi Melinda and Paul,
Our review of Palo Alto's draft Housing Element has left us with a lot of serious questions. Since the City has asked you
for an expedited review, we are sharing some of those with you, and hope that we can set up a time to discuss these
and other concerns by phone.
Table 3-10 tells us that the City has a remaining lower-income (VLl/LI) need of 1,044 units, but does not include AB 1233
units. The draft notes that its rezoning program in the prior element (program H-14) was ~ot implemented as to 3 sites
on the inventory, and that liAs required by State law, sites that were proposed for rezoning in the previous housing
element but were not rezoned during the planning period will be rezoned." (Draft, p. 172.) The draft, however, does not
quantify or address the portion of the lower-income RHNA that carries over into this planning period.
Since the draft does not differentiate VLI and LI site capacity from .(:apacityon sites on which the remaining moderate
and above-moderate income need will be met (another 624 units), it is impossible to tell which sites will accommodate
what portion of the need at what income level.
Table 3-10 goes on to tell us that "total capacity of housing inventory sites at 20 DUlAC" of 1,784 units. In a footnote,
the draft then tells us that, actually, most of the Mayfield development is not at 20 DUlAC, and also that 15 units
attributed to APN 137-24-034 and the 15 second units are not zoned at that density. Actually, that does not begin to tell
the full story about these purported 1,784 units:
• This total includes at least 347 units on at least 35 sites that do not currently allow residential development at
20 dulacre, and therefore cannot be claimed to accommodate lower-income housing needs. (There does not
even appear to be a rezoning program for these sites -while a "Program 2.2.2" is referenced in the text on page
81, no such program actually appears in the Element. In any event, the implied rezoning with respect to these
sites would not meet the requirements of AB 2348 since nearly all of the sites are mixed-use, there do not
appear to be minimum densities proposed, and few, if any, of the sites would accommodate a minimum project
size of 16 units.)
• The inventory includes 250 units in the Mayfield Development. There are a number of problems with this. First,
it seems unlikely that all of these units can be constructed by the end of the planning period --the development
agreement contemplates a development proposal for just 185 of these units by the end of 2013, with the
remainder to be proposed no later than 2020. Second, even if all 250 units are constructed by the end of the
1
planning period, between 180-200 of these units are planned to be market-rate units, and the affordability level
of the remaining 50-70 BMR units is unspecified.
• The inventory includes 113 units of capacity through the inclusion of condominiums in hotel projects, calculating
that number as 25% of the units in 3 hotel projects that have already been proposed. No evidence is provided,
however, that the developers of these projects actually plan to include condo units, or if so, at what affordability
levels.
• The inventory relies very heavily on very small sites -137 sites are less than % acre (accounting for 850 units,
nearly half of the claimed inventory capacity), and an additional 29 sites are between % and 1 acre (accounting
for 412 units). Of the 507 units supposedly accommodated on sites larger than 1 acre, 75 would require
rezoning and 69 are theoretical condominium units in hotel projects discussed above.
• The City claims it will permit another 15 second units by the end of the planning period, despite having
produced only 13 second units in the first five years of the planning period. Moreover, all 13 of those prior
second units were affordable at the moderate income level. (See 2011 Annual Report, p. 3 of 5.) There is no
reason to expect that any second units will count toward thelower-income RHNA share.
Obviously, the City has a lot of work to do before we can say definitively what its true lInmet RHNA (including AB 1233
units) is, and how much can be accommodated on the inventoried sites; But from what we can see in the draft, it looks
like a lot of these sites are not actually suitable for lower-income units. In fact, it's not clear that the inventory is even
sufficient to meet the total RHNA at all income levels.
Please let me know if there is a good time for you to check in with you this week about these issues.
Thanks,
Sam
================
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant
Senior Staff Attorney
131 Steuart Street I Suite 300 I San Francisco cA 94105
415.431.7430 x324
stepperman-gelfant@publicadvocates.org
Public Advocates Inc. I Making Rights Reali www.publicadvocates.orq
CONFIDENTIAL C-OMMUNICATION
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain information
that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone.
Thank you.
--************************************************************************ This email and any
files attached are intended solely for the use of the jndividual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender imrilediately. This email and the attachments have been
electronically scanned for email content security threats, including but not limited to viruses.
2
October 24, 2012
Gillian Adams
Association of Bay Area Governments
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Gty of Palo Alto·
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Re: Request for Extension of Deadline for Housing Element Certification
Dear Ms. Adams,
Consistent with MTC's Resolution 4035, the City of Palo Alto l~ requesting a one-yearextensioh of tHe
January 31, 2013, deadline for receiving certification from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) of our Housing Element-We have committed resources to enable us to"
receive, by January 31, 2014, HCD cert,ification that the Housing Element mee.ts the statutorY
requirements of Article 10.6 of th~'Salif()rniaGovernment Code. The draft Housing Element, which we
submitted to HCD on August 16,2012",a,ddresses the fouith revision (2007-2014) of the Regional
Housing Need Allocation. On October i6,2012, the City receivedcomment~J~om HCD on its draft
Housing Element. Staff is curr~htly prep~ring a response to HCD and revising;~hedraft Housing Element'
based on the HCD comments.,.
The following is our prelirninar'lscneduleJor obtaining HCD certification:
• Planning and Transport~tion Commission review of final draft HQusingE!ement, December 2012
• City Council review and approval of final draft Housing Element'JanuaryZ613
• Submit for HCD certification, Febn,Jary 2013
, -,', ," .. '. "
With this schedule, the City anticipates achievingHCD certification ().fan,adopied t-IOush1g Element prior
to June 2013.
Regards,
cc: Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Santa Clara County Transportation Authority
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
Mayor Yiaway Yeh
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mayor Yeh,
I am writing to confirm receipt of your request for a revision of your jurisdiction's draft Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the years 2014-2022. Thank you for your input into the
RHNA process. No decisions have been made on the revision requests yet, but I wanted to
provide you with advance notice of the schedule and next steps for the revision and appeals
process.
ABAG Staffwill review your revision request and respond in writing with its.determination by
Nov~~ber 15,2012. Perqoyermn.ent Code §65584.05, in the event that ABAG denies your
juri,s(iiction's request for ~reyision or does }lot modify the revise,dshwe Fa your satisfaction, . you
have the oppommity to app~al the. decision. ,The deadline for local jurisdictions to s~bmit a
request for an appeal is January 11, 2013.
Government Code §65584.05 provides details about the specific criteria on which an appeal must
be based. The two grounds for requesting an appeal are:
• ABAG failed to adequately consider the information submitted by your jurisdiction as
part of the survey we administered in January 2012 or a significant and unforeseen
change in circumstances has occurred in the local jurisdiction that merits a revision of the
information submitted in the .survey; or
• ABAG failed to determine the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need in
accordance with the information described in, and the methodology established pursuant
to Government Code §65584.04.
A ,publiche~g on 10calappeals condllcted ,by a subcommittee of ABAG' sExecutive Board
Will take place op a ,.date ~etwe~n Febr~a,.y20-2~,,201~ .. M.ore infOrmation abo.ut the next steps
il1the RH:NA process is availaqle at:,., '
http://wvvw.abag.ca. gov/planninglhousingneeds/pdfs/RHNA %20Schedule.pdf.
Mai Ii ng Add ress: P.O. Box 2050 Oa kla nd, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7985 i nfo@abag.ca,gov
Location: Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM
Oficina Legal de Interés Público
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 293-4790 • Fax (408) 293-0106
www.lawfoundation.org
September 24, 2012
SENT VIA E-MAIL ONLY: tim.wong@cityofpaloalto.org.
Tim Wong. Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto, Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: City of Palo Alto Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element
Dear Mr. Wong:
I write to provide comments regarding the City of Palo Alto’s draft housing element1 on
behalf of Public Interest Law Firm (PILF), a project of the Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley. PILF’s mission is to protect the human rights of individuals and groups in the
Silicon Valley area who face barriers to adequate representation in the civil justice
system, using impact litigation and advocacy. One of our advocacy priorities is ensuring
access to affordable housing throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. We
acknowledge the work that the City has done in the preparation of its draft housing
element. However, the draft housing element has a number of serious deficiencies, as
discussed in detail below.
Programs
The draft housing element’s programs section lacks sufficient detail to ensure that that
the programs will be effective in meeting their stated objectives. Many of the programs
fail to set forth any concrete actions; few indicate which agency or agencies of the city
will be responsible for implementing the program; and none has a specific timeline in
which actions must be taken.
According to HCD, each program should set forth:
• Definite time frames for implementation (e.g., by June 2009, ongoing, annually
during the planning period, upon adoption of general plan amendment, etc.).
1 All references to the draft housing element refer to City of Palo Alto Housing Element, available at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30833 [last accessed Sept. 22, 2012].
2
• Identification of agencies and officials responsible for implementation (e.g.,
planning department, redevelopment agency, county community development
department, city building official, housing manager, public housing authority,
etc.).
• Description of the local government’s specific role in program implementation
(e.g. a description of how the City will market the availability of rehabilitation
funds).
• Description of the specific action steps to implement the program.
• Proposed measurable outcomes (e.g., the number of units created, completion of a
study, development of a homeless shelter, initiation of a rezone program,
preservation of at-risk units, annexation of land within a sphere of influence).
• Demonstration of a firm commitment to implement (e.g., the City will apply for
HOME funds by June 2009).
• Identification of specific funding sources, where appropriate (e.g., dollar amounts
of annual funding entitlements or allocations – CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA,
Continuum of Care, redevelopment agency’s low/moderate-income housing
funds, bond proceeds, tax credit allocations, and other federal, State and local
resources).2
In contrast, the draft housing element’s programs tend to be only one or two sentences,
with very little in the way of concrete actions or timelines. In light of the fact that Palo
Alto is finalizing its housing element so near the end of the planning period, it is
imperative that every program includes clear actions and timelines to ensure that
programs are completed in a timely manner.
A particularly stark example of the program section’s inadequacy is the program for
preservation of affordable units, which reads, simply: “Preserve affordable housing stock
and continue to renew existing funding sources supporting rehabilitation and maintenance
activities.”3 State law requires a much higher level of detail in the preservation program:
the program must contain a discussion of funding sources for affordable housing
preservation, and the statute also encourages cities to include strategies for preserving at-
risk developments.4 Given that Palo Alto is at risk of losing 400 affordable units during
the planning period,5 its housing element should include a more robust program regarding
preservation of those units.
Site Inventory
We agree with the concerns regarding the draft housing element’s site inventory raised by
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant of Public Advocates in his earlier correspondence.
Additionally, we note that the City appears to rely on many sites with existing uses to
2 HCD, “Program Overview and Quantified Objectives,” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/PRO_overview.php.
3 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 156.
4 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).
5 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 60-61.
3
meet its housing need.6 However, the draft housing element does not provide
information or analysis regarding these sites’ potential for redevelopment. According to
HCD, “[t]he inventory must consider the impact of existing development when
calculating realistic development capacity.”7 The analysis of sites with existing uses
should include whether existing uses are expected to continue, whether those uses are
compatible with housing development, and the likelihood that housing will be developed
on those sites within the planning period.
Claiming Credit for Already-Permitted Units
The draft housing element seeks to credit 1206 units that have been permitted, entitled,
and/or constructed since the beginning of the planning period toward its RHNA
obligation.8 This total includes 325 units at the very low-, low-, and moderate-income
levels.9 However, to credit already-permitted units toward its lower income RHNA
obligation, the housing element must demonstrate the affordability of those units through
one or more of the following:
• subsidies, financing or other mechanisms that ensure affordability (e.g., MHP,
HOME, or LIHTC financed projects, inclusionary units or RDA requirements);
• actual rents; and
• actual sales prices.10
The City should amend its housing element to include this information about the units it
seeks to credit toward its lower-income housing need. If this information is unavailable
for particular units, those units should be counted toward Palo Alto’s above-moderate-
income housing need. If doing so increases Palo Alto’s unmet RHNA need for lower-
income households, the City may need to amend its programs and site inventory to ensure
that it will be able to meet that need during the planning period.
Governmental Constraints
The draft housing element identifies second units as a potential source of affordable
housing during the planning period. However, the City’s parking requirements for
second units are relatively restrictive: “one covered and one uncovered parking space for
second units greater than 450 square feet.”11 The housing element should analyze
whether these restrictions constrain the development of second units.
6 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 83-88.
7 HCD, “Analysis of Sites and Zoning,” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/SIA_zoning.php.
8 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 66.
9 Ibid.
10 HCD, “Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA),” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/HN_PHN_regional.php.
11 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 124.
4
Along the same lines, the housing element should evaluate whether site and design
review in the D and PF zones constraints the development of housing in those zones.12 It
should also describe any input it received from developers regarding fees, permitting
procedures, land use controls, or other potential constraints.13
Constraints to the Development of Housing for People with Disabilities
The housing element should include a more comprehensive analysis of constraints to the
development of housing for people with disabilities. While the draft housing element
notes that Palo Alto properly allows residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals
by right in all residential districts,14 it does not indicate how larger residential care
facilities are treated. The housing element should discuss larger residential care facilities,
including whether any of the zoning requirements for these facilities constrain their
development.
While the draft housing element indicates that the City grants reasonable
accommodations to facilitate the development of housing for people with disabilities,15 it
does not state whether or not the City has a reasonable accommodation policy or
ordinance. If the City does not have a formal reasonable accommodation policy, we
encourage it to include adoption (and advertisement) of such a policy as a program in its
housing element.
Non-Governmental Constraints
The draft housing element suggests that new housing development in Palo Alto faces
opposition from the community.16 However, it fails to identify community opposition as
a non-governmental constraint to the development of new housing.
12 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 129.
13 See HCD, “Fees and Exactions,” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/CON_fees.php.
14 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 145-146.
15 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 146-147.
16 See draft housing element, supra, at p. 121 (“There is community concern that additional new housing
would introduce more new students into the school district and would further impact its facilities which are
already near or at capacity.”)
5
Conclusion
Thank you very much for considering these comments regarding Palo Alto’s draft
housing element. I would be happy to speak with the City regarding the concerns
described above. If you would like to set up a time to talk, please call me at (408) 280-
2429 or email me at melissam@lawfoundation.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Melissa A. Morris
Senior Attorney
cc: Melinda Coy, HCD
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, Public Advocates