Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-11-12 City Council (3)
City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT NOVEMBER 12, 2002 CMR:434:02 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT IN BRIEF The City Council reviewed the draft Housing Element on four previous meetings. At the last meeting, Council directed staff to send the draft Element to the State for its initial review and to refer the Housing Sites Inventory to the Planning and Transportation Commission for comment based on the Council-approved criteria. This report provides an overview of the State comments received on the draft Element; a summary of the Planning and Transportation Commission review of the entire element, including the Housing Sites Inventory; responds to issues raised during the public review process; and explains changes made to the Housing Element, specifically the Housing Sites Inventory, as a result of Council comments and recent State legislation. CMR:434:02 Page 1 of 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council 1.) consider and approve the addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR for the Housing Element 2.) adopt by resolution an amendment to the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan incorporating the revised Chapter 4 - Housing Element and Housing Element Technical Document including appendices and 3.) direct staff to forward the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. BACKGROUND The City Council discussed the draft Housing Element at four separate meetings. At all four Council meetings, the main discussion was the Housing Sites Inventory-- specifically the criteria for listing and the location of the individual sites on the inventory. Other key concerns raised by the City Council included: The Housing Element should focus more on increasing the supply of affordable and attainable housing. Additional housing production may increase traffic and have other environmental impacts. New housing would generate urban service demands that the City may not be able to adequately address. New housing development may not keep pace with new job growth and the draft Housing Element should address the problem of the job generation and its relationship to the City’s housing needs. Staff modified the Housing Element to address the Council issues by refining the Housing Site Inventory and adding more policies to the element to provide opportunities for affordable housing as well as housing for middle-income buyers and renters. These included encouraging the production of smaller units, restricting the size of main units in DHS zones, and increasing densities to produce more units and allow market forces to reduce housing costs. These were in addition to various policies already included in the Element. Staff also included additional language that required new development to be consistent with surrounding densities and intensities of development and designed to preserve neighborhoods. During the Council’s last discussion on the draft element in April, the Council directed staff to send the draft element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for initial review after incorporating additional language regarding the importance of preservation and conservation of the unique character of Palo Alto’s single-family neighborhoods (added to Policy H-l). Staff also removed the Clemo site from the site inventory at the Council’s direction. The Council referred the draft element CMR:434:02 Page 2 of 11 back to the Planning and Transportation Commission for specific review of the Housing Sites Inventory using the criteria developed by staff with the addition of a criterion related to minimizing traffic congestion. In further response to the Council’s concern related to the potential for increased traffic congestion, staff added language to the element that limited intensification of housing sites to areas where increased traffic would not significantly impact the existing level of service. DISCUSSION The purposes of Palo Alto’s update to the Housing Element are fourfold. to: It was crafted 1.Address housing needs in Palo Alto by encouraging the production of housing that is attainable to the average Palo Alto worker 2.Reinforce and supplement plans and policies consistent with the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive PI an 3. Support the City’s existing integrated Comprehensive Plan strategy for housing, land use and transportation. The Transportation Element encourages transit use by siting higher density housing in appropriate locations near transit centers and along transportation corridors. The Land Use Element seeks to improve the City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance by increasing housing and reducing job growth. 4. Respond to the State requirement that all cities provide their "fair share" of housing for the region. Palo Alto’s regional allocation is 1,397 units; 52 percent of that must be affordable to families making less than 120 percent of the County median ($96,000 for a family of four). The City has already met its market-rate requirement, but has an unmet need of 616 affordable units. Attached to this City Manager’s Report is the Housing Element, consisting of two parts - Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element, and Housing Element Technical Document (Attachments A and B). In addition, staff has prepared a matrix entitled "Overview of Proposed Housing Element" (Attachment C) that summarizes and compares the programs and policies in the existing Housing Element to those in the proposed element and explains the changes. The focus of this staff report is to: Summarize the State Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) comments and the modifications to the Housing Element resulting from those comments, Report on the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing and recommendation, Further respond to major issues raised by the Council and the public during the extensive public review process of the draft Housing Element, and Identify changes made to the Housing Sites Inventory since the Council last reviewed it in April and as a result of recent state legislation related to housing elements CMR:434:02 Page 3 of 11 HCD State Comments/Staff Responses The comment letter the City received on the draft Housing Element from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (see Attachment D) commended Palo Alto for its efforts to develop a Housing Element that addresses local and regional housing needs, including innovative actions. The City was also commended for its extensive public participation process and for establishing a vision to increase affordable housing using mixed use and transit-oriented land use strategies. HCD’s letter did identify limited areas where revisions to the Housing Element would be necessary to comply with state law. The HCD comments focused on the housing programs and the housing text in Chapter Four of the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Needs Resources and Constraints in the Housing Technical Document. In Chapter Four, the State wanted more of a commitment from the City in the application of the programs identified in the Element. Language was inserted in the element that addresses the City’s plan for action, i.e., an explanation of how to implement the Housing Element programs. Program H-39 was also modified to incorporate text acknowledging that the City will seek funds to preserve Buena Vista Mobile Home Park since it is a ¯unique source of affordable housing. The State wanted the element to identify a method of preserving that resource. Staff also added language to address requirements of State Senate Bill 520 related to housing discrimination and in a related area expanded the discussion of the City’s commitment to fair housing and emergency housing. The Technical Document was also modified to include requested information on overpayment and an analysis of the City’s residential standards and fees and their impact on the development and cost of housing. Finally, the State requested more detailed information on the individual sites listed on the Housing Sites Inventory to better demonstrate the availability of these sites for development within the time frame of this Housing Element (1999-2006), the status of their uses and the viability of their redevelopment. In response, staff prepared Appendix E of the Technical Document, which provides specific data for each listed housing inventory site. The HCD comments and staff’s responses are discussed in detail in the appended Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment E). Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing On June 26, 2002 the Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the Housing Element for the second time (the first discussion was in October of 2001). In addition to the staff report summarizing HCD’s comments and staff’s responses, staff provided the Commission with a siting matrix that evaluated the suitability for housing of each site on the Housing Sites Inventory based on the criteria established by the Council (an updated version of the matrix is attached to this staff report as Attachment F). The staff presentation focused on those criteria and the selection of the individual sites on the inventory. At the hearing, ten speakers from the public provided testimony on the Housing Element. Three supported adoption of the element; the other seven raised CMR:434:02 Page 4 of 11 various concems about increasing development near or adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. The focus of the public testimony centered on increased traffic congestion and service impacts from development under the proposed element and the actual location of inventory sites. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the Council adopt the element on a 5-1-1 vote (Holman dissenting, Schmidt absent). The Commission did not make any recommended changes to the proposed Housing Element. Major Issue-Modifying the Housing Sites Inventory As mentioned before, concerns related to the Housing Sites Inventory were the focus of the Council meetings as well as the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing. It was also the topic that generated the most public comment during the public review process of the Housing Element. Since the Council last reviewed the Housing Sites Inventory, staff has modified the inventory based on public concern, recently enacted state legislation and HCD recommendation. Purpose of the Inventory In order to accommodate the City’s regional "fair share" housing requirement, the State requires that the City identify sufficient sites which are "made available through appropriate zoning and development standards...to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels." Based on that mandate, staff compiled the Housing Sites Inventory. This list has been modified since the Council last reviewed it in April. It has been reduced from twenty-one to sixteen sites; the previous inventory accommodated approximately 1,100 units, the proposed inventory accommodates approximately 820 units. The total unit count of 820 units is based on the low end of the allowed density range for each individual site. All of the sixteen sites on the list are considered suitable for the production of housing, including non-residential sites that could be converted to higher density residential use and mixed-use development. All of the sites were evaluated using the inventory criteria established by the Council on April 1. The sites were evaluated under two separate criteria categories: 1) Consistency with specific Comprehensive Plan policies related to housing development, and 2) Specific site characteristics that would enable multi-family housing development on the site. A complete siting analysis for each site on the inventory based on the specific criteria is included in Attachment F, Inventory Site Suitability Matrix. Site Selection Eight of the sites on the inventory are already zoned for housing at appropriate densities. Eight sites will require rezoning by the year 2004 in order to comply with the state mandate. This would enable "availability" of these sites for housing for at least the last two years of the Housing Element. Of those remaining eight sites, four are in the rezoning process by private applicants. If not privately-initiated, the remaining four CMR:434:02 Page 5 of 11 would require City-initiated rezoning. These include the City’s power substation on Alma Street, the VTA Park and Ride Lot on E1 Camino Real, the Craft and Floral building on Alma Street, and four properties on the east side of Sheridan Avenue between the southern Pacific Railroad and Park Boulevard. It should be noted that the property owners of the Craft and Floral building are actively discussing a mixed use project on the site. The inventory is not intended to indicate that only those sites listed are appropriate for housing in the City or are they necessarily the best sites. It does identify suitable sites available for housing over the term of the Housing Element (1999-2006). Attachment G identifies additional longer term sites in the City that are also considered suitable for housing but not envisioned to be "available" during the time frame of this Housing Element. These include sites such as Town & Country Village, Fry’s, Hoover Pavilion, Palo Alto Bowl, the County Mental Health facility, the Mayfield site, and the area adjacent to the future Intermodal Transit Center. Those sites, in particular, because of their sizes and locations are considered prime future housing sites; however, they are not considered "available" through the 2006 time frame of this Housing Element. Staff has also prepared a suitability matrix for these select seven sites (see Attachment H) to indicate their viability as future housing sites. Since many of the sites listed on the Housing Sites Inventory are already planned and zoned for residential use, development of the inventory sites with housing should not significantly change the overall character of Palo Alto or significantly change the overall development impacts as a result of developing housing on these sites. For those sites not currently planned or zoned for residential uses, their redevelopment for housing should be beneficial to the City as a whole since almost all of these sites are currently developed. As a result, the sites proposed to redevelop from a non-residential land use to housing should improve the jobs/housing imbalance and would reduce environmental impacts resulting from those jobs. Location/Distribution During the April City Council meeting and at the June 26th Planning Commission hearing, an issue raised by several of the public speakers was the specific location of the housing sites identified to meet the City’s regional need. Several of the speakers were concerned that the proposed inventory identified a disproportionate geographic distribution of the sites since the majority was located in the southern portion of the city. To address this issue, staff has prepared four maps that are included as Attachments I, J, K and L. Maps I and J identify the location and yield of all the housing that has been constructed, permitted or entitled since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Those maps show that the majority of development has occurred in the northern part of the City. These maps include the Stanford West project, which yields over 800 units; however, even with its exclusion more housing has occurred in the northern part of the City since CMR:434:02 Page 6 of 11 1998 than areas in the south. Maps K and L illustrate the locations and intensity of all the housing sites that will accommodate the total 1,397 "fair share" allocation. These sites include housing built from December 31, 1998 as well as any units listed on the inventory to fulfill the City’s unmet need. As those maps indicate, the distribution is fairly even throughout the City. AB2292 AB2292 which was signed into law by the Governor in September requires jurisdictions to ensure that any development of sites listed on a housing inventory meets the density identified on the inventory since it is used for identifying the jurisdiction’s "fair share" housing contribution. Under AB2292, the jurisdiction can reduce densities for sites on the inventory only if it makes findings that a reduction is consistent with its general plan and housing element and that the remaining sites on the jurisdiction’s inventory are sufficient to meet its regional housing needs determination (RHND). Based on the recent legislation, staff re-evaluated the inventory to determine if the legislation would affect the proposed Housing Element. The proposed inventory was modified to ensure that it included an appropriate "minimum" development potential for those sites that still needed to be rezoned. Since the draft inventory, even with very conservative minimum densities, still contains over 200 more units than necessary to meet Palo Alto’s RHND, AB2292 should not impose onerous mandates affecting housing development in Palo Alto. Where sites are appropriately zoned, the calculation used for the inventory assumed the low end of the zoning density range. Any development of these sites would be required to meet that density in compliance with the City’s zoning ordinance regardless of AB2292. For sites that still need to be rezoned, staff carefully evaluated their development potential and generally assumed a reasonable density range to ensure maximum flexibility at the entitlement stage. Addressing the Jobs/Housing Imbalance Palo Alto already suffers from a substantial jobs/housing imbalance heavily in favor of the jobs side of the ratio. Currently, there are over 2.5 jobs for every employed resident in Palo Alto: this means that the City must import over half its workers, resulting in considerable peak hour traffic congestion and immense competition for the limited housing available in Palo Alto. Realistically, given land availability, Palo Alto can never rectify this imbalance, but it may reduce its severity by increasing its potential for housing development and reducing the potential for industrial and commercial development. The draft Housing Element proposes the following policies to improve the City’s j obsihousing imbalance: The conversion of non-residential job-generating land to residential use that: o Reduce the number of jobs in Palo Alto o Bring housing closer to jobs thus reducing commute times, and o Reduce the number of workers that have to be "imported" to the City. CMR:434:02 Page 7 of 1 t The conversion of suitable non-residential sites to residential use, particularly along major transportation corridors, and by proposing conversion of retail and office commercial sites to housing. The conversion of non-residential land on the Housing Sites Inventory which could eliminate more than 1,550 potential jobs while providing an increase of approximately 290 housing units over those projected to be developed in Palo Alto over the time frame of the Comprehensive Plan. The conversion of the Sun Microsystems/JCC site to a residential/community facility mixed use development is the primary factor benefiting the jobs/housing equation. As a result, the housing development resulting from the inventory would improve the jobs/housing imbalance that is anticipated to continue through 2010 under the Comprehensive Plan. This reduction in jobs and the creation of additional housing should create a more balanced community consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Increased Traffic Congestion and other Environmental Impacts A major concern expressed by the public, Planning Commission and Council is the potential increase in traffic and other environmental impacts associated with new housing development and their effects on the quality of life of existing neighborhoods. The draft Housing Element is designed to address these concerns based on the premise that new residential development will help to reduce traffic congestion in the City and the region. This will be accomplished by: ®Bringing new housing closer to existing jobs and "internalizing" commute trips within the City, ®Reducing peak hour traffic generated by the non-residential uses ®Locating housing nearer to transit stations and transportation corridors to reduce dependence on the automobile and encourage transit use, and ® Encouraging mixed-use development with retail uses that reduce automobile trips. When more people who work in Palo Alto live in Palo Alto, traffic congestion and air pollution should be reduced; however, in order to ensure that existing neighborhoods are sufficiently preserved, policies have also been added to the proposed Housing Element to restrict intensification of sites where an adequate traffic level of service cannot be met. In order to address the traffic congestion issues yet allow intensification of development to meet the Comprehensive Plan programs and policies, the City is currently engaged in a study to provide a basis to impose transportation impact fees on new development projects citywide to offset traffic impacts. It is anticipated that this study will be completed in mid-2003. Adequate Provision of Community Services Palo Alto is essentially a built-out community, which means that all possible future housing sites are located in areas that are already provided with urban services. Some of CMR:434:02 Page 8 of 11 the potential housing sites are on former commercial or industrial properties that are already adequately served by streets, sewers, and other infrastructure and already have police and fire protection, although some adjustments may have to be made in these services. Residential development; however, will demand more or different services than the commercial or industrial uses it replaces, including the need for sufficient classrooms to accommodate increased student enrollment. The City has recently adopted an impact fee ordinance that requires development surcharges to offset park and community service impacts from new development. These impact fees should address all service impacts from new development except for school impacts. The City is working with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to identify ways to mitigate increases to the student populations for schools throughout the district. It should be noted, however, that the most recent PAUSD forecast projected that enrollments through the year 2010 will be lower than previously anticipated due to a recent drop in new student generation. Based on current census data, development under the proposed Housing Element should produce around one hundred more students that anticipated under the 2010 development scenario analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. CONCLUSION In closing, staff considers that the proposed Housing Element addresses the general policy concerns that the Council and the public identified in the various public meetings held on the draft Housing Element. The proposed Housing Element supports the community need for additional housing opportunities and identifies policies and programs to stimulate the production of housing, particularly more affordable housing. Adopting and implementing a strong Housing Element is critical to Palo Alto, given the City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance and the high cost and limited availability of land. Promoting the preservation and production of housing, especially affordable and attainable housing, will help determine the future direction of Palo Alto. The proposed Housing Element strengthens the policies in the existing Comprehensive Plan and balances housing production with service demands. Although no single program will meet the City’s housing needs and all housing programs must be seen as part of an integrated strategy to produce affordable housing, each of the programs in the Housing Element serves to support and reinforce the key provisions and goals of the Comprehensive Plan related to transportation (e.g., encouraging transit use), land use (e.g., improving the City’s jobs/housing imbalance), and housing (e.g., providing adequate housing for all economic segments of the community). If the Council adopts the Housing Element, it will be forwarded to the state for final review. HCD will have ninety days to determine compliance with state housing law. The City was notified in late spring that the City currently does not have a Housing Element that complies with state law. CMR:434:02 Page 9 of 11 RESOURCE IMPACT No funding is required for adoption or implementation of the draft Housing Element. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Housing Element is consistent with existing City policy, particularly the Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared (see Attachment M). The Comprehensive Plan Environmental Report was certified by the City Council on July 20, 1998. The Addendum was prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The environmental analysis prepared for the project confirms that the project does not result in significant new environmental impacts and, therefore, an Addendum can be prepared for this project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - Revised 11/12/02 Attachment B:Draft Housing Element Technical Document Attachment C:Overview of Proposed Housing Element Attachment D:Letter dated May 3, 2002, from Department of Housing and Community Development re: Review of City ofPalo Alto’s Draft Housing Element Attachment E:Planning and Transportation Commission staff report of June 26, 2002, entitled "Review of Draft Housing Element Incorporating Revisions Based on State Comments" w/o attachments, and with excerpt minutes of the meeting Attachment F:Inventory Site Suitability Matrix Attachment G:Additional Potential Longer-Term Housing Sites Attachment H:Select Longer-Term Site Suitability Matrix Attachment I:Housing Developed and Proposed under Existing Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999 - August 2002 Attachment J:Housing Developed and Proposed under Existing Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999 - August 2002 Attachment K:Housing Developed and Proposed under Proposed Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999 - 2006 w/Housing Opportunity Sites Attachment L:Housing Developed and Proposed under Proposed Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999 - 2006 w/Housing Opportunity Sites Attachment M: Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report Attachment N: Resolution CMR:434:02 Page 10 of 11 PREPARED BY: JULIE CAPORGNO Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Director of Planning and Community Environment City Manager CMR:434:02 Pagellofll Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Vision Statement Palo Alto will aggressively pursue a variety of housing opportunities that enhance the ATTACHMENT A character, diversity and vitality of the City. The City is committed to increasing the development of affordable and market-rate housing, including converting non-residential lands to residential or mixed use. Existing housing, particularly rental units, will be conserved and rehabilitated or replaced. Palo Alto will continue its strong commitment to supporting agencies that assist households with special needs. The City will foster an environment free of discrimination and the barriers that prevent choice in housing. It will place special emphasis on family housing and housing that addresses the health care, child care, transit, recreation and social service needs of all Paio Alto residents. Introduction State law mandates that the Housing Element contain specific data, address certain topics, and establish a workable strategy for meeting the City’s share of the region’s housing needs. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must periodically review the Housing Element for adequacy and completeness. Because much of the information required for State review of the Housing Element is statistical and must be updated every five years, Palo Alto has prepared a separate Technical Document that supplements the Comprehensive Plan. This document includes the data required for HCD review to determine compliance with State law, is incorporated by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and is included in the appendix. This chapter begins with a synopsis of the more detailed information found in the Technical Document. It proceeds with the City’s housing goals, policies, and programs and briefly describes the City’s five-year implementation program including targets for the housing production and conservation. Additional text on the City’s programs may be found in the Technical Document. Existing Conditions Palo Alto’s population has increased only slightly during the last 30 years. The number of residents increased by 4.7% from 55,966 in 1970 to 58,598 in 2000 with most of this growth occurring between 1990-2000. While the average number of people per household declined from 2.7 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2000, the number of housing units increased. Although 72.8 percent of Palo Alto’s population is white, the City is becoming more ethnically diverse. Asians and Pacific Islanders increased their share of the City’s population growing from 10 percent to 17.3 percent, while 4.6 percent are Hispanic, 2 percent are black and 3.3 percent identify themselves as other. Page 1 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 City of Palo Alto 2000 Population by Race/Ethnicity White 72.8% Black 2.0% Hispanic 4.6% Asian/Pacific Islander 17.3% Other*3.3% Source: 2000 U.S. Census. *The other category is remnant of population not positively identified under any other racial or ethnic category. City of Palo Alto 2000 Population by Age Pre-School (Under 5) School Age (5-17) Child Bearing (18-44) Middle Age (45-64) Senior (65 and over) Source: 2000 U.S. Census 5.1% 16.1% 37.3% 25.9% 15.6% The median age of Palo Alto’s population has increased dramatically over the last few decades. In 1970, the median age was 29.5 for men and 33.7 for women. By 1990, these figures had increased to 36.7 and 40.0 respectively. In the year 2000, the median age for the entire population of Palo Alto was 40.2 years, which is considerably higher than the County median age of 34 years. The increase in median age has been accompanied by an increase in Palo Alto’s senior population; the number of persons over 65 increased from 10 to 15.6 percent of the population between 1970 and 2000. The number of older adults is expected to continue to increase in the future. At the other end of the age spectrum, the number of children under five has increased significantly over the last two decades and has resulted in an increase in the number of children entering child care and school. However, the number of women of child bearing age has decreased markedly after increasing during.the 1980s and 1990s and the middle-aged population has increased significantly indicating that Palo Alto will continue to grow older during the next decade. The 2000 Census indicated that there were 26,048 housing units in Palo Alto. This was an increase of 860 units from 1990. About one-third of the City’s homes were built during the 1950s, the period of greatest housing construction in Palo Alto’s history. Since 1960, the rate of production has generally declined. From 1970 to 1980, homes were added at a rate of about 240 units per year. By the 1990’s, the annual rate had decreased to about 86 units per year as a result of economic factors and the limited availability of residential land. Page 2 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - - Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Population, Household Size and Housing Units 1970-2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population Percent Change 55,966 - 55,225 -1.3% 55,900 +1.2% 58,598 +4.8% Household Percent Size Change 2.7 2.3 -14.8% 2.2 -4.3% 2.3 +4.5% Housing Percent Units Change 21,338 23,747 +11.3% 25,188 +6.1% 26,048 +3.4% 1970 1980 1990 2000 Income, Rent and House Values 1970-2000 Single Percent Family Change Home Value $33,900 - $148,900 +339% $457,800 +207% $1,006,600 +120% Rent/Month Percent Change $162 - $348 +115% $825 +137% $2,512 +204% Median Percent Income Change $12,200 - $24,700 +102% $53,300 +116% $111,360 +109% (est.) Palo Alto is an affluent community with incomes considerably higher than the regional average. In 1996, median family of four income was $77,500; compared to $67,400 in Santa Clara County. In 2000, County median income for a family of four was $87,000 according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Year 2000 Census income information is not yet available for Palo Alto but, assuming Palo Alto households maintained their 1996 proportional advantage in higher family incomes (about 28%), we can estimate that the median income for a family of four in the City in 2000 would have been about $111,360. The City also has a significant number of lower income households. In 1990, about 20 percent of Palo Alto’s households reported an income of under $25,000 which was almost the same proportion as in the County as a whole. Although year 2000 data is not yet available to update this analysis of lower income households, it is likely that Palo Alto has maintained its proportion of lower to higher income households. It should be noted, however, that a $25,000 annual income would not be an accurate reflection in the year 2000 of the number of lower or "limited" income households in Palo Alto. For example, HUD considers a family of four earning $43,500 or less and a single person earning $30,450 or less to be very low income. A $25,000 income would be inadequate to meet the housing and other needs of most households in Palo Alto. Page 3 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element- - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 There is also a disparity between income levels based on the type of household. For instance, the average income for married couples in 1990 was nearly three times the figure for female-headed single parent households. Year 2000 Census data is not yet available to confirm these same proportional income differences between married couple and single parent households but it is probable that such differences continue since a substantial proportion of married couple households will have two wage earners while single parent households, by definition, only have one. Housing in Palo Alto is expensive. The median sales price for a single family detached home in 2000 was $1,006,600. Using traditional underwriting criteria, an annual income of approximately $275,000 would be required to purchase such a home. Even the median priced condominium, at $546,000, would require an annual income of $163,000. Home ownership is only affordable to households with above moderate incomes. The cost of rental housing has also risen sharply. In fact, housing costs doubled between 1996 and 2000 for all types of housing in Palo Alto. At the same time, vacancy rates have remained low, traditionally less than 3 percent for both owner- and renter-occupied units. Housing costs have risen at a much greater rate than family or household incomes. i~OUSING OPPORTUNITIES Palo Alto has an extremely limited supply of vacant residential land. Most of the City’s development potential consists of infill on small vacant lots, redevelopment of existing properties, and conversion of underutilized non-residential lands to higher density residential or mixed use projects. The City will continue to seek opportunities to rezone commercial lands to residential uses and strongly discourage the conversion of residential lands to non-residential use. In appropriate locations, mixed use will be encouraged to provide housing opportunities. Although the City’s 1978 Zoning Ordinance recognizes mixed use as a viable housing type, the lack of clear mixed use zoning regulations has been an obstacle to housing production in such projects. This Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative ideas for creating new housing, including mixed use zoning, the use of smaller lots, live/work projects, and other emerging housing prototypes. In particular, the City has engaged in, and will continue to conduct, a Housing Opportunities Study that identifies non-residential sites appropriate for conversion to residential or mixed use and is committed to rezoning sufficient of these sites by 2004 to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s 1999-2006 housing need. Palo Alto has been very active in promoting and supporting affordable housing. Since the late 1960s, the City has aggressively used local, state, and federal housing assistance programs for very low-, low-, and moderate- income households. These programs resulted in the construction of 745 subsidized affordable units in the 1970s, 196 in the 1980s, and about 380 in the 1990s. Curtailment of many state and federal programs during the 1980s and 1990s has meant fewer affordable housing opportunities and greater reliance on local funding to supplement state and federal programs. Local programs include the City’s Inclusionary Housing or Below Market Rate (BMR) program. The program was initiated in 1974 as a means of increasing the supply of housing affordable to individuals and families with low to moderate incomes. It Page 4 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 continues to be an extremely important part of the City’s strategy to meet its housing needs. The City also maintains a "Housing Development Fund" that can be used for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of housing. The funds are primarily available to nonprofit groups who agree to maintain the long-term affordability of the housing units. HOUSING NEEDS State Housing Element law requires that localities provide for their "fair share" of the region’s housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Palo Alto’s projected need for the period from January 1, 1999 - June 30, 2006 was 1,397 units. This number has been reduced to 616 by the number of housing units completed and occupied or approved (building permits issued) through the end of 2000. All of these remaining units must be affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income households as described below, PIousis,~ Needs by income Leve! In addition to projecting overall housing needs, ABAG also projects housing needs by income category. The intent of this action is to equitably distribute households by income category so that no one City or County is "impacted" with a particular income group. Four income categories are defined by the federal government and are used by ABAG, as defined in the following box. Standard definitions of Household Income (2000) Very Low-Income: Households with incomes between 0 and 50 percent of County median family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4: $43,500. Low-Income: Households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent of County median family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4: $69,600. Moderate-Income: Households with incomes between 81 and 120 percent of County median family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4: $104,400. Above Moderate-Income: Households with incomes greater than 120 percent of County median family income: over $104,400. Some agencies and programs use different definitions of household income. In Palo Alto, the following modifications applied in 2000: For the HUD Section 8 rental programs and the CDBG Program, the 2000 limit for a.family of four was $53,853. For the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HUD HOME Programs, the Low-Income maximum is 60 percent of the County median. The 1997 2000 limit for a family of. four was $52,200. For the City of Palo Alto BMR Program, Moderate-Income for home ownership is 80 to 100 percent of the County median. The 2000 limit for a family of four was $87,000. The table below shows how the City of Palo Alto’s 1999-2006 Housing Element allocated the ABAG new construction need by income category. One hundred and forty- three (143) of the 843 units built or approved have been constructed and are already occupied or are ready for occupancy. The remaining 700 units have received building permits and are in the process of being built. Most of these units should be ready for occupancy by the end of 2001. Page 5 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 ABAG Fair Share Housing Needs Table, 1999-2006 Income Level 1999-2006 Need 1999-2000 Built or Unmet Need Approved Units Very Low 265 24 241 Low 116 66 50 Moderate 343 18 325 Subtotal of 724 108 616 Affordable Units Above Moderate 673 735 None TOTAL 1,397 843 616 In reviewing the totals shown in the table above, it appears that Palo Alto has already constructed, or approved for construction, about 60% of its fair share of the region’s housing need. However, it should be noted that the totals include76 more above moderate income units than required by ABAG’s assessment of Palo Alto’s fair share of the region’s housing need for 1999-2006. Only 108 of 724 affordable units needed, or about 15% of Palo Alto’s total need for affordable housing, have currently been built or approved for construction. Palo Alto’s current unmet housing need for 1999-2006 consists of 616 housing units that need to be affordable to very low-, low- or moderate- income households. Goals, Policies, and Programs ~o~i H~! A Supply of Affordable and Market Rate Housing That Meets Palo Alto’s Share of Regional Housing Needs. The Mid-Peninsula area of the San Francisco Bay region has limited housing opportunities relative to the number of jobs. The Comprehensive Plan’s policies and programs promote a variety of housing opportunities for all income ranges. Housing diversity will enhance Palo Alto’s social and economic strength. A commitment to the increased production of housing for all income levels will help the City continue to be a distinctive, diverse and desirable place to live. Residents will benefit from an increased awareness about housing needs, diversity and opportunities. POLICY H- 1: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the City’s existing neighborhoods. Increasing the housing supply meets an important citywide need. However, to be truly beneficial for all Palo Altans, new housing must be designed and located in a way that enhances the character of existing neighborhoods. Increases in the housing supply should Page 6 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 be accomplished without diminishing the quality of City services or surpassing the capacity of infrastructure and transportation facilities. POLICY H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. PROGRAM H- 1: Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit stations by either increasing allowed densities or encouraging development at the higher end of the existing density range for sites within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned transit station or ~ along two major transit corridors, El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, wherever appropriate. Palo Alto has a variety of commercial and mixed commercial/residential areas (such as California Avenue), two multi-modal transit centers, and a network of bus routes serving its commercial areas. Allowing increased density in these areas achieves a number of important objectives. It allows the housing supply to be increased while minimizing visual and physical impacts on nearby lower density areas. It also encourages the use of transit, reduces auto dependency, and supports the City’s air quality goals. PROGRAM H-2: Encourage development densities at the higher end of allowed density ranges in multiple family zones by using methods such as preferentialor priority processing and application fee reductions for proiects that propose development at the higher end of a site’s allowed density range and that provide affordable housing in excess of mandatory BMR program requirements. Consider increasing minimum density requirements in multiple family zones as well as in all Comprehensive Plan land use designations that permit housing. Most recent housing developments in Palo Alto have not been constructed to the maximum densities allowed by zoning. Market conditions, bank financing, and insurance requirements have favored the construction of single family detached houses. To increase housing supply and obtain densities closer to those envisioned by zoning policies, the City should establish increased minimum density standards in appropriate multiple family zoning districts as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update currently underway. This is particularly important given the limited number of vacant sites remaining in Palo Alto and their potential contribution towards meeting the City’s housing needs. PROGRAM H-3: Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new Page 7 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 housing. Land use and development applications that propose the conversion of non-residential land to residential or mixed-use development will be given preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversion. Palo Alto has a significant surplus of jobs compared to its housing supply which has contributed to the City’s inability to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing. This program attempts to redress the jobs/housing imbalance by reducing potential job growth while increasing the supply of housing, including affordable housing through the conversion of non-residential job generating uses to residential uses. This type of conversion should assist the City in reducing traffic congestion and poor air quality by bringing housing closer to employment centers. This would allow for the internalization of commute trips and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation due to the increased proximity of housing and jobs. PROGRAM H-4 : Allow increased residential densities and a44o~ mixed use development onlvwhere adequate urban services and amenities can be provided and, in cases where the change is zoning is likely to lead to traffic congesion that will reduce levels of service below those acceptable to the City, adopt mitigation measures that will id thi imp "avo s act ~’~ Palo Altans have expressed the concern that additional residential growth including ang mixed residential/non-residential forms of development may strain the City’s ability to provide adequate urban services and amenities, such as parks, and may reduce the quality of life of the City’s residents and neighborhoods. There is also a concern about increased traffic congestion. This program seeks to balance the City’s need to provide housing with its abilities to provide the services and environmental conditions needed to adequately support that housing and provide attractive places to live and work. The City has adopted fees to address the impact of new development on parks, libraries and community centers; it anticipates adopting citywide transportation impact fees to mitigate traffic impacts. PROGRAM H-5: Consider the following modifications during the Zoning Ordinance Update currently underway and incorporate those modifications in the revised Zoning Ordinance that are most conducive to increasing the production of affordable housing by the year 2004. OonMty Limits and RoMclontial Osos @eci~ the range of housing densities appropriate for each commercial and industrial Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning district that pewits housing. For proposed proiects ~ located within 2,000feet of an existing or planned rail transit station ~ not adjacent to a single family neighborhood ¯ ¯ " ~’cd u’zdc~ "~se ~" ~ ....dcsig~ and z~ni:zg ~;"’~;~’- ; "...................... ~wtth a Page 8 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 substantial proportion of a proposed project’s units a-r-e affordable to very low,, low-, or moderate income households, development may be allowed at a higher density than that normally allowed under these land use designations ~ districts. Development at the high end of the density range should only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities or other alternative modes of transportation, thereby avoiding a,ad will ~,o~ significantly ~ ,w~mvm existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections. Consider allowing higher densities on sites that are not precisely within 2,000 feet of a rail transit station but that may be suitable for transit oriented development due to exceptional access to other transit opportunities or alternative modes of transportation. Development of these sites should be compatible ~ with surrounding densities and intensities of development and should be designed to preserve_neighborhood character. Development of these sites at the high end of the density range should only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities or other alternative modes ol~ transportation and will not significantly degrade ~ existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections. Allow the construction of affordable housing on surplus sites designated Major Institution/Special Facilities under the Comprehensive Plan or zoned for Public Facilities, excepting those areas that are used for open space or playgrounds. Development of these sites should be compatible ~ with surrounding densities and intensities of development and should be designed to preserve neighborhood character. Consideration should also be given to encouraging the conversion of portions of buildings or sites (e.g , religious institutions ~) to allow ancillary residential uses, such as caretaker quarters, by modifying pertinent sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. Allow a very high residential density under the Mixed Use land use designation for those sites within 2,000feet of an existing or planned rail transit station unless adjacent to single family neighborhoods. In areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, require lower densities as a buffer. Development at the high end of the density range should only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities or other alternative modes of transportation and will not significantly de_~grade ~ existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections. Restrict the size of main units under the DHS Zoning District and ensure that second units are adequate to accommodate a second household. Address the loss of housing due to the combination of single family residential lots. Consider modifying the R-1 Zoning District to create a maximum lot size to prevent the loss of housing or housing opportunities. Page 9 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Permit higher densities under the R-1 Zoning District to accommodate smaller lots for courtyard homes or other similar types of housing. ~ Increase the minimum density of the RM-15 Zoning District to at least eight dwelling units per acre consistent with the multi- family land use designation under the Comprehensive Plan. New Development Standards and Zoning Districts Allow for increasedflexibility in the application of development standards, such as parking and height, to better implement the housing programs contained in this chapter and to encourage the production of affordable housing. Floor area ratio limits should also be made flexible for the purpose of creating affordable housing, Maximum unit sizes should also be considered to encourage the production of more affordable housing. The use of a "form" code to achieve these objectives should be considered during the Zoning Ordinance Update. Create new zoning districts to implement the Transit-oriented Residential and Village Residential land use designations and establish development standards that provide the maximum amount of housing, particularly for affordable housing projects, permitted under the allowed density range while preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods. Create development standards for permitted mixed residential/non-residential uses that would permit a number of dwelling units, including a minimum number of affordable housing units, to be built with each project. Mixed uses with an office component should be discouraged. The definition of mixed use development and the standards to be utilized in such developments will be addressed during the Zoning Ordinance Update. Over the past few years, Palo Alto has not been able to take full advantage of the housing opportunities provided by the variety of lands that allow residential use, particularly in terms of achieving the levels of development allowed by the City’s permitted density ranges. Development standards contained in the City’s Zoning Ordinance have not allowed the full residential development potential of mixed use projects permitted in industrial and commercial zoning districts to be achieved. Certain Comprehensive Plan land use designations, such as Transit-oriented Residential, have not been implemented because the City has no corresponding zoning district which can be used to take advantage of sites near transit stations. The creation of new zoning districts is essential to Palo Alto’s strategy of reusing non-residential developed lands for residential use to increase the City’s housing supply and more efficiently use the limited land available for housing. Palo Alto also lost irreplaceable housing opportunities due to single family lot combinations resulting in larger lots but fewer dwelling units. Since housing supplies are so limited, the loss of development potential on any residential site must be discouraged. The purpose of the programs listed above is to ensure that Palo Alto efficiently uses its limited land supply and makes the most of its opportunities to provide both market rate and affordable housing. Page 10 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Palo Alto is updating its Zoning Ordinance, which provides a timely mechanism for implementing the programs described above. During the review process for the Zoning Ordinance, the City should carefully examine allowing densities of up to 50 dwelling units per acre, on mixed use sites, sites near transit stations, and sites along two major transportation corridors, E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road, to both provide more affordable housing and to support transit use. Fifty dwelling units per acre is currently the highest density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan and is limited to sites designated Transit-oriented Residential and located within 2,000 feet of a transit station. There may be other sites, however, that are suitable for this density, or higher densities than the current zoning allows, and near transit facilities that are not precisely within the 2,000- foot radius of a transit station but that have good access to rail or major bus transit facilities and not adjacent to single family neighborhoods. The City should evaluate its options to accommodate such opportunities, such as creating development standards that would allow such densities to be achieved while still maintaining the desirable character of Palo Alto. PROGRAM H-6: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, create zoning incentives that encourage the development of diverse housing types, such as smaller, more affordable units and two- and three-bedroom units suitable for families with children. Consider using a "form" code to achieve these objectives. A variety of housing types are desired in Palo Alto to address the broad spectrum of needs. By providing incentives to develop housing units of less than 1,200 square feet, the affordability and number of potential units can be increased. Incentives to develop such housing should be pursued. Incentives might include reduced parking or open space requirements, density bonuses, reduced lot coverage standards, flexible height limits, increased floor area ratios, or City financial participation. Certain locations near schools, parks, and quiet streets provide the best sites for households with children. PROGRAM H- 7: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, modify the provisions, such as parking requirements, minimum lot size, and coverage and floor area ratio limits, that goven, the development of second dwelling units, in single family areas to encourage the production of such units. Consider using a ’’form’" code to achieve these objectives. Second units can provide additional rental housing that is both desirable and unobtrusive. The current cottage regulations should be evaluated to determine how additional units might be provided through increased flexibility in the regulations such as reduced parking requirements, limiting the maximum size of the unit, allowing for attached units, and reducing the minimum lot size requirement. Appropriate development controls and review procedures should ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. PROGRAM H-8: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, modify the Zoning Code to allow second dwelling units that are incorporated entirely within the existing main dwelling, or that require only a small addition (200 square feet or less) and limited exterior modifications, to be approved through a ministerial permit (i.e., no design Page 11 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 review or public hearing) on sites that meet the minimum development standards, including the parking requirement. PROGRAM H-9: Explore creating an amnesty program to legitimize existing illegal second units where appropriate and consistent with maintaining the character and quality of life of existing neighborhoods. The grant of amnesty should be contingent on i compliance with minimum building, housing and other applicable code standards and on maintaining the affordability of the second unit to very low-, low- or moderate-income households. PROGRAM H-IO: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, create a Planned Development zone that allows the construction of smaller lot single family units and other innovative housing types without the requirement for a public benefit finding provided that the project significantly increases the number of affordable housing units on the site over what would otherwise be allowed by existing zoning. A designation similar to the existing "Planned Community" zone would allow flexibility in design while providing a highly inclusive public review process. Because there is such a strong need for housing in the City, the requirement for a public benefit finding can be eliminated if the project significantly increases the affordable housing supply over what would otherwise be allowed by existing zoning. While new zoning regulations are anticipated to implement the "Village Residential" land use designation, it is not possible to predict all of the prototypes the market will invent. Therefore, a flexible zoning designation is desirable. PROGRAM H-11: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, amend zoning regulations to permit residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where smaller lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Many Palo Alto neighborhoods have lots that are smaller than the 6,000 square foot minimum currently required by zoning. Allowing additional smaller lots would result in more units, create greater housing opportunities, and remain compatible and consistent with existing development patterns. PROGRAM H-12: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, amend the Zoning Code to reduce parking requirements for higher density development in appropriate areas thus reducing development costs and producing housing that is more affordable. The potential consequences of reducing parking will be evaluated for particular types of projects during the Zoning Ordinance Update, but parking reductions should primarily be considered for transit-oriented development or developments that can demonstrate that its need for parking is less than the required parking standard called for by the Zoning Ordinance. Page 12 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 POLICY H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. PROGRAM H-13: Implement the Housing Opportunities Study that identifies vacant and underutilized sites and sites with existing non-residential uses that are suitable for future housing or mixed use development focusing particularly on sites near an existing or planned transit station, along major transportation corridors with bus service, and in areas with adequate urban services and supporting retail and service uses. Suitable housing sites currently planned and zoned for non-residential use should be designated for residential or mixed use in sufficient quantities to accommodate the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs. Convert sites near transit and other major transportation facilities to higher density residential and mixed use to reinforce the City’s policies supporting transit use, create a pedestrian friendly environment, and reduce reliance on the automobile as well as increase the supply of housing, consistent with the City’s policies of encouraging compact, infill development and optimizing the use of existing urban services. Work with Stanford University to identify sites suitable for housing that may be located in the Stanford Research Park. PROGRAM H-14: Rezone, where necessary, those sites identified on the Housing Sites Inventory, using appropriate residential or mixed use zoning districts, prior to 2004. The Housing Sites Inventory o.~,n;,.~.~ ;~ ,r.~ ~ ....;~. m ....* Technicnl De.cumc~ identifies a list of potential housing sites and contains those sites that are the most suitable and likely to be developed for residential purposes in the time frame of this Housing Element. Many of these sites are already zoned for residential development at a suitable intensity. The rezoning of the balance of the sites listed on the Inventory must be accomplished by 2004 to provide sufficient opportunity for the development community and the City to process and build new housing developments prior to the June 30, 2006 planning horizon of this Housing Element. PROGRAM H-15: Conduct a special study of the El Camino Real transportation corridor to examine in detail the potential for developing higher density housing, especially affordable housing, on specific residential or non-residential sites consistent with the City’s traffic level of service policies, the City’s ability to provide urban services and amenities and the preservation of the character and quality of life of adjacent neighborhoods. The E1 Camino Real transportation corridor provides a significant opportunity to plan for new residential or appropriate mixed uses that can support affordable housing and take advantage of the frequent bus service provided along this corridor. A substantial portion Page 13 of 38 Pal0 Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 of the City’s future housing supply may be provided on the underutilized commercial sites located along this corridor, but such development requires careful evaluation by the City in terms of potential environmental constraints, such as traffic and potential visual and other impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and the City’s limited ability to provide additional urban services. Residential developments that are designed to encourage the use of bus transit, or that use bus transit to access rail transit, would be particularly beneficial and desirable for affordable housing projects. POLICY Ho4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. Commercial areas and parking lots offer some of the best opportunities for new housing. Residences can be built over stores, parking lots and even some industrial buildings. Parking lots may be able to serve a dual purpose, serving businesses by day and residences by night. Mixed use projects should not be limited to "vertical" integration in a single building, but should also include locations where residential and commercial uses exist side by side. Mixed use projects that create new office space ~ offi,c~a~g,~ should be Page 14 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Housing Sites Inventory Sites Zoned, or that are Proposed to be Rezoned, for Residential Use Prior to 2004 Site No. 5-01 5-06 5-21 5-28 5-30 5-31 8-06 8-09(a) 8-09(b) 8-11 10-02 12-01 12-06 12-07 12-09 12-11 Total Site Address Bryant, Channing & Ramona 800 High St. 657-663 Alma St. (north comer of Alma St. and Forest Ave.) 33, 39 & 45 Encina Ave. near E1 Camino Real 841 Alma St. 901 High St. 2650 Birch St. at Sheridan Ave. 2701 E1 Camino Real 2755 El Camino Real E. side Sheridan Ave. btwn. SPRR and Park Blvd. 901 San Antonio Rd. 4102 E1 Camino Real at Vista 4219 E1 Camino Real 4249 E1 Camino Real 4146 E1 Camino Real 3445 Alma St. Description Oak Court (SOFA affordable housing) Peninsula Creamery site Former Craft and Floral building Proposed Opportunity Center Power substation Auto storage/parking 2 vacant lots and 4 houses Former Greenworld Nursery VTA Park & Ride Lot Underutilized industrial bldgs.; portion of Page Mill Rd. r.o.w. Former Sun Microsystems/ Future JCC Former Blockbusters Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel Elk’s Lodge Vacant Alma Plaza Existing Zoning AMF CD-S(P) CD-C(P) CD-S(P) CS PF CD-S(P) RM-40 RM-40, CN PF GM(B) GM RM-30 CS(H) RM-30, RM-15, R-1 RM-15 PC Proposed Zoning AMF PC (Application pending) Mixed Use PC (Application pending) TBD Mixed Use (Application pending) RM-40 RM-40 or Mixed Use RM-40 RM-40 Mixed Use (Application pending) RM-30 CS(H) (Application pending) RM-30, RM-15, R-1 RMo15 PC (Application pending) Site Size in Acres 1.23 0.96 0.48 0.43 0.36 0.32 0.57 0.98 0.48 3.92 12.92 (portion) 0.65 15.98 (portion) 8.08 0.77 4.21 (portion) Potential Dwelling Unit Yield * 53 26 10 90 10 10 15 30 15 120 200 9 120 97 5 10 820 * Total potential dwelling unit yield is based on the low end of the allowed density range and establishes the minimum densities the City is committing to in accordance with State law. Page 15 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 || Page 16 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - - Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 discouraged since office development tends to increase the City’s existing traffic congestion and air quality problems. PROGRAM H-16: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, evaluate and improve existing incentives that encourage mixed use (with a residential component) and residential development on commercially zoned land and establish development standards that will encourage development of the maximum amount of housing permitted under the allowed density range, particularly for projects that provide affordable housing. The City’s current zoning regulations have been ineffective in encouraging significant numbers of mixed use projects, particularly those that are designed to provide affordable housing. Typically, projects require many variances from current development standards to be feasible from the market’s standpoint. The regulations should be evaluated and revised to improve clarity, remove overly restrictive requirements and provide new incentives for mixed use. PROGRAM H-17: Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that support the development of housing above and among commercial uses. Coordinated area plans are intended to provide more specific guidance for development in areas where change is desired. PROGRAM H-18: Encourage the development of housing on or over parking lots by adopting incentives that will lead to housing production while maintaining the required parking. One possible incentive to enable more housing is allowing the use of air rights to develop housing over parking. There may other incentives as well which the City will explore. PROGRAM H-19: (REVISED) Consider eliminating the requirement for Site and Design review by the Planning Commission and City Council for mixed use projects shortly after development standards have been established for mixed use projects during the Zoning Ordinance Update expected to be completed in 2004. Presently, mixed use projects require site and design review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning Commission, and City Council. Eliminating this requirement would expedite project approval and remove an impediment to housing production. Projects would still be subject to ARB review, providing opportunity for public comment and design review. Eliminating Planning Commission and City Council review of mixed use projects should not be considered until new development standards have been effectively implemented for mixed use projects. POLICY H-5: Discourage the conversion of lands designated as residential to nonresidential uses and the use of multiple family residential lands by Page 17 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - - Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 non-residential Uses, such as schools and churches, unless there is no net loss of housing potential on a community-wide basis. Residentially-zoned land is a valuable commodity that should be preserved whenever possible. Since the 1960s, Palo Alto has changed the zoning of many parcels from non- residential to residential. The reverse situation--rezoning or approving use permits on residential land for non-residential purposes--should only be approved when new housing opportunities that meet or exceed the number of potential units eliminated can be ensured. PROGRAM H-20: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, change the Zoning Code to disallow uses other than residential uses in a multiple-family residential zone 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. Conversion of multiple family residential lands to non-residential uses can significantly reduce the City’s housing supply. The City must ensure that such lands are not converted to non-residential use unless there is an overarching public benefit from the project or the housing lost by development of a non-residential use on a multiple family site is replaced. POLICY H-6: Support the reduction of governmental and regulatory constraints to the production of affordable housing. Zoning requirements, development review and approval procedures, fees, and building codes and standards will be reviewed regularly to eliminate barriers to affordable housing construction. PROGRAM H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that proposed affordable housing units in excess o’~ minimum City BMR Program standards either in terms of the number of the affordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve. PROGRAM H-22: Exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact fees that may be adopted by the City. Housing units that are subject to long-term (forty years or greater) restrictions to maintain affordability and occupancy by very low-, low-, and moderate-income households should be exempt from future impact fees. Units provided under the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program should be included in the impact fee exemption. Page 18 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element- - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 PROGRAM H-23: Require all City departments to expedite all processes, including applications, related to the construction of affordable housing above minimum BMR requirements. POLICY H-7: Monitor, on a regular basis, the City’s progress in increasing the supply of housing and monitor the preservation of BMR rental units for very low- and low- income residents. PROGRAM H-24: Establish an annual monitoring program to review the progress made in the construction of housing for all income levels, the rezoning of suitable housing Sites, and the implementation of policies to encourage the production of affordable housing. iGoal H 2. Conservation and Maintenance of Palo Alto’s Existing Housing Stock and Residential Neighborhoods. Palo Alto has many fine neighborhoods with a variety of housing styles and types. Conserving and maintaining this housing will help preserve the character of the City’s neighborhoods. Older housing may also be more affordable than newer housing. Preservation of this older housing stock will help maintain Palo Alto’s limited supply of affordable housing. POLICY H-8: Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties. The general condition of the housing stock in Palo Alto is very good, partially due to the high price of homes. However, there are isolated structures and small sections of the community that may begin to turn downward unless the normal processes of deterioration are reversed. These areas need rehabilitation now, before major problems arise. PROGRAM H-25." Continue the citywide property maintenance, inspection, and enforcement program. PROGRAM H-26: Enact development regulations that encourage retention and rehabilitation of historic residential buildings, older multifamily rental buildings and smaller single family residences. Page 19 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 The City promotes code inspection as a service to residents and a deterrent to neighborhood deterioration. POLICY H-9: Maintain the number of multi-family ~ housing units, including BMR rental and ownership units, in Palo Alto at no less than the number of multi-family rental and BMR units available as of December 2001 and continue to support efforts to increase the supply of these units. Palo Alto has a limited supply of r-ent-at affordable housing relative to market demands. Very few private market rental projects have been built since the 1960s. Not surprisingly, the City’s residential vacancy rate has consistently been below three percent over the last 20 years. Sharp increases in rents in the last half of the 1990s indicate that the City should continue to take the steps necessary to retain the supply of rental units and encourage the construction of new units. The City’s BMR program provides both rental and ownership units to low and moderate income individuals and families. The preservation of the City’s BMR housing stock is a priority for the City and retention of this housing stock needs to be ensured. PROGRAM H-27." ~icn sinc~ Implement a Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Emergency Fund to prevent the loss Of BMR units and to provide emergency loans for BMR unit owners _for substantial mandatory assessments. Eight-four percent of Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing stock was built before 1990. With the aging of this important affordable housing asset, substantial, costly repairs to individual housing developments are likely. The City has established a Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Emergency Fund to assist BMR homeowners with low incomes and limited assets that are facing hardships at housing developments with special assessments for repairs to common areas. In addition, this Program is designed to ensure preservation of the BMR housing stock by preventing loss through foreclosure or problems with the resale process. PROGRAM H-28: Where a proposed subdivision or condominium would cause a loss of rental housing, grant approval only if at least two of the following three circumstances exist: The project will produce at least a 100 percent increase in the number of units currently on the site and will comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program (described in Program H-34 or 35); and/or The number of rental units to be provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing rental units; and/or No less than 25 percent of the units will comply with the City’s BMR program. Page 20 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Many existing developments in Palo Alto contain units that are smaller and more affordable than those that would be built today. This program limits the removal of such units unless there is a significant net gain of housing or a replacement of rental units or affordable units. The program applies to the most recent number of rental units on the site whether or not they have been demolished. All units after the first unit are considered rentals. POLICY H-10: Preserve the existing legal, non-conforming rental cottages and duplexes .currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas of Palo Alto, which represent a significant portion of the City’s affordable housing s,upply. PROGRAM H-29: Require developers of new residential projects in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts to preserve and incorporate, where feasible, existing rental cottages or duplexes within the project. Explore the feasibility of requiring the developer to replace any units being demolished as a result of new construction. In recent years, Palo Alto has lost some affordable housing due to the demolition of small cottages, houses and duplexes that are located on lots zoned for single family homes or duplexes. With the increasing cost of housing in Palo Alto and other threats to the City’s affordable housing supply, Palo Alto must make every effort to preserve these types of units, which provide relatively affordable rental housing for small households. POLICY H-11: Encourage community involvement in the maintenance and enhancement of public and private properties and adjacent rights-of-way in residential neighborhoods. PROGRAM H-30: Create community volunteer days and park cleanups, plantings, or similar events that promote neighborhood enhancement. PROGRAM H-31: Conduct City-sponsored cleanup campaigns f or public and private properties. G~al ~!~ Housing Opportunities for a Diverse Population, Including Very low-~ Low- and Moderate-income Residents, and Persons with Special Needs. The City will use public and private resources to provide housing that meets the City’s "fair share" of the region’s housing needs. These needs can not be met by the private market alone. Local, state, and federal resources will help the City achieve this goal. Page 21 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element- - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 POLICY H-12: Encouragea foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. PROGRAM H-32: Take all actions necessary to preserve the 92-unit Terman Apartments as part of Palo Alto’s affordable housing stock and to continue the renewal of the existing HUD Section 8 rental assistance contract that provides rental subsidies for up to 72 units in the project. The Terman Apartments is the last major rental project located in Palo Alto that is at risk of conversion to market rate housing. State law requires that the proiect be offered for sale to providers of low-income housing if the owners elect to terminate their HUD Section 8 contract. PROGRAM H-33: (NEW) Provide preferential or priority processing for those residential or mixed use projects that propose more affordable housing than the minimum required under the City’s BMR Program and for 100% affordable housing projects. POLICY H-13: Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational and mediation opportunities. PROGRAM H-34: Implement the "Action Plan" of the City of Palo Alto’s Consolidated Plan or its successor documents. The Consolidated Plan is a required document for the receipt of.federal funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It outlines actions to be taken to provide housing opportunities for very low- and low-income households. The overall Plan is updated every five years. The Plan and the Annual Action Plan are adopted by the City Council. PROGRAM H-35: (REVISED) Modify--and Implement the City’s "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Program by requiring that at least fifteen percent of all housing units buit-t in for-sate projects of ~ three units or more,-and-r~ntal praje .... ~ .... "" , to be provided at below market rates to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Projects on sites of five acres or larger must set aside 20 percent of all units as BMR units. When the calculated BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, projects with thirty or more units ~ should provide a whole unit for any fraction of one-half unit or larger. In all other casse with fractional unit requirements, fees may be paid in lieu of providing an additional unit. Page 22 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 The City of Palo Alto’s BMR program is intended to increase the supply of for-sale housing and rental housing for individuals and families whose incomes are insufficient to afford market rate housing. Since the program was initiated in 1974, 15._~2 464 for-sale units and 101 g8 rental units have been created. Continued affordability of the units is a major goal of the program. Deed restrictions control the resale price and limit rent increases. Occupancy for BMR units is determined according to City Council guidelines. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, under contract to the City, has administered the program since its inception. Since the current rates of production of affordable housing in Palo Alto are very low, the City should increase its minimum BMR requirement in order to help meet its need for affordable housing. [NOTE: Text for the following nine paragraphs has been rewritten.] The Palo Alto Below Market Rate ("BMR") Program Developers of for-sale housing projects with five or more units, must comply with Palo Alto’s BMR requirements. For an application to be determined complete, the developer must agree to one or a combination of the following alternatives: For-Sale Units: At least fifteen percent of the units developed in a project on involving less than five acres must be provided as BMR units. The BMR units must be comparable to other units in the development. The initial sales price for at least two-thirds of the BMR units must be affordable to a household making 80 to 100 percent of the Santa Clara County median income, taking into consideration all housing expenses such as mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and association dues. The remaining units must at a minimum be affordable to households earning 100 to 120 percent of the County’s median income. For projects involving five acres or more, twenty percent of the units developed must be provided as BMR units, three- fourths of which are affordable to households in the 80 to 100 percent of median income range, and one- fourth of which may be in the higher range of 100 to 120 percent of the County’s medican income. In all cases, the price should be sufficient to cover the estimated cost to the developer of constructing the unit, including financing but excluding land, marketing, off-site improvements, and profit. If the City determines that on-site BMR units are not feasible, off-site units acceptable to the City may be provided instead, or vacant land determined to be suitable for affordable housing. Off-site units should normally be new units, but the City may accept rehabilitated existing units when significant improvement in the City’s housing stock is demonstrated. If no other alternative is feasible, a cash payment in lieu of providing BMR units or land may be accepted. The in-lieu payment for projects subject to the basic 15% BMR requirement shall be 7.5 percent of the greater of the actual sales price or fair market value of each unit and must be paid to the City’s Housing Development Fund.For projects subject to the 20% requirement, the rate is 10 percent. Rental Units: At least 15 percent of the units in a rental project involving less than five acres, and 20% of the units in a rental project involving five acres or more, must be provided as BMR units determined by the City to be affordable to households earning between 50 and 80.percent of the County median income. After rates are initially established by the City, they may be adjusted annually by on one-half of the Consumer Price Index Rent Residential or other comparable formula adopted by the City. If the City determines that provision of BMR rental units on site is infeasible, it may accept a fee in lieu of such units. Alternatives include payment by the developer of an annual in-lieu fee to the City’s Housing Development Fund based on the difference between the initial Section 8 Fair Market Rent and the market rate rents of the units, or a one- time fee as if the units were for sale. No condominum map shall be approved for a project which initially Page 23 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Pla~ Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 contains rental units without provision for BMR ownership units, (or alternatives as described above), if and when the project is actually converted to condominium form. Government Code Section 65915 Projects: If a for-sale project meets State standards for the provision of lower income or senior units described under Government Code Section 65915, et seq., then all newly constructed BMR ownership units may be affordable to those moderate-income households earning between 80 and 120 percent of the County median income. Large Sites in Open Space District: Because of the large minimum lot sizes, projects of any size are only required to provide a 15 percent BMR component unless more than ten units are involved. Subdivision of Vacant Land to be Sold Without Development: Vacant land that is subdivided into three or more lots and sold without construction of housing must provide buildable parcel(s) equivalent to 15 percent of the development to the City or the City’s designee. The land is to be used for the purpose of developing affordable housing units. The City may sell the property, with the funds for projects subject to the basic 15% BMR requirement placed in the City’s Housing Development Fund for future housing development. A comparable fee in-lieu of providing land may be accepted by the City when the provision of land on-site is infeasible. Fractional Units: An in lieu payment to the City’s Housing Development Fund may be made for the fraction of units for which an actual BMR unit is not provided; the rate shall be the appropriate fraction of the payment that would be due. in lieu of providing a full BMR unit for the project. For sales or rental projects with a BMR unit calculation of less than one full unit before rounding to the nearest whole number, the developer may elect to pay a fee in lieu of providing the single BMR unit. The payment shall be the appropriate fraction of the payment for a full BMR unit for the project multipled by the unrounded BMR unit calculation. For example, a five unit project would be permitted to pay 75 percent of the full BMR "in lieu" payment. Equivalent Alternatives: The BMR program objective is to obtain actual housing units or buildable parcels within each development rather than off-site units or in-lieu payments. However, the City may consider equivalent alternatives to any of the above provisions. Within fifteen days of entering into a BMR agreement with the City for a project, the developer may request a determination that the BMR requirement, taken together with any inclusionary housing incentives, as applied the project, would legally constite the taking of property without just compensation under the Constitution of the United States or of the State of California. The burden of proof shall be upon the developer, who shall provide such information as is reasonably requested by the City, and the initial determination shall be made by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The procedure for the determination shall generally be those described in Chapter 18.90 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including the right of appeal to the city council under Chapter 18.93, or such other procedures as may be adopted in a BMR ordinance. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication but need not be sent to nearby property owners. If the City determines that the application of the BMR program would constitute a taking of property without just compensation, the program shall be modified to prevent such a taking. [ OTE: Resume underlining text and strikeout to deleted°] to ident£fy identify Page 24 of 38 Paid Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element = = -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 PROGgAM H-36: (REVISED) Adopt an ordinance codi~ing and implementing the City’s "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Program. .................. 0~ The City has for many years successfully implemented its BMR program through adopted guidelines and case by case review and approval. Adoption of an ordinance will provide important information to housing developers and guidance to staff. PROGRAM H-37: (REVISED) Adopt a revised density bonus program that allows the construction of up to three additional market rate units for each BMR unit above that normally required, up to a maximum zoning increase of 50 percent in density, if the project meets State standards [’or the provision of lower income or senior units described under Government Code Section 65915, et seq. Allow an equivalent increase in square footage (Floor Area Ratio) [’or projects that meet this requirement. Given Palo Alto’s limited supply of land suitable for housing, the City must encourage housing opportunities particularly if one-fourth of all additional .units would be affordable to low or moderate income households. PROGRAM H-38: Encourage the use of flexible development standards and creative architectural solutions in the design of projects with a substantial BMR component. The intent of this program is to allow individual projects to develop individual solutions to create an attractive living environment both for the project and adjacent development and to address specific project needs, such a} the provision of open space. PROGRAM H-39: Consider allowing the development of duplexes in R-1 Zoning Districts as the required BMR units for a new single family residential subdivision subject to appropriate development standards. Development standards will be prepared, evaluated, and implemented during the Zoning Ordinance Update. PROGRAM H-40: (REVISED) Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as providing low- and Page 25 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 moderate-income housing opportunities. Any redevelopment of the site must be consistent with the City’s Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance adopted to preserve the existing units. To the extent feasible, the City will seek appropriate local, state and federal funding to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the existing units in the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. POLICY H- 14: Support agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The City should work with nonprofit housing organizations and the local development community to ensure that all affordable housing, including family housing and units for seniors on fixed incomes, remains affordable over time. Palo Alto is committed to providing continued support to local groups that serve the housing needs of lower income households. PROGRAM H-41: Promote legislative changes and funding for programs that facilitate and subsidize the acquisition, rehabilitation, and operation of existing rental housing by housing assistance organizations, nonprofit developers, and for- profit developers. PROGRAM H-42: Use existing agency programs such as Senior Home Repair to provide rehabilitation assistance to very low- and low-income households. PROGRAM H-43: (REVISED) Support the development and preservation of ox4s4ing group homes and supported living facilities for persons with special housing needs O.Y2." AssistL~g local agencies and nonprofit organizations in. the construction or rehabilitation of new facilities for this population. Reviewing existing development regulations and identi[ying and reducing regulatory obstacles to this type of housing during the timeframe of this Housing Element. POLICY H-15: Pursue funding for the construction or rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Support financing techniques such as land banking, federal and state tax credits, mortgage revenue bonds, and mortgage credit certificates to subsidize the cost of housing. In the past, the development of affordable housing has relied primarily on federal and state funding sources. While the City should continue to pursue such funds, local funding options should be broadened. Page 26 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 PROGRAM H-44: Maintain a high priority for the acquisition of new housing sites, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing, and housing-related services in the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds or similar programs. PROGRAM H-45: Support and expand the program. City’s Housing Development Fund or successor Palo Alto has established its Housing Development Fund largely from housing mitigation fees from commercial and industrial developers, and residential developers who provide funds in-lieu of BMR units. Other housing-related revenues also have been placed in the fund. With funding becoming more limited, the City should seek to expand opportunities for additional funds. PROGRAM H-46: Consider requiring 30% of all revenues generated by the Redevelopment Agency to be used for the provision of affordable housing. PROGRAM H-47: (REVISED) Continue to seek funding from all appropriate state and federal programs whenever they are available to support the development or rehabilitation of housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. PROGRAM H-48: (NEW) Continue to support the County of Santa Clara’s Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program to create and support homeownership opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households in Palo Alto. PROGRAM H-49: Continue to require developers of employment-generating commercial and industrial developments to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate- income housing. PROGRAM H-50: Periodically review the housing nexus formula as required under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code to better reflect the impact of new jobs on housing demand and cost. Commercial and industrial development continues to generate new jobs, thereby increasing the demand for housing. A significant number of these jobs are or will be filled by low- to moderate-income wage earners, increasing the demand for more affordable units. Developers who contribute to the current jobs/housing imbalance and the accompanying housing shortage should assist the City in solving this problem. This has been partially accomplished by Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which requires developers of commercial and industrial projects to either provide housing units or pay an in-lieu fee to the Housing Development Fund. Over the last few years the Page 27 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 increase in the in-lieu fees have not kept pace with the actual increase in the cost of providing housing in Palo Alto. This undercuts the purpose of the in-lieu fee. Periodically reviewing and updating the housing nexus study and fee formula will ensure that commercial and industrial developments will continue to contribute a consistent amount towards their low- and moderate-income housing demand POLICY H-16: Encourage the preservation, rehabilitation, and construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels and SRO housing. PROGRAM H-51: Permit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in industrial, commercial, and high density residential zoning districts using development standards that would encourage the construction of the maximum number of units consistent with the goals of preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods. SROs are hotels or residential structures that provide short-term and transitional housing. They may or may not have kitchens or bathrooms within each individual unit. Palo Alto has three SROs (Barker, Craig, and Palo Alto Hotels) and they are a valuable, necessary part of the housing stock. A fourth SRO with 107 rooms and sponsored by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation opened for occupancy in March of 1998. The City should work with SRO owners to ensure the continued viability of these projects and should support opportunities for new SROs in appropriate locations. PROGRAM H-52." (NEW) Examine the Zoning Code during the current Zoning Ordinance Update (2002-2004) to ensure that the Code facilitates shared housing or other innovative housing types and provides flexible development standards _for these types of housing that will allow such housing to be built while preserving the character of the neighborhoods in which they are proposed to be located. POLICY H-17: Support opportunities for Shared Housing and other innovative housing forms to promote diversity and meet the needs of different household types and income levels. Shared housing for seniors and single parent households has been supported through a portion of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds. Other housing types might include co-housing and limited equity partnerships. POLICY H-18: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit, or social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. Page 28 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 PROGRAM H-53: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, develop zoning modifications which would allow higher densities and create other incentives for projects proposing 100% affordable senior rental housing. The elderly population of Palo Alto has and will continue to increase substantially. Households containing elderly persons also tend to have limited fixed incomes and to pay proportionally more (overpay) for housing than other segments of the City’s population. Creating an incentive to provide more higher density rental housing for seniors will help to increase the supply of housing and to limit future housing cost increases. PROGRAM H-54: (NEW) Examine the Zoning Code during the current Zoning Ordinance Update (2002-2004) to ensure that the Code facilitates the construction o[ housing that provides services [or special needs households and provides flexible development standards [or special servic, e housing that will allow such housing to be built while preserving the character of the neighborhoods in which they are proposed to be located. POLICY H-19: Support family housing that addresses resident needs for child care, youth services, recreation opportunities and access to transit. PROGRAM H-55: (NEW) Provide preferential or priority processing for those residential or mixed-use proiects that incorporate child care facilities, provide recreational opportunities above normal open space requirements, or that provide enhanced access to public transit. Meeting the housing needs of seniors may require selecting sites near shopping areas, social activities, medical services, and transit lines. Housing needs for people who are physically disabled must be addressed in the design of all projects. Other groups with special needs include homeless persons, persons with AIDS, people with emotional or mental disabilities, and victims of domestic abuse. Family housing may require locations near schools and parks and provisions for child care. Amenities for youth, such as transportation and recreation, should be accommodated. POLICY H-20: Support legislation, regulatory changes, federal funding, and local efforts for the permanent preservation of HUD-assisted very low- and low- income units at risk of conversion to market rate housing or loss of federal rental assistance. Palo Alto has 728 units in 13 projects of very low- and’low-income housing of which only one project, representing 92 units (the Terman Apartments), is at significant risk of being converted to market rate housing. The remaining projects are held by non-profit Page 29 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 corporations which are considerably less likely to convert their units to market rate housing. However, given that the future of the HUD Section 8 Program and its ongoing funding continue to be uncertain, the units held by the non-profits may be subject to rent increases if Section 8 subsidies are lost or reduced in the future. Preservation of these units as affordable housing is a key priority and will require coordination and cooperation, as well as imaginative solutions. POLICY Ho21: Support the provision of emergency shelter, transitional housing and ancillary services to address homelessness. Emergency shelters located in places of worship or National Guard Armory sites provide immediate, emergency short-term housing. There is also a need for transitional housing with supportive services to bridge the gap between emergency beds and community reintegration. The types of services that are most helpful are the basic necessities of food, clothing, mail, job training, counseling, case management, payee services, physical and mental health services, vocational training, job placement and permanent, affordable housing. PROGRAM H-56: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, modify the Zoning Code to allow homeless shelters in the CS, CD and industrial zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit. PROGRAM H-57: (NEW) Create emergency homeless shelter and transitional housing location and development criteria during the timeframe of this Housing Element to aid the developers of this type of housing in understanding the standards the City will use to review these types of housing projects and to expedite the processing of Conditional Use Permits and other permits required for these types of housing. Location and development criteria for emergency homeless shelters should be based on the size and operating characteristics of the facility. Transitional housing location and development criteria should use standards comparable to traditional housing of similar size and density since transitional housing has impacts similar to traditional housing although non- traditional assistance services are provided. POLICY H-22: Provide leadership in addressing homelessness as a regional issue. POLICY H-23: Work closely with appropriate agencies in the region to develop and implement policies and programs relating to homelessness. PROGRAM H-58: Continue to participate hz the Santa Clara County Homeless Collaborative as Page 30 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 well as work with adjacent jurisdictions to develop additional shelter .opportunities. The Homeless Collaborative provides a regional approach to homelessness prevention based on the federal continuum care model. PROGRAM H-59: Continue to participate with and support agencies addressing homelessness. 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. Palo Alto has a long-standing record of supporting and working towards the elimination of all barriers to housing. Discrimination in any form is not acceptable. The City is committed towards improving access to housing for all of its citizens. POLICY H-24: Support programs and agencies that seek to eliminate housing discrimination. PROGRAM H-60: Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to ensure that fair housing laws are enforced. PROGRAM H-61: Continue to support groups that provide fair housing services, such as Mid- Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing. PROGRAM H-62: Continue the efforts of the Human Relations Commission to combat discrimination in rental housing, including mediation of problems between landlords and tenants. PROGRAM H-63: Continue implementation of the City’s Ordinances prohibiting discrimination in renting or leasing housing based on age, parenthood, pregnancy or the potential or actual presence of a minor child. PROGRAM H-64: (NEW) As part of the current (2002-2004) Zoning Code Update process, examine all Zoning Code and other pertinent development regulations affected by the Page 31 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element- - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 passage of Senate Bill SB520, which is designed to eliminate housing discrimination based on familial status or disability, and modify those provisions that would hamper the implementation of SB520. Develop written procedures describing how Palo Alto will process and treat reasonabl~ accommodation requests for projects proposing housing for special needs households PROGRAM H-65: (NEW) Continue the City’s role in coordinating the actions of various support groups that are seeking to eliminate housing discrimination and in providing funding and other support for these groups to disseminate fair housing information in Palo Alto, including information on referrals to pertinent investigative or enforcement agencies in the case of fair housing complaints. Palo Alto currently funds and utilizes the services of Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) to disseminate a variety of fair housing information to existing and potential residents. MCFH essentially acts as a "clearinghouse" for this information and makes the most of the limited resources available. PROGRAM H-65B (NEW) Continue to interpret and apply the City’s land use regulations in a manner that does not deny to person with disability the access to housing and public accommodations that they are guaranteed under state and federal law. The Fair Housing Act Amendment of 1988 require that local governments make reasonable accomodations in their rules, policies, practices and service when necessary to afford persons with disabilities equal opportunity for access to housing. The American:; with Disabilities Act establishes other rights with respect to commecial enterprises and othe public accommodations. Reduced Housing Expenses for Energy POLICY H-25: Reduce the cost of housing by continuing to promote energy efficiency, resource management, and conservation for new and existing housing. By owning and operating its own utility system, Palo Alto can offer its residents high quality service at the lowest possible cost. The City has invested in a mix of new energy and water supply projects, provided consumer-oriented conservation and solar services and programs, and promoted operating efficiencies that allow residents to meet their resource needs at a lower cost than in most cities in the region. Page 32 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 PROGRAM H-66: Continue providing staff support and technical assistance in energy conservation and demand management to architects, developers, and utility customers. PROGRAM H-67: Review State programs encouraging energy efficiency and incorporate appropriate programs in Palo Alto’ s energy conservation programs and outreach efforts. PROGRAM H-68: Continue to develop a proactive public outreach program to encourage Palo Alto residents to conserve energy and to share ideas regarding energy conservation. PROGRAM H-69: Encourage developers and builders to construct sustainable residential buildings that increase energy efficiency by at least 15% above the energy standards of Title 24. POLICY H-26: Reduce the cost of housing using the Utilities Residential Rate Assistance Program (RAP). PROGRAM H- 70." Continue to assist very low-income households in reducing their utility bills through the RAP. The Utilities Residential Rate Assistance Program (RAP) was adopted by the City Council in 1993 to provide rate relief to residents who lack adequate financial resources to pay utility bills. Level of income and disability are used to determine if a household qualifies for the program. Qualifying residents currently receive a 20% discount on their utility bills. In May 2001 the City Council expanded the reach of the RAP to allow three times more residents to qualify for the program than were allowed the year before. Implementation Palo Alto has, or plans to have, sufficient land to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs. However, given the significant costs involved with the production of affordable housing, it is not clear that Palo Alto will be able to build all the very low-, low-, and moderate income housing needed. Such housing cannot be built without substantial subsidies, which are not readily available to Palo Alto due primarily to the limited amount of federal and state subsidies set aside for the production of affordable housing and the extensive competition for these limited funds, such as the HOME Program, which use selection criteria that place communities like Palo Alto at a Page 33 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - = Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 competitive disadvantage. Although Palo Alto does have a BMR Program, the number of low- and moderate-income units this program is expected to generate will not meet all of the City’s affordable housing needs. The City must, therefore., use its limited resources wisely to encourage the production of the maximum number of affordable housing units possible and to preserve as many existing affordable housing units as possible. The following table summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for the next five years (2001- 2006). Page 34 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Quantified Affordable Housing Objectives 2001-2006 New Construction Rental Owner Total Existing Units Preservation Rental (Terman Apts.) Owner Total Rehabilitation Rental Owner Total Very Low Income 25 0 25 24 0 24 13 beds 0 13 beds Low Income 50 0 50 48 o 48 o O 0 Moderate Income 50 60 110 20 0 0 0 o 0 Total 125 60 185 92 0 92 13 beds 0 13 beds Over the next five years, Palo Alto intends to produce 125 units of affordable rental housing with the highest priority being the provision of rental housing for families with children as called for in the City’s 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and transitional or other permanent rental housing are secondary priorities. Besides families with children, the City intends to assist the homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless, persons with special needs (especially the mentally ill), and. elderly persons. The City will work with non-profit organizations to meet the goals listed above, particularly in the preservation of the Terman Apartments. Only by combining resources with these organizations can the City have a reasonable expectation of achieving these goals. Palo Alto intends to have all of its new housing programs operational prior to 2004 to ensure that the City have sufficient time to create the necessary housing opportunities and to enable the development community to build the housing units needed to accommodate the City’s fair share of the regional housin~ need within the timeframe of the Housing Element. Programs H-1 through H-5, which deal with residential densities and development standards, will be implemented through the Zoning Ordinance Update currently underway in Palo Alto. Draft ordinance revisions are expected by October Page 35 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - -Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 2002. Programs to encourage more mixed use development, such as H-5 and H-16, will also be considered in the Zoning Ordinance Update. Other programs that will be implemented through the Zoning Ordinance Update include: Program H-20 - modify Zoning Ordinance to discourage the use of residential lands for non-residential purposes. Program H-26 - create development regulations to encourage rehabilitation of historic residential buildings, older multiple family buildings and smaller single-family residences. Program H-34 through H-38 - modify Zoning Ordinance to increase the number of BMR units required, revised density bonus program, and revised development standards to encourage the production of BMR units. Program H-52 - identify and remove obstacles to the production of shared housing or other innovative housing types. Program H-53 through H-55 - develop zoning modifications to allow higher densities and other incentives for 100% senior rental housing. Remove obstacles and provide incentives for special needs housing and housing. providing special services. Program H-56- allow homeless shelters in more commercial and industrial districts. Program H-64 - review Zoning Code and pertinent development regulations and revise to ensure compliance with Senate Bill SB520 regarding housing discrimination The Housing Opportunities Study described in Programs H-13 and H-14 is an ongoing program to seek new housing opportunities. The Housing Sites Inventory will be updated as new land is identified or as the circumstances or condition of each site on the inventory change. Individual sites identified in the first tier of the Housing Site Inventory should be rezoned for residential or mixed use development before 2004. Other ongoing programs include: Program H-17 - use coordinated plans to promote housing over commercial uses. Program H-21 - determine which affordable housing projects qualify for fee waivers. Program H-22 - exempt affordable housing projects from any infrastructure impact fees. Program H-23 - require all City Departments to expedite the processing of affordable housing projects that propose more than the minimum level of BMR units. ® Program H-24 - establish an annual housing progress monitoring program. Program H-25 - continue citywide property maintenance, inspection and enforcement program. Page 36 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - - Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Programs H-27 and H-28 - continue implementation of Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Programs H-30 and H-31 - continue community clean up programs. Program H-33 - provide preferential or priority processing for residential or mixed use projects that provide more than the minimum required BMR housing. Program H-34 - implement of the City’s Consolidated Plan or successor documents. Program H-40 - encourage the preservation of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Programs H-41 through H-43 - continue to support the agencies and organizations that provide shelter and other services to very low- to moderate income households. Programs H-44 through H-48 - continue to pursue funding for affordable housing. Programs H-58 and H-59 - continue to work with other agencies on the problem of homelessness. Programs H-60 through H-63 and H-65 - continue to support agencies and programs that seek to eliminate housing discrimination. Programs H-66 through H-69 - continue to encourage energy conservation in new and existing housing. Program H-70 - continue to assist very-low income households in reducing their energy bills. Some programs and policies will require changes to other portions of the Municipal Code or other regulations. These programs and policies should be implemented by 2004 or during the timeframe of this Housing Element. These policies and programs include: Program H-46 - consider use of 30% of Redevelopment Agency funds for the production of affordable housing. Programs H-49 and H-50 - revise Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code to require housing contributions from employment generating development that reflect their impact on housing demand and cost and that keep pace with housing cost increases. Program H-57 - create homeless shelter location and development criteria. The Department of Planning and Community Environment will take the lead in implementing nearly all of the City’s housing programs or team up with other City Departments in their implementation with a few exceptions. Programs for which Planning is solely responsible include H-18, H-24, H-25, H-27, H-28, H-32 through H- 35, H-40 through H-44, H-47, H-48 and H-49. Planning will coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office on Programs H-i through H-17, H-19, H-20, H-22, H-23 (with the City Manager’s Office), H-26, H-29, H-36 through H-40, H-45, H-50 through H-57, ~ and H-64 (with Community Services). Planning will coordinate with the Community Services Department on Programs H-58, and H-61 and H-65. The Planning and Utilities Departments are jointly responsible for Programs H-67 through H-69. Page 37 of 38 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element - - - Revised 06/26/02 Revised 11/12/02 Some housing programs are the sole responsibility of other individual City Departments or combinations of Departments. The City Attorney’s Office is responsible for Program H-21 and for Program H-63 in conjunction with the Community Services Department. The Community Services Department is responsible for implementing Programs H-59 and H-62 and jointly responsible for Program H-31 with the Department of Public Works. The City Manger’s Office is responsible for Programs H-30 and H-46 and the Utilities Department for Programs H-66 and H-70. More information on the implementation of these housing programs can be found in the Implementation Appendix of Palo Alto’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto/final Draft/Chapter 4 - Housing Element Sept 25 9/25102, revised 6/26/02, 10/31/02, 11/1/02 Page 38 of 38 ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter I Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Introduction Comprehensive Plans and Housing Elements Housing Elements: City of Palo Alto Citizen Participation Population and Households Population Growth Population by Race/Ethnicity Population by Age Households and Household Size Household by Type Households by Income Level Employment Trends Households with Special Needs 1. Elderly Households 2. Single Parent Households 3. Disabled Households 4. Overcrowded Households 5. Homeless Households 6. Farmworker Households Households Overpaying for Housing Housing Stock Inventory of Housing Units Housing Units by Type and Tenure Vacancy Rates Housing Age and Condition Cost and Affordability of Housing Existing Affordable Housing City Housing Programs and Policies 1. Below Market Rate Program 2. City Housing Funds 1 2 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 13 17 18 19 21 26 27 29 30 31 32 35 38 38 40 Federal and State, and Other Housing Resources Affordable Housing Unit Inventory Housing Support Services 41 42 43 Chapter 5 Future Housing Needs New Construction Needs Rehabilitation Need Conservation Need 1.Energy Conservation 2.Conservation of Affordable Units 3.Description of "At Risk" Units 4.Cost Analysis 44 46 47 47 47 51 52 Chapter 6 Housing Constraints Governmental Constraints 1. Land Use Controls 2. Local Processing/Permit Procedures 3. Below Market Rate (BMR) Program 4. Land Availability 5. Infrastructure 6. Environmental Market Constraints 1. Financing Costs 2. Land and Construction Costs 55 55 63 67 68 73 73 74 74 74 Chapter 7 Review of 1998-2003 Housing Element Background Information Policies, Programs and Goals Effectiveness of 1998-2003 Housing Element and Implications for 1999-2006 Element 76 76 89 Appendices A.Reprint of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4) included here for HCD review B.City of Palo Alto Subsidized Rental Housing Developments C.Summary of Below Market Rate (BMR) Units D.Housing Units Built and Housing Units with Approved Building Permits, January 1, 1999 - December 31, 2000 E.Housing Sites Inventory, Potential Residential Development: 2001-2006 F.Additional Potential Longterm Housing Sites G. Resource Persons During Preparation of 1999-2006 Element H. Bibliography Housing TechnicalDocument Table of Illustrations Illustration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Title Page Population by City, Santa Clara County 1990-2000 5 Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 7 Population by Age, 1970,1980, 1990, 2000 8 Household Size, 1970-2000 9 Household Income Distribution, 1989 11 Annual Household Income Limits, 2000 12 Independent Living Facilities for Elderly, 2000 15 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, 2000 16 Transitional Housing Shelters, (Nearby Areas)25 Supportive Shared Housing Facilities, City of Palo Alto 26 Households Paying More than 30% of Household Income for Housing 27 Households Earning 95% or Less of Median Family Income (MFI) Paying More than 30% of HouseholdIncome for Housing 28 Total Number of Housing Units, 1970-2000 29 Rate of Annual Housing Production, 1970-2000 29 Housing Stock by Type, City of Palo Alto, 1990 31 Year Structure Built, City of Palo Alto, 1990 33 2000 Income Limits/Housing Affordability 36 ABAG New Construction Need by Household Income Level 45 Progress in Meeting Palo Alto’s Fair Share of the Region’s 1999-2006 Housing Needs by Income Level 45, Summary of Government Assisted Units "At Risk" for Conversion 49-50 R-1 Districts and Minimum Site Areas 59 Existing Residential Development Standards 61 Estimated Fees for Residential Projects 66 Housing Sites Inventory 70 Unmet Housing Need by Household Income, 1999-2006 71 Palo Alto’s Fair Share of the Regions Housing Need by Income 88 Progress in Meeting Palo Alto"s Fair Share of the Region’s Housing Need by Income Level, 1990-1998 88 Note: The data used in this document originated from a variety of sources and time frames. The majority of statistical information was obtained from U.S. Census data, however other data was also used to supplement year 2000 Census data where that data was incomplete. Inconsistencies in the data have been corrected as much as feasible but there still may remain some differences in data reporting due to the time fratne when the data was collected or the agency collecting the.data.. Palo Alto/Final Draft/HE Tech Doc tableofcontents Sept 25 9/25/02 Executive Summary Following are some of the highlights or more significant information contained in the 1999-2006 Housing Element Technical Document: Household and Housing Data Housing Costs and Income Housing costs for ownership units more than doubled between 1996 to 2000 and rental housing costs nearly doubled between 1996 and 2001. Countywide household median income increased only 29% between 1996 and 2000. This means that more households are probably overpaying for housing in 2000 than in 1996. Palo Alto’s Population Mix Will Change: While Palo Alto’s total population is not expected to increase significantly in future years, it is anticipated that certain groups within the population will change in size and proportion. In specific, the number and percentage of older adults is expected to continue to increase. Additionally, although the number of families with children have increased over the last 10 years, the number of persons of childbearing age has decreased in recent years and this may affect the percentage and number of children in the population. More Single Parent Households and Seniors The number of single parent households grew rapidly in the 1990s increasing from 7% of all family households to 12%. These households have considerably less income than other family households and are more at risk of becoming homeless. The population of those aged 65 years or older increased by 5.8%, slightly higher than’the overall 5% population growth of the City. Seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, continue to need more affordable housing. Rate of Housing Production Has Decreased: Palo Alto’s highest rate of housing production was during the decade between 1950-60 when approximately one-third of all of Palo Alto’s housing units were constructed. Since then, however, the rate of housing production has continued to decrease. From 1970-80 the annual rate of housing production was 240 units per year, however, from 1990-2000 the annual rate of housing production had decreased to 86 units per year. Palo Alto Is Essentially A "Built-Out" Community: Only 0.5% of the land area in the City is vacant and there are few opportunities to annex additional lands in the future. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Housing Is Expensive: The median sales price for a single family, detached home in Palo Alto in the year 2000 was $1,006,600. This sales price would require an annual income of approximately $275,000 in order to purchase a unit using traditional underwriting criteria. A condominiundtownhome sold for a median sales price of $546,600 in the same time period and would require an annual income of approximately $163,000 in order to afford the unit. Home ownership Is Only Available To Higher Income Households: Without a public subsidy, home ownership is only affordable to households with above moderate-incomes. Very low-, low- and moderate-income households cannot afford the median sales price home ownership units. Rental Units Are Only Affordable to Households Earning 115% or More of the County Median Income: Above moderate-income households and moderate-income households earning 115% of the County median income in Palo Alto can afford average rental rates but most moderate-, low- and very low-income households are priced out of the market. Housing Achievements (1998-2000) The City has actively supported the development and preservation of affordable housing opportunities through the following activities: 1. "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Program Between 1998 and 2000 the City added 5 new rental units for low-income households and 7 new ownership units for moderate-income households under its Below Market Rate program. 2. Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations Financial and technical assistance has been provided to assist non-profits in: Providing housing services, such as: o Senior HomeImprovement Repair Program o Shared Housing Programs o Homeless Assistance o Accessibility Improvements to Existing Housing Developments o Fair Housing and Information Services ii Draft Housing.Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Developing Affordable Housing o Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the Palo Alto Gardens (156 units) and the Sheridan Apartments (57 units). o Construction of the Alma Place Single Room Occupancy very-low income rental housing facility (107 units). o Construction of Page Mill Court (24 units), which provides permanent, affordable rental housing for very-low income persons with developmental disabilities. 3. Funding Assistance Between 1995 and 2000, Palo Alto expended $4.7 million in CDBG funds for housing development, housing programs and administrative costs for housing related services. In fiscal years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, Palo Alto expended nearly $2 million of its Residential and Commercial~Housing Reserve funds in loans or permanent funding of affordable housing projects. 4. Rehabilitation Assistance The City provided assistance to very low- and low- income households to rehabilitate their housing units through the Rental Rehabilitation Program and the CDBG Program. The projects assisted included the following: Rehabilitation of the water system for the 66 unit Arastradero Parle Apartments. New water lines were provided for each unit under this project. Rehabilitation of the Waverley Street House to provide affordable housing for 26 lower income persons with mental illness. Re-roofing Building "A" which contains 59 units of the 120 unit Stevenson House for low income seniors Housing Needs Affordable Housing Is Needed: Affordable housing is the most significant housing need for very low-, low- and moderate income households and for "special need" households such as the elderly, the disabled, single parent households that are the most risk of becoming homeless, large families in overcrowded conditions, and the homeless. More higher density rental housing, practically the only affordable housing in Palo Alto, is needed to meet the needs of these groups. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 iii New Construction Projects In The Future Must Contain Affordable Housing Units: There will be several Opportunities in the future for the City to review proposals for residential developments. Affordable housing, consistent with City policies, shall be included as a requirement in approving any of these proposals. Palo Alto’s Existing Housing Stock Needs To Be Preserved and Maintained: Existing units in the housing stock must continue to be maintained and affordable units must be monitored to ensure that they continue to be preserved as affordable housing for very low- and low-income households. More Non-Residential Lands Must be Converted to Residential Use There is only about 15 acres of vacant residential land in Palo Alto. To meet the City’s housing needs, more non-residential lands must be converted to residential use or mixed use with a minimum component of residential development. The City will implement an aggressive Housing Opportunities Study to designate and rezone the lands most appropriate for this conversion process. Continue to Support Non-Profit Organizations Providing Housing Services: Non-profit groups are very active in the Palo Alto area in providing housing related services. The City should continue its tradition of supporting those organizations with technical and financial support. Continue and Assess Current Housing Programs: The City’s BMR Program has been operative since 1974. While it is recognized as being successful in providing affordable housing opportunities, it is an appropriate time to . review and evaluate the overall results of the program and identify possible new directions for the future. Current requirements for Below Market Rate Housing will need to be increased if the City is to be able to create a substantial number of affordable housing units. Program policies and requirements need to be coordinated so that all program documents reflect the same information. The City should assess the effectiveness of programs such as the second unit or "’cottage" provisions; incentives for mixed use projects, allowing .for small lot subdivision and requiring minimum densities. Evaluate Existing and Proposed Ordinances: The City should evaluate the Planned DeVelopment process and its requirement of a "public benefit" finding that is perceived as adding to housing cost. The City should assess the need for a "Single Room Occupancy" (SRO) Ordinance or special provisions within the Zoning Ordinance to more readily enable the construction of SROs. The City should modify its parking requirements to encourage more housing where jobs, services iv Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 and transit decrease ’the parking need and where parking costs can contribute to excessively high housing costs. The City must also amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement the programs of the Housing Element to ensure that all residential lands are utilized as fully as possible and that development standards in the Zoning Ordinance will allow maximum development potential to be achieved. Increase the Contribution from Commercial/Industrial Development to Meeting Affordable Housing Needs The City continues to have a severe jobs/housing imbalance creating a huge unmet demand for housing that contributes to increased housing costs. New job generating development continues to exacerbate this situation. The commercial and industrial housing in-lieu fee for projects impacting housing needs to be modified to ensure that new commercial/industrial development contributes its share to the City’s efforts to produce affordable housing. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 v Chapter 1: Introduction Comprehensive Plans and Housing Elements .Cities and Counties in California are required to develop Comprehensive or General Plans, which are long-range planning documents. A community’s Comprehensive Plan typically provides an extensive and long-term strategy for the physical development of the community and any adjoining land. There are seven subject areas that must be addressed in a community’s Comprehensive Plan, although other subjects can be added based on the community’s needs and objectives. The seven mandated "Elements" that each Comprehensive Plan must contain include Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety and Housing Elements. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan is mandated by State law to contain certain subject areas and is reviewed by the State’ s_Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), to determine if it complies with State Housing Element Law, specifically Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Article 10.6 requires communities to include the following information in their Housing Element: evaluation of existing housing needs, estimates of projected housing needs, ¯review of previous Housing Element goals and programs, inventory of adequate sites for housing and evaluation of infrastructure condition and r.equirements, identification of governmental and non-governmental constraints on housing production, °development of housing programs to address identified needs, and °quantifiable objectives for the construction, rehabilitation and Conservation of housing. State law also requires Housing Elements to be updated every five-years to ensure each jurisdiction addresses its changing housing needs and identifies sufficient opportunities to provide housing for all economic Segments of the community. This update covers .the years 1999-2006 and builds on the progress made in previous Palo Alto Housing Elements. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 1 Housing Elements: City of Palo Alto The Technical Document that follows is part of the Housing Element for the City of Palo Alto. It is anticipated that the Housing Element, including this Technical Document, will be adopted by the City Council in December 2001. The Housing Element covers the seven and a half year period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006. ThisTechnical Document was prepared pursuant to Article 10.6 of the Government Code (State Housing Element Law) and was developed to address the issues listed above. The City has previously adopted Housing Elements, the most recent being the 1998-2003 City of Palo Alto Housing Element. The 1998-2003 version of the Housing Element was an extension of the 1990 Housing Element and utilized the revised housing needs projected by ABAG for the 1990-1995 time frame since more recent housing need numbers had not yet been developed by ABAG. At that time, the City recognized that ABAG was in the process of uPdating its regional housing need projections and that the Housing Element would have to be revised once new fair share housing need numbers were developed. The new fair share numbers were approved by ABAG in May 2000 for the period of January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2006. This 1999-2006 Housing Element updates the 1998-2003 Housing Element and reflects the planning period and policies of the City’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The City’s Housing Element also includes information not required by Article 10.6 but important to the evaluation of housing needs. For example, Chapter 4 of this Technical Document is a comprehensive inventory of the existing affordable housing resources in the City. This inventory was designed so that the reader would be able to acquire a complete overview of the range of housing opportunities currently available in Palo Alto. This inventory provides information that is important in order to evaluate housing needs and is supplemental to that required by State Housing Element Law.. Citizen Participation The 1999-2006 Palo Alto Housing EIement was prepared with the assistance of considerable community participation, including three public forums, an ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and a Focus Group. The TAC consisted of eight members representing a variety of community groups and public entities that had an interest both in the housing problems facing Palo Alto and in finding solutions to those problems. The groups represented on the TAC included: the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA), the Planning Commission, the League of Women Voters, and the Palo Alto Unified School District. The TAC provided comments and advice on the City’s housing need~ and the policies the City proposed to use to address those needs. It also reviewed draft versions of the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and made formal recommendations on those documents to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The TAC strove to represent, or at least identify, the different housing interests of various segments of the community. It was a two-way conduit for delivering information Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 between the City and the community and provided a forum for the members of each group on the TAC to share their knowledge and perspectives regarding housing needs and solutions. Although each TAC member represented the views of their respective groups, they also consulted with other individuals in the community. All TAC meetings were open to the public. The Focus Group consisted of 13 members representing for-profit and non-profit developers, planners, architects, and real estate interests with technical expertise on housing issues. The Focus Group provided advice on the feasibility and practicality of a variety of methods that could be used to address housing needs. In particular, the group was asked to: comment on the barriers to the production of affordable housing; identify which City policies and programs did or did not work; and, suggest incentives, policy changes, and regulatory changes would be useful to encourage the production of affordable housing. The Focus Group met once in August and this meeting was open to the public. The first public forum, Action for Affordable Housing, was held on February 10, 2001, sponsored by the Human Relations Committee. The forum discussed ways to accommodate affordable housing and resulted in preparation of a Housing Supply Action Plan. On August 27, 2001 the City held a community forum on the Housing Element. The purpose of the forum was to inform the public about existing housing programs and issues facing Palo Alto as well as to elicit ideas regarding strategies to further promote housing opportunities in the City. About 100 persons attended the forum. After a welcome by the Mayor and a background overview by the City Manager of existing efforts and constraints to providing housing in Palo Alto, all participants were asked to identify individually the most significant issue or concern regarding the housing challenge in the City of Palo Alto. The forum participants then broke into four groups. The groups evaluated a range of topics including ways of increasing the number Of housing units for all income levels, methods of preserving the existing housing stock and limiting the loss of residential units, balancing housing needs with service demands, and changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would enable increased housing production. At the conclusion of the group sessions, the group participants selected the top three issues discussed and reported those to the reconvened forum. These comments were considered in the preparation of the draft Housing Element and Technical Document and were forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. Using the comments and recommendations of the TAC, the Focus Group, and the community, the consultant and City staff prepared an administrative draft Housing Element and Technical Document. Notice of availability of the draft was published in a local newspaper and mailed to the individuals and organizations on the Housing Element update mailing list and posted in accordance with City policy prior to Planning Commission and City Council discussion. (Each individual who expressed interest in the Housing Element update process was added to a mailing list and was informed of all update activities.) Copies were available for review at City Hall and six City branch Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 libraries as well as the City’s Web page. The Housing Element and Technical Document were reviewed at public meetings conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The draft Housing Element and Technical document were reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2001 and by the City Council on October 9, 2001, to confirm the general policy direction of the draft. At the October 9 meeting the City Council raised several concerns regarding the direction of the draft Housing Element and decided that revisions of the draft Housing Element were necessary. The Council directed staff to revise the draft to address six key concerns before forwarding it to HCD for review. Several neighborhood groups also spoke at the hearing and requested that a new community forum meeting be conducted. The Council granted this request and a new community forum was conducted on December- 13 which focused on the concerns raised by the City Council and the community members participating in the October 9 public heating. The Council’s concerns and community comments from the December 13 community forum have been considered in the preparation of the revised draft Housing Element, which was considered by the City Council at a public heating on February 4, 2002. The revised draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD later that month for the mandatory 60-day review and comment period. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing in April/May 2002 regarding the adoption of the draft Housing Element and Technical Document and make its formal recommendation to the City Council at the end of its public hearing process. Recommendations of the Planning Commission are scheduled to be considered by the City Council at a public hearing in May/June 2002 at which time the Council will determine what final action to take on the updated Housing Element and Technical Document. 4 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Chapter 2: Population and Households Population Growth During the decade between 1990-2000, Palo Alto’s population increased by 5%. In 1990, the City’s population was 55,900 and by 2000, that number had increased by 2,698 persons to 58,598. This was one of the lowest rates of population growth for communities in Santa Clara County for that decade. Santa Clara County’s total population increased by 12% and the State of California’s population increased by 13.6% for that same time period. Illustration #1: Population by City, Santa Clara County, 1990 -2000 City 1990 2000 Growth 1990-2000 Campbell 36,048 38,138 6% Cupertino 40,263 50,546 26% Gilroy 31,487 41,464 32% Los Altos 26,303 27,693 5% Los Altos Hills 7,514 7,902 5% Los Gatos 27,357 28,592 5% Milpitas 50,686 62,698 24% Monte Sereno 3,287 3,483 6% Morgan Hill 23,928 33,556 40% MountainView 67,460 70,708 5 % San Jose 782,248 894,943 15% Santa Clara 93,613 102,361 9% Saratoga 28,061 29,843 6% Sunnyvale 117,229 131,760 12% Unincorporated 106,193 100,300 -6% Total County 1,497,577 1,682,585 12% Source: 1990, 2000 U.S. Census Although the 1990-2000 population growth rate of Palo Alto was in the lowest tier of population growth in Santa Clara County, it was considerable greater than the 1% growth rate recorder for 1980-1990. This increase in population is due both to an increase in the number of dwelling and an increase in household size. Palo Alto’s housing stock grew by 860 units between 1990 and 2000, an increase of 3.4%. Average household size increased from 2.2 to 2.3 persons per household during that same period. This increase in household size is probably due to the increase in the number of family households with children under 18. In 1990, 22.4% of all Palo Alto households contained children 18 years old or younger. By 2000, 27.2% of all households contained Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 5 children 18 years old or younger and represents the resurgence of the family in Palo Alto. This change in household size was anticipated by a demographic analysis (the Lapkoff and Gobalet Study) conducted in 1992 for the Palo Alto Unified School District. In that analysis, the authors reported that enrollments in the kindergarten and elementary grades were beginning to rise in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Part of this increase was attributable, they felt, to higher birth rates among the population. The increase in household size might also be attributable to young adult children staying or returning to their family home ("boomerang ldds") because of the high cost of securing housing on their own. In addition to the increase in the number of family households with children, there has been a small decrease in the number of non-family households from 10,865 (44% of all households) in 1990 to 10,623 (42% of households) in 2000. The combination of more family households and fewer non-family households helps to explain the increase in household size although this trend is likely to be short lived since the number of people in their childbearing years dropped from 24,863 in 1990 to 21,872 in 2000, a decrease of about 12%. Household size is, therefore, likely to decline in the future as the population of Palo Alto ages. Palo Alto’s population is not expected to increase significantly in the coming years. One of the primary reasons for this is that the City is essentially "built out" and there is little available land for new residential construction. In addition, the trend in Palo Alto has been towards a predominance of households with older household heads and no children at home despite the recent increase in family households during the last decade, which, as indicated above, is not likely to continue. The Lapkoff and Gobalet Study earlier predicts that "Palo Alto’s population will get older, not younger, during the coming decades". Further, their analysis indicates that migrants to Palo Alto in the future will also likely be older, have two incomes and be beyond the child bearing ages. Palo Alto’s population is expected to grow slowly over the next decade due to the decline in the child bearing age cohort (18-44) of the population and limited housing opportunities. Some immigration of higher income families into Palo Alto will continue given the City’s good schools and good neighborhoods. However, as the existing population ages, the elderly population will increase and household size will eventually decline. Population by Race/Ethnicity In evaluating Palo Alto’s racial distribution, the 2000 U.S.Census data indicate that Palo Alto’s population is primarily composed of White persons. Approximately 75.8% of the population was identified as White in 2000. The next largest population group by race in the City was Asian or Pacific Islanders who comprised 17.3% of the City population. The remaining population groups were Hispanic who represented 4.6% of the population, Black persons who comprised about 2% of the total citywide population and other or mixed racial categories making up the remainder of the population. By comparison, in 6 Draft Housing Element TechnicalDocument 1999-2006 1990 Whites represented 82% of the population, Hispanics 5%, Blacks 3% and others, including Asian or Pacific Islanders 10%. The fastest growing racial category between 1990 and 2000 was the Asian or Pacific Islander community which expanded by 74%. Although Palo Alto’s population has become somewhat more diverse between 1990 and 2000, its share of minority racial groups is still less than the countywide average in all categories. For example, 24% of Santa Clara County’s population is Hispanic while only 4.6% of the City’s population identified themselves as Hispanic in 2000. Palo Alto’s Asian/Pacific Islander population is moving towards the countywide average for that group. The illustration on the next page graphically illustrates the City’s ethnic/racial proportions with a comparison chart included of City and County statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census. Illustration #2: Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Population 58,598 1,682,585 White 72.8%44.2% Black 2.0%2.8% Hispanic 4.6%24.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 17.3%25.9% Other 3.3%3.1% Source 2000 U,S. Census Percentages Rounded. The other category is remnant of population not positively identified under any other racial or ethnic category. Asian/Pac. Islander 17% Hispanic 5% City of Palo Alto Other 3% Black 2% Population by Age The median age of Palo Alto’s population has increased dramatically over the last three decades. In 1970, the median age was 29.5 years for males and 33.7 years for females. By 1990,the median age of Palo Alto residents had increased by approximately 6.5 years from 1970, climbing to 36.0 years for males and 40.0 years for females. In the year 2000, the median age for the entire population of Palo Alto was 40.2 years, which is considerably higher than the County median age of 34 years. This "aging" of the population is evident in the increase in Palo Alto’s senior population. In 1970, persons age 65 and over numbered 5,789, constituting 10.3% of the City’s total population. By 2000, the senior population had increased by 3,351 to 9,140 persons, or 15.6% of the City’s total population. Therefore, Palo Alto’s senior population increased nearly .58% over the 1970-2000 time period. White 73% Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Illustration #3: Population by Age: 1970, 1980, 1990,2000 Age Groups 1970 1980 1990 2000 Change 1970-2000 Pre-School (Under 5)3,205 2,168 2,764 2,970 -235 School Age (5-17)12,682 8,998 6,999 9,436 -3,246 Child Bearing (18-44) .21,472 24,004 24,863 21,872 +400 Middle Age (45-64)12,818 12,647 12,527 15,180 +2,362 Senior (65 and Over)5,789 7,408 8,747 9,140 +3,351 TOTAL PERSONS 55,966 ’55,225 55,900 58,598 Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990 (Report STF3, P 7 + 13) As the table above indicates, the pre-school and school age populations increased between 1990 and 2000 after two decades of decline. The middle age and senior populations also increased significantly over the last decade. The only age cohort that has decreased in size is the child bearing age group, which indicates that population growth by natural increase will begin to decline again over the next decade. The senior population is, given the substantial increase in the middle age population, likely to increase over the next decade, perhaps even more rapidly than the last three decades. Households and Household Size For purposes of evaluating housing supply and demand, it is useful to translate information from population figures to household data. According to the 2000 Census, there were 58,598 persons living in Palo Alto. Of this total, 668 were living in group quarters. The remaining 57,930 personswere living in households and the total number of households in the City in 2000 was 25,216. Household size is an important consideration when addressing housing issues. The number of people occupying a housing unit affects the size and condition of the unit, as well as the demand for additional units in the housing market. For example, a continued decrease in household size with anincrease in population would indicate a demand for additional housing units to accommodate the new household formations. On the other hand, dramatic increases in household size could indicate a number of situations such as "unrelated" members of households living together or an increase in the number of households with children. The 2000 household size in Palo Alto was 2.3 persons per household,which was a slight increase from the 1990 household size of 2.2 persons per household. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Illustration #4: Household Size, 1970-2000 2000 1990 i98o 1970 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 1970 Household Size - 2.7 Persons Per Household 1980 Household Size - 2.3 Persons Per Household 1990 Household Size - 2.2 Persons Per Household 2000 Household Size - 2.3 Persons Per Household Source: U. S. Census 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 data Households by Type According to 2000 U.S. Census data, approximately 14,593 households or 57.9% of all households were "family" households and 10,623 households (42.1% of total households) were"nonfamily" households. A family household is one in which a household lives with one or more persons related to him or her by birth, marriage or adoption. A non-family household is one in which a householder lives alone or with non relatives only. Family households are by definition typically larger in size than non-family households because family households consist of a minimum of two persons while non-family householdscan be Single person households. As would be expected, then, in ,Palo Alto there are more persons living in family than non-family households. Of the total 58,598 persons in Palo Alto in 2000, approximately 73.5% lived in family households (43,049 persons) and 26.2% (14,881 persons) lived in non-family households. The remaining 1.5 1.1% of the population (668 persons) were living in group quarter situations. In evaluating this data from a historical perspective, it appears that the percentage of persons living in family households decreased between 1970 and 1990 but then increased slightly in 2000. In 1970, 83% of the population lived in family households whereas by 1990 that percentage had decreased to 72.3% before increasing to about 73.5% in 2000. Similarly, the percentage of persons in non-family households increased from 18% in 1970 to 26.2% in 1990 but then increased to 27.7% in 2000. The trend of having fewer households with children under the age of 18 years at home than other types of family households was also reversed between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, only 32.6% of family households were a married couple with children under the Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 9 age of 18 years. By 2000, the percentage of such households increased to 38.8%. Another, perhaps more significant change for the future of housing in Palo Alto was the increase in the number of single parent households. In 1990, 7% of the family households were single parent households (primarily female-headed) with children under the age of 18 years at home. By 2000, the percentage of single parent households (again, primarily female headed) increased to .12% Approximately 60.4% of all family households in 1990 were households with no children under the age of 18 years. (These households are primarily married couple households and the assumption is that either they are living by themselves or with other family members.) In the year 2000, 50.8% of all households in Palo Alto contained children under the age of 18. These statistics indicate that a resurgence of the family occurred in Palo Alto between 1990 and 2000. This resurgence may have impacts on the City’s housing needs in the near future for family households, particularly those headed by a female single parent. Households by Income Level Generally, Palo Alto households have higher than average median family incomes. The 1990 U.S.Census data indicated that the median family household income in Palo Alto was $68,737. This was considerably more than the median family household income of $53,670 for the County of Santa Clara for the same time period. In 2000, County median income for a family of four was $87,000 according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Year 2000 Census income information is not yet available for Palo Alto but, assuming Palo Alto households maintained their previous proportional advantage in higher family incomes (about 28%), we can estimate that the median income for a family of four in the City would have been about $111,360. According to the 1990 Census, while there were many high income households in Palo Alto, there were also households on more limited incomes. An interesting statistic from the 1990 Census data is that 20% of all Palo Alto households reported that their annual household incomes were less than $25,000. This percentage is similar to the countywide average of 21% of all Santa Clara County households reporting incomes of $25,000 or less. In other words, Palo Alto had the same proportion of households with limited incomes as the County as a whole in 1989. However, Palo Alto also had almost twice as many households proportionally who had incomes over $100,000 in 1989 than the rest of the County. Although year 2000 data is not yet available to update this analysis but it is likely that Palo Alto has maintained its proportion of lower to higher income households. It should be noted, however, that a $25,000 annual income would not be an accurate reflection in the year 2000 of the number of lower or "limited" income households in Palo Alto. For example, considers a family of four earning $43,500 or less and a single person earning $30,450 or less would be very low income. A $25,000 income would be inadequate to meet the housing and other needs of most households in Palo Alto. 10 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Illustration #5: Household Income Distribution, 1989 $25,000 $25-50,000 $50-100,000 $100,000+ City of Palo Alto 20%25%34%21% County of Santa Clara 21%31%37%11% Source: ’United Way Needs Assessment for Santa Clara County", 1993-94 The definition of income level varies depending on the government entity or the program. For housing purposes, the jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, including Palo Alto, use HUD’s determination of County median income ($87,000 for a family of four in 2000) and its definition of household income levels described below: Very Low-income: Households with incomes between 0-50% of County median family income. 2000 limi~t for a family of 4:$43,500 Low-income: Households with incomes between 51-80% of County median family income. 2000 limit for a family of 4:$69,600 Moderate-income: Households with incomes between 81-120% of County median income. 2000 limit for a family of 4:$104,400 Above-Moderate Income." Households with incomes greater than !20% of areawide median family income. As noted, various agencies and programs use different definitions of household income. In Palo Alto, the following modifications appl ied in 2000: Federal: CDBG and HUD Section 8 rental programs: Low-income maximum was 66% of County median income with a 2000 limit for a family of 4 of $53,853. Low-income Housing Tax Credit and HUD HOME Program: Low-Income maximum for rental units is 60% of County median income with a 2000 limit for a family Of 4 of $52,200. Local: City of Palo Alto BMR Program: Moderate-income for ownership program is 80-100% of areawide median family income. The 2000 limit for a family of 4: $87,000. Using 1990 U.S. Census data, there were 3,778 very low-income households and 1,590 low-income households in Palo Alto, based on federal I-I-UD definit,ion of income. Translating these numbers to percentages of total Palo Alto households, very low-income Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 1i households represented 15.3% of all households and low-income households accounted for 6.4% of the total households. Therefore, together very low- and low-income households accounted for 21.7% of all households in Palo Alto. Although 2000 Census data is not yet available to update these figures, it is likely that the proportion of very low- and low-income households is roughly the same in the year 2000 as the year 1990, It is possible, however, that there may be a slight increase in these percentages given the increase in the elderly population which may on fixed incomes and the increase in the number of single parent households which also tend to have lower incomes. The federal government adjusts income limits on a regular basis to reflect changes in household income levels. Listed below are the maximum income levels for very low- and low-income households for Santa Clara County, including the City of Palo Alto for 2000. Illustration #6: Annual Household Income Limits, 2000 Personsin Very Low-incomeMaximum Low-incomeMaximum Household (50%ofMec~anlncome)(66%ofMedian~come) 1 $30,450 $39,850 2 $34,800 $45,550 3 $39,150 $51,250 4 $43,500 $56,950 5 $47,000 $61,500 6 $50,450 $66,050 Notes: 2000 Santa Clara County median income for a family of four is $87,000 Employment Trends In its document entitled Projections 2000, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) estimated that 98,450 jobs would be contained within Palo Alto’s jurisdictional boundary by the year 2000, an increase of over 7,000 jobs from the 91,370 jobs estimated to be in Palo Alto in 1995. This estimate reflects the economic boom Santa Clara County was undergoing in the last half. of the 1990s. Since the middle of 2000 and through the first half of 2001, there has been an economic downturn in the high technology and manufacturing sectors which has reduced the number of jobs in the County and Palo Alto. The exact job reduction is not yet known and the duration of the economic downturn cannot be accurately projected. However, it is likely that Palo Alto currently contains at least 92,000 jobs (slightly more than it had in 1995) and that it will eventually contain 98,000-99,000 jobs within the next several years if the economy recovers in the near term. ABAG projects that over 50% of all new jobs in the region will be in the service sector, 11% in the retail sector, 19% in the professional and other sectors. Palo Alto’s job growth will probably be close to this estimated distribution. What is important about these employment trends is that Palo Alto will continue to maintain its jobs/housing imbalance heavily skewed to the jobs side of the ratio. Palo Alto currently houses about 3.5% of Santa Clara County’s population but contains about 12 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-200.6 9.1% of all the County’s jobs. According to ABAG’s Projections 2000, Palo Alto was expected to house 44,300 employed residents in its Sphere of Influence (SOI), the area the City’s jurisdiction might expand encompass in the future. Total jobs in the SOI were estimated at 106,690 by the year 2000. These two figures indicate that Palo Alto was expected to have a job/housing ratio of 2.4 jobs to every employed resident by the year 2000. This, in turn, means that Palo Alto must import most of its workers to meet the needs of business and industry and indicates that there is probably a large unmet need for worker housing in the City. Since many of the Palo Alto’s workers can not live in the City, the situation creates negative impacts such as long commutes for worlcers both inside and outside the region, substantially increased traffic congestion during peak commute periods, and increased air pollution and energy consumption. The production of additional housing is a means for avoiding these situations. Households with Special Needs There are certain households within a community that typically have special housing needs. In Palo Alto, those households which have been identified as having special housing needs include: 1.Elderly Households, 2.Single Parent Households, 3.Disabled Households, 4.Overcrowded Households, and 5.Homeless Households. In addition to the special needs hOuseholds listed above which exist in Palo Alto, State housing element law requrires the City to investigate and describe the needs of farmworker households which do not exist in Palo Alto. Information about each of these households is described in more detail in the paragraphs that follow. A general description of each of these household types is provided as well as a summary of the current resources available and a summary of their more significant housing needs. 1. Elderly Households a) Description of Elderly Households in Palo Alto The number of elderly persons in the City of Palo Alto has increased over the last three decades. In 1970, elderly (persons age 65 years and older) comprised 10% of the population but, by 2000, that percentage had increased to 15.6% of the total population. The total number of elderly persons residing in Palo Alto in 2000 was 9,140 persons an increase of 5.8% since 1990, which is slightly greater than Palo Alto’s overall population increase of 5%. With longer life spans and age expectancies, it is anticipated that the Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 13 proportion of elderly in Palo Alto’s population will continue to increase in future years, particularly given the substantial increase in the City’s middle age population over the last decade. The 1990 Census data indicate that, of the 8,747 total elderly persons, 8,329 (95.2%) lived in household situfitions and the remaining 418 persons were living in group quarters or were institutionalized. Although year 2000 Census data is not yet available to update these figures, it is likely that these relative proportions of elderly persons in households versus group quarters is about the same or is perhaps higher since the group quarters population has appeared to decline over the last decade. There were a total of 6,439 households in the that contained individuals 65 years or older. These households represent 25.5% of all Palo Alto households in 2000. Approximately 42% of all households with persons 65 years old or older were non-family households and 58% were in family households. In 1990, approximately 75% of all elderly non-family household were single females living alone. These female head of households li~ing alone represented 26% of all elderly Palo Alto residents in 1990. k is likely that these proportions have remained the same in 2000 although the absolute numbers have increased. There were 2,591 65-year old householders living alone in 1990. This number increased to 2,728 in 2000, an increase of 5.3%. Approximately 5% of all elderly (293 persons total) had incomes below the poverty level in 1989 (1989 poverty level for a one person elderly household was an annual income of $5,947 or less). The majority of those persons (220) were over the age of 75 years, living alone and primarily female. While there were a very small number of elderly persons living below the poverty level, it is important to note that many elderly households in Palo Alto were still living on limited incomes. For example, the 1990 U.S. Census data also indicates that approximately 41% of all elderly households had incomes that were at the low- or very low-income level. (See page 11 of this document for definitions of income level.) There were 1,891 elderly households that had incomes that could be classified as very low- income and another 583 households that were low-income. The majority of Palo Alto elderly households are homeowners. Approximately 69% of all elderly households live in owner-occupied housing units and the remaining 31% are renters. Very low- and low-income elderly homeowners represented 30% of all elderly homeowners, according to the 1990 U.S. Census data. While renter households represent less than one-third of all elderly households, the percentage of very low- and low-income households who are elderly and rent is significant. Approximately 65% of all elderly renters in 1990 were either low- or very low- income households. Further, more than half (59%) of all very low- and low-income elderly renters in Palo Alto had incomes that were less than 30% of median income and are therefore considered to be "extremely low-income" households. Not surprisingly, the 1990 census data also indicates that the most significant housing problem for very low- and low-income elderly homeowners and renters is overpaying for housing. There were 14 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 825 very low- and low-income renter households who were paying more than 30% of their income for housing in 1990. These 825 households represent 68% of all very low- and low-income renter households. Of all elderly homeowners who had a "housing problem" according to the census data, 100% of all very low- and low-income elderly homeowners reported that overpayment for housing was one of their housing problems. There were 333 very low- and low income elderly homeowners who reported paying more than 30% of their income for their housing. Year 2000 Census data is not yet available to confirm that these income and housing cost trends have continued for the elderly but it is likely that, at a minimulZn, the proportion of elderly households overpaying for housing is the same in 2000 as it was in 1990. However, given the substantial increase in housing costs over the few years and the increase in the elderly population, it is possible than more elderly households are overpaying for housing. b) Resources Available to Elderly Households Listed on the next page (Illustration #7) are existing housing developments in the City of Palo Alt0 that are specifically designed for elderly households. In regard to supportive living facilities for elderly, there are nursing care facilities as well as non-profit and for-profit residential care facilities in the City of Palo Alto. Lytton provides skilled nursing care for approximately 145 elderly persons. Lytton 11I is. part of the Lytton Gardens complex (Lytton I, II, 1II and IV [Lytton Courtyard]) which is the only development in Palo Alto that provides a full range of living options for lower income elderly from independent living-to assisted living to skilled nursing care. Illustration #7: Independent Living Facilities for Elderly City of Palo A!to, 2000 Development Total Units Senior Units Independent Living (No Meals or Other Services) 1 Palo Alto Gardens 2 Sheridan Apartments ¯ 3 Terman Apartments 4 Webster Wood 5 Arastradero Park 6 Colorado Park Income Level Served 156 units 128 units Very Low-income only 57 units 57 units Low-income 92 units 24 units Very Low-income only 68 units 4 units Low-Income 66 units 13 units Low-income 60 units 8 units Low-Income Independent Living (Some Meals Provided) 7 Stevenson House 128 units 8 Lytton I and 11 268 units 9 Lytton Courtyard 51 units TOTAL 946 units 128 units 268 units 51 units 681 units Lower-income only’ Lower-income only Lower-income only Source: City of Palo Alto, "Consolidated Plan July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005", Pg. 25 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 15 Listed below are the residential Care facilities for elderly in Palo Alto. Illustration #8: Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, City of Palo Alto, 2000. Name of Facility Persons Served Type of Facility Casa Olga 103 Channing House 21 Channing House 285 Lytton Gardens Community Care 55 Lytton Gardens 145 Webster House 74 Palo Alto Nursing Center 66 Palo Alto Commons 150 Pleasant Manor 6 Sandy Oak Place 6 The Birches Residential Care 6 May Care 6 Sevely Manor Guest Home 6 Sweet Little Home 6 Source: City of Palo Alto, "Consolidated Plan July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005", Pg. 26 Intermediate Nursing Care Nursing Facility Residential Care Facility Residential Care Facility Nursing Facility Residential Care Facility Residential Care Facility Residential Care Facility Residential Care Facility (Asst. Living) (Asst. Living) (Asst. Living) (Asst. Living) (Asst. Living) (Asst. Living) Residential Care Facility (Asst. Living) Residential Care Facility (Asst. Living) Residential Care Facility (Asst. Living) Residential Care Facility (Asst. Living) Residential Care Facility (Asst. Living) c) Housing Needs of Elderly Households As identified earlier on page 17 of this document, overpaying for housing is the most significant housing problem of very low= and low-income elderly households. The 1990 U.S. Census data indicated that there were 825 elderly renter households and 333 elderly homeowner households who were very low- and low-income and paying more than 30% of their income for housing. Over half of the elderly renter households who were overpaying (442 households) had incomes of less than 30% of median income and are considered to be "extremely low=income." Therefore, providing affordable housing forvery low- and low-income elderly is one of the more significant housing needs of this household category. 2000 Census data is not available to update these statistics but it is likely that the number of elderly households overpaying for housing has increased given the increase in both the number of elderly households and the increase in housing costs since 1990. In addition, the federally required "Consolidated Plan July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005"i which is prepared by and for the City of Palo Alto, has estimated an unmet need for additional supportive housing facilities for elderly and frail elderly households in Palo Alto. The Plan has identified a need for an additional 260 units of assisted living facilities and additional 235 units provided with skilled nursing care or 24 hour care facilities. 16 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 2. Single Parent Households a) Description of Single Parent Households in Palo Alto. There were a total of 25,216 households in Palo Alto according to the 2000 Census and, of these households, approximately 14,593 were "family" households. Single parent households represented 8.2% of all family households in 2000 an increase over the 7% proportion in 1990. There were 1,201 single parent households in 2000. 293 single parent households were headed by a male parent and 908 had a female head of household. Single parent household as used in this document is defined as a family household with one ormore children under the age of 18 years and headed by either a female or male head of household, with no spouse present. Lower household income is one of the more significant factors affecting single parent households. For example, married couple families in Palo Alto reported a mean family income of $!01,537 for 1990 census purposes. Single parent family households, however, were significantly lower for the same data collection period. Male single parent households had annual family incomes of approximately $49,193. Annual mean household income for female single parents in Palo Alto was $36,651 or slightly over one-third that of a married couple family. Limited household income levels affect the ability of these households to locate affordable housing and, consequently, this is one of the more significant housing problems of this household category. Year 2000 Census data is not yet available to confirm these same proportional income differences between married couple and single parent households but it is probable that such differences continue since a substantial proportion of married couple households have two wage earners while single parent households, by definition, only have one. b) Resources Available to Single Parent Households In past years, the City provided financial assistance to a non-profit agency, "Innovative Housing, Inc.," to administer a shared housing program. Typically the households participating in the program were single parent households with 40% male parents and 60% female parents. In November 1996, Innovative Housing ceased operations due to a lack of funding to cover their operations in the Bay Area. Other agencies are being sought to provide this service. c) Housing Needs of Single Parent Households Aff~)rdable housing is one of the more significant needs of single parent households. Many times, their limited household incomes constrain the ability of single parent households to "afford" housing units. Consequently, these households may have to pay more than they can afford for housing for themselves and their children. Or, they may have to rent a housing unit that is too small for their needs because it is the only type of housing they can afford. Other housing related needs that affect single parent households Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 17 include assistance with security deposits, locating housing that is close to jobs, availability of child care services and proximity to transit services. Clearly the need for more affordable housing for single parent households has grown since the number of these households increased by about 73% over the last decade. Without affordable housing and supportive services, many single parent households are at a higher risk of becoming homeless. Single parent families are fastest growing segment of the homeless population. According to the "1993 Santa Clara County Children’s Report Card", 52% of homeless families in the County were headed by single parents. 3. Disabled Households a) Description of Disabled Households in Palo Alto Disabled households include households who have family members that have physical disabilities or mental illness or disability. It is possible, of course that some individuals have both a physical and mental disability but census data does not provide that level of specificity. According to the 1990 U.S. Census data, there were 1,940 persons ages 16-64 years in Palo Alto who had a disability that affected mobility or self care. Of these, 1,700 persons had a disability that affected their ability to work. Information is not available about the type of household they live in, their income level or how their disability affects their housing needs. Generally, it can be assumed that persons with disabilities have lower incomes especially if their disability affects their ability to work..Census 2000 data is not yet available to update the number of disabled persons in Palo Alto but it is likely that the number of such persons has kept pace with the City’ s overall population growth ¯ of 5%. b) Resources Available to Disabled Households Palo Alto has a few subsidized housing units specifically designed for persons with physical disabilities. Title 24 in the State of California relating to handicap accessibility ¯ and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have resulted in an indrease in these opportunities. Subsidized projects that have units specifically designed and adapted for persons with physical disabilities include California Park Apartments (1 unit), the Barker Hotel (5 units), and 330 Emerson Street (1 unit). Other projects such as Lytton Courtyard, include units that can readily be adapted for persons with physical disabilities. The Alma Place SRO has 101 handicap adaptable units and 6 fully accessible units. Page Mill Court housing for the developmentally disabled has 16 of 24 units fully accessible and 8 units adaptable. A few older projects have had units adapted within the limitations of their existing construction including Webster Woods, Terman Park and Sheridan Apartments. Alliance for Community Care, Inc. provides treatment, support and rehabilitation counseling services for persons who have been affected by serious psychiatric disabilities. Their La Selva facility serves 12 adults and their Middlefield Road House serves six. 18 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 ’Although their programs and administrative offices are based in San Jose, there is a service and treatment office in Palo Alto. They operate a licensed group home in Palo Alto, as well as an independent shared living house. They are attempting to rehabilitate and re-open a board and care home on Waverley Street in Palo Alto to serve as transitional housing for persons with mental illness. Adolescent Counseling Services, Inc. operates a residential program for teenage youth with severe behavioral or emotional problems. Their Caravan House serves up to six young people between the ages of 12 and 17. The Veterans Workshop operates two group homes for veterans with disabilities serving a total of about 11 adults. The City of Palo Alto provided funds to help acquire and rehabilitate a 6-unit apartment structure in Sunnyvale (1215 Cortez Drive) which serves adults with developmental disabilities and a 5-unit facility on Pettis Avenue in Mountain View that provides housing for developmentally disabled females. c) Housing Needs of Disabled Households Individuals with physical disabilities are in need of housing units that have been modified to improve accessibility. Examples of modifications that are helpful include widened doorways and hallways, bathroom and kitchen modifications (lowered counter heights, accessible tubs/showers and toilets, etc.) entry and exit ramps, modified smoke detectors and alarm systems for individuals with visual or hearing impairments, and other improvements: A priority need for households with disabilities is housing near transit and jobs. Persons with physical disabilities may need housing that is connected to the provision of individualized services including training, counseling, information and referral services, and rent subsidy services that allow the physically disabled to live in the community. For individuals with a disability that affects their ability to work or who live on a fixed income, affordable housing is a high priority. Agencies that provide supportive services to the disabled population, have been discouraged by the high costof rental housing in Palo Alto. In fact, the City has continuedto provide funding to several agencies to help acquire housing units in nearby communities because of the lack of affordable housing units in Palo Alto. 4. Overcrowded Households a) Description of Overcrowded Households in Palo Alto An overcrowded household is one in which there is more than one person per room in the living structure (usually "room" is defined as any room in the structure except for kitchen or bathrooms). On a statewide basis, it was estimated in 1989 that 7% of all California households lived in overcrowded housing. (Source: California Statewide Housing Plan Update, 1990, State of California Dept. of Housing and Community Development). Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 19 According to the 1990 U.S. Census, approximately 655 units or 2.7% of the City’s total occupied housing units were overcrowded with more than one person per room. Of these 655 units, 287 were"severely overcrowded" with more than 1.51 persons per room. The majority (252 units) of these severely overcrowded units were occupied by renter households. In fact, renter households have a higher incidence of overcrowding than owner households. Approximately 74% of the total 655 overcrowded units are occupied by renter households. In regard to age of the residential structure, overcrowded households are found in both older as well as newer housing units in the City. While 88% of the overcrowded households live in units that were built since 1940, this proportion reflects the fact that 79% of the units in the City were built since 1940. Therefore, the age of the housing units is not. statistically significant in regard to overcrowded households in Palo Alto. Although 2000 Census data is not available to update these numbers but it is likely that the concep} overcrowding is not related to age of structure is still valid. Overcrowding is not as serious a housing problem in Palo Alto as it is in Santa Clara County as a whole or as it is in nearby cities such as Mountain View and Redwood City. Overcrowding is primarily a problem of very low- and low-income large family renters (according to 1990 Census data) which have a 48.6% incidence of overcrowding compared to a 4.3% incidence for all renters. For comparison, the rate of renter overcrowding in the County is 17.1%, 11.6% for Mountain View (immediately adjacent to Palo Alto), and 23.8% for San Jose, the highest in the County. Households do not typically choose to be overcrowded but end up in that situation because they cannot afford a housing unit that is appropriate in size to their needs. Traditionally, large households (households of 5 or more persons) have difficulty in securing and/or affording housing units of 3 or more bedrooms partially because of an insufficient supply of 3+ bedroom units. Large renter families~ in particular, have difficulty in finding rental housing stocl~ that is appropriate for their household size and also affordable. The 1990 data indicate that there were 1,356 households in Palo Alto that had 5 or more persons. Approximately 37% of these households or 500 households total were renter households. Moreover, small households in Palo Alto have difficulty in finding appropriate size rental housing due to the high cost of housing. Although recent Census data is not available to update the overcrowding conditions in Palo Alto, it is probable that the combination of an increase in household size, an increase in the number of households with children, and the substantial increases in housing costs in the 1990s are indicators that the problem of overcrowding may be greater in 2001 than it was in 1990. b) Resources Available to Overcrowded Households The 1990 U.S. Census data indicate that there were 1,920 rental units that had 3 or more bedrooms in the City of Palo Alto. These 1,920 units represent 18.4% of all rental units in the City at that time. The same data source reported that there were 1,356 large households (households of 5 or more persons) and that 500 of these households were 20 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 renter households. Therefore the raw statistics would indicate that there appear to be sufficient existing units that are appropriate in size for large households. Howeverthe cost to rent these units may be prohibitive for some households. In 1990, 78% of these 3+ bedroom rental Units identified above had monthly gross rents in excess of $1,800 per month. By March 2001, the average rent for a 3-bedroom apartment increased to $2,992 per month (Source: REAL FACTS). This situation makes it extremely difficult for lower income families .to find adequate housing. There are units in some of the assisted housing developments in the City that are both large in size and affordable. As an example, the Arastradero Park development includes fourteen 3-bedroom units and four 4-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. c) Housing Needs of Overcrowded Households The most obvious need, of course, for large and overcrowded households is the need for housing units that are large and adequately sized for the family. Typically there is a need for 3, 4 and 5 bedroom housing units for households that are overcrowded due to family size. Because these type of units are usually expensive to rent or buy, overcrowded households are also in need of affordable and large housing units. And, as noted above, small households in Palo Alto are also overcrowded because of the high cost of housing. Therefore, affordable housing, primarily affordable rental housing, is a significant need for overcrowded households and, in fact, this need is becoming more critical given the near doubling of rents for all units between 1996 and 2001. Homeless Households a) Description of Homeless Households in Palo Alto It is very difficult to develop a precise and realistic description of homeless households in a community. This is due to several reasons but one of the more significant is the lack of good data on the number and type of homeless households. The 1990 U.S. Census attempted to identify homeless households during their "S-Night" count on March 20-21, 1990. During the evening hours of March 20 and the early morning hours of March 21, census takers attempted to count the number of persons in emergency shelters and persons visible in street locations. However, even the Census Bureau cautions users of this data that the data is not considered to be complete and that there were probably many more homeless persons than reported in this survey. Indeed, in Palo Alto, the 1990 U.S. Census data reported that there were only 13 persons in shelters and 11 persons visible in street locations. It is generally acknowledged by homeless service providers that these numbers under-estimate the actual count of homeless persons in Palo Alto. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 21 In 1995, the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Gilroy, and the County of Santa Clara, jointly funded and participated in a survey of homeless individuals and families in Santa Clara County. The survey consisted of a questionnaire that was administered to a sample of the homeless population in the County. Unlike a census, which counts the entire population in a group, a sample survey reaches only a subset of the total population. The survey process consisted of on-site interviews with individuals at various pu.blic street locations throughout the County and on-site interviews with individuals at all of the emergency shelters, youth outreach centers, and transitional housing facilities. The survey interviewed a t~)tal of 1,149 homeless individuals and resulted in the following information: Approximately 1,700 homeless persons were estimated to be without shelter at the time the survey was taken. The total "sheltered" at the time of the survey was estimated at 2,024 resulting in a total homeless count of 3,724. The number of children who are homeless comprised 19% of the total sample count and 74% of these children were under the age of twelve. The number of working homeless doubled from 12% identified in a 1989 report to 24% in the 1995 report. Mental illness and substance abuse are problems that continue to be a significant factor for the County’s homeless population. ¯The length of time in homelessness appears to be increasing. Over 41% of the respondents reported being homeless for more than one year - an increase of 40% over the 1989 survey of the homeless. The survey indicates the ethnic background of the participants as: 26% White, 57% African-American, 13% Hispani.c, and 4% other. The "1995 Overview of Homelessness in Santa Clara County" estimated that, based on turnover rates in shelters and adding in the approximately 8,800 AFDC single head of household with children who requested homeless assistance for fiscal year 1994-95, there probably were a total of 16,300 persons in the County who experienced a period of homelessness for that year, from less to a month to more than a year. The Palo Alto sample represented about 4.2 percent of the total survey population or approximately 48 people. This would translate into about 72 people if this percentage were applied to the 1,700 homeless people estimated to be in the County in 1995. However, there is no accepted method for allocating the estimates of the number of homeless to individual cities. Due to the transitory nature of homelessness, it cannot be described with any meaning except on a countywide basis. From the perspective of a city 22 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 like Palo Alto, which is located on the border between two counties, homelessness should be studied from a sub-regional perspective. Another indicator regarding h0melessness comes from the Housing Authority’s waiting list information. When the waiting list was open in 1999, respondents were asked whether or not they were homeless. The number of homeless households from Palo Alto on this waiting liit was 54. Assuming an average household size of 2.3 persons, these 54 households represent about 124 people who were homeless and who, at one time, lived in Palo Alto. It is likely that the increase in housing costs during the 1990s is increasing the risk of homelessness for lower income households in Palo Alto and, as indicated earlier, many of the households at-risk of becoming homeless may be female headed, single parent households or large family households that cannot find adequate, affordable shelter. b) Resources Available to Homeless Households The City of Palo Alto participates in the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues, which represents homeless shelters, service providers, advocates, non-profit housing developers and local jurisdictions. The City and the Collaborative follow a "Continuum of Care" approach in addressing the needs of homeless persons. The continuum consists of the following steps in providing homeless resources: i)Prevention Services ii)Emergency Shelter iii)Transitional and Permanent Affordable Housing Listed below is a description of the resources available to Palo Alto households according to the"Continuum of Care"approach. i) Prevention Services: The goal of this first level of resources is to prevent households from becoming homeless. Households who are "at risk" for becoming homeless are those who are lower income and who have a difficult time paying for their existing housing. Traditionally, these include households who"overpay"f, or housing (paying more than 30% of their income for housing) as well as households who experience job termination or reduction or marital separations. Part of the prevention resources are the provision of emergency food and clothing funds as well as emergency rent funds and rental move-in assistance. In Palo Alto, the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto is the primary provider of services to homeless persons. The Urban Ministry, at their morning drop-in center, coordinates the provision of supportive services, counseling, job labor referral, transportation vouchers,. shower passes, mental health services and maintains a message and mails system. On a daily basis, the drop-in center is visited by about 120 persons. Since the drop-in center is Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 23 located a short walk from the San Mateo County line and adjacent to a major inter-CoUnty transit terminal, it is reasonable to assume that some of their clients have connections to other communities and do not solely represent Palo Alto households. The Urban Ministry also coordinates the provision of groceries for needy individuals through the Food Closet located at All Saints Episcopal Church in downtown Palo Alto. The Food Closet serves an average of 90 persons daily. Urban ministries also coordinates a daily hot meal program at various church locations. The Shelter Plus Care Program, administered by the County Office of Homelessness, provides Section 8 rental subsidies to eligible, case-managed homeless persons with a disability. The program has been successfully implemented in both the Barker Hotel (a rehabilitated 26 unit single room occupancy hotel) and Alma Place (a newly constructed 107 unit single room occupancy residency hotel). Thirteen previously homeless persons are currently housed as a result of the program. In addition to the case-management provided under the Shelter Plus Care Program, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation provides additional, extensive counseling and supportive services to its residents at the Barker Hotel, the majority of whom were previously homeless, or at-risk of becoming homeless. The program, funded with Palo Alto CDBG funds, has significantly reduced the turnover rate at the Barker Hotel, keeping at-risk persons in their homes. The American Red Cross distributes emergency assistance funds to families and individuals who are threatened with homelessness. The Red Cross is th’e local distributor of County Emergency Assistance Network Funds. ii) Emergency Shelters The Urban Ministry of Palo Alto operates the"Hotel de Zink"shelter out of twelve churches, using a different church each month of the year. A maximum of 15 adults each night can be provided with emergency shelter. Meals are also provided as part of the service. Within the County of Santa Clara, there are approximately 662 emergency year round shelter beds and 590 seasonal (winter months) beds. None of these facilities are located in the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto, in conjunction with other entitlement jurisdictions, financed the development of Emergency Housing Consortium’s Homeless Reception Center in San Jose. The Reception Center operates 150 year-round beds (250 beds during the winter months) and provides intake and assessment services to its clients to ensure that they receive the appropriate level of care. Additionally, Palo Alto assisted in the establishment of the 60-bei:l Clara-Mateo Shelter, located at the Veterans Administration hospital in Menlo Park. The shelter contains six family housing rooms and six transitional housing rooms. Although the shelter is open to all eligible clients, about two-thirds of the population served is veterans. 24 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 The largest shelter for youth in San Jose is the Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, providing emergency shelter for wards of the court (usually victims of abuse or neglect) from newborn to 18 years of age. The facility has a 90-bed capacity and is consistently full. The New County Children’s Shelter (completed in 1995) has a capacity of 132 beds and is also located in San Jose. Other shelters for youth include Casa SAY in Mountain View, Emergency Housing Consortium’s Youth Outreach Program, and the Bill Wilson Center in Santa Clara. iii) Transitional Affordable Housing There are currently no transitional housing shelters in the City of Palo Alto but there are transitional shelters in nearby communities. Listed on the following page are five transitional shelters that could serve Palo Alto households as well as households in the community in which they are located. Illustration #9: Transitional Housing Shelters (in Nearby Areas) Name Operator Capacity Clientele Other (No. of Beds)Services Haven Family Shelter 23 Families Yes, at site House,Network Menlo Park Redwood Family Shelter House,Network Redwood City Reception Emergency Center Housing Consortium 40 Families.Yes, at site 250 Families Yes, at site Illinois St. House Shelter 8 Single Yes East Palo Alto Network Parents Clara-Mateo Shelter,Clara Mateo 6 (rooms)Families,Yes Menlo Park Alliance Individuals Source: City of Palo Alto, "Consolidated Plan, 1995-2000", Pg. 23; "Consolidated Plan: July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005, pg. 41. There is only one facility in the City of Palo Alto that provides a managed shared housing opportunity. This facility is oriented to families with children and is typically occupied by single parent households. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 25 Illustration #10: Supportive Shared Housing Facilities, City of Palo Alto Name Operator Capacity Clientele Pine St.Palo Alto Housing 3 Households Small families or House Corporation individuals Source: City of Palo Alto c) Housing Needs of Homeless Households One of the major causes of homelessness is the lack of affordable housing. Most homeless households are on limited or fixed incomes and cannot afford a housing unit in California’s housing market and, especially, in the Bay Area housing market. Permanent ¯ affordable housing is the single most important housing need for homeless households. In the meantime, new small emergency homeless shelters in Palo Alto would be useful in addressing the immediate shelter needs of homeless persons who reside, or who once resided, in Palo Alto, particularly homeless families. 6. Farmworker Households a) Description of Farmworker Households in Palo Alto State law requires every jurisdiction in California to assess the need for farmworker housing. In Palo Alto’s case, there is no significant need for farmworker housing since there is no significant farmworker or mining population in the City. ABAG’s Projections 2000 estimated that there would be about 430 jobs in the Agriculture and Mining sector within Palo Alto’s Sphere of Influence in the year 2000. This job assignment is probably the result of the distribution of jobs based on a regional model that does not necessarily reflect the specific employment circumstances of’individual communities. It is not likely that any of these jobs are farmworker or mining jobs since there are no large agricultural areas in Palo Alto that are devoted to field crops, orchards or other agricultural uses that would require farmworker labor nor are there any active mining uses that would typically require mining labor. The Agriculture and Mining sector jobs that may be in Palo Alto are probably related to aspects of this sector not associated with field crops or orchard v0ork or extractive mining work. Palo Alto is nearly built out and highly urbanized. Most large open space areas are located Within the _baylands or hillsides of Palo Alto and its Sphere of Influence and are set aside for park use, conservation purposes, or open space preserves. Finally, no housing advocate or low-income housing provider in Palo Alto has indicated there is an unmet need in the City for farmworker or mineworker housing. 26 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 b) Resources Available for Farmworker Households Since there appears to be no significant number of farmworkers in Palo Alto, no special housing resources have been identified or set aside for farmworkers. Housing for farmworkers, to the extent that there are any, would be provided through the City’s policies and programs that address the needs of lower income households in general. c) Housing Needs of Farmworker Households There is no evidence that there is significant need for farmworker housing in Palo Alto. Households Overpaying for Housing Census data from 1990 indicates that over 30% of all households in Palo Alto were "cost burdened" or overpayed for housing in 1990 (i.e., payed more than 30% of household income for rent). As shown on the chart below, renters were more likely to overpay for housing than home owners. Illustration 11: Households Paying More than 30% ofHousehold Income for Housing Renters Number % of Renter Overpaying Households 3,916 37.4% Owners Number % of Owner Overpaying Households 2,867 23.9% All Households Number % of All Overpaying Households 6,783 30.2% Source: 1990 U.S. Census Large proPortions of the City’s low and moderate income households of all types were more likely to overpay for housing (see illustration below), particularly very low- and low-income renter households. Using data generated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the preparation of the City’s 1993-1994 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), Palo Alto determined that about 59% of all households earning 95% of City’s Median Family Income (MFI) overypayed for housing in 1990. Seventy-four percent of the renters and 39% of the owners earning 95% or less of MFI overpayed for housing. In 1990, Median Family Income (MFI) for Palo Alto was approximately $68,790. For the purposes of the City’s CHAS overypayment analysis, three income categories were used: Very Low Income (0-50% of MFI or $0 - $34,395), Low Income (51-80% of MFI or $34,396 - $55,032), and Moderate Income (81-95% of lVIFI or $55,033 - $65,350). This is generally the group of households least able to devote 30% or more of their income to housing without significantly affecting other aspects of family health and life. Further, since lower income rental households are more likely to pay much higher rents proportionally than other households, the City has focused most of its affordable housing efforts towards increasing the supply of affordable rental housing. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 27 Illustration 12: Households Earning 95 % or Less of Median Family Income (MFI) Paying More than 30 % of HouseholdIncome for Housing Household Income Very Low Income (0- 50% of MI~) Low Income (51-80% of MFI) Moderate Income (81- 95% of MFI) Total Renters Number % of 689 462 3,029 Renters 78% 75% 61% 74% Owners Number 599 174 132 % of Owners 44% .26% 23% 39% Number All Households % of Household S 863 594 905 66% 54% 45% 59%3~934 Source: 1993-1994 Palo Alto Comprehensive Housin~ Affordabilit¥ Strategy Year 2000 Census data on households overpaying are not yet available, but it is likely, given the more than doubling of housing costs between 1990 and 2000, that the number of households overpaying for housing in Palo Alto has increased, perhaps significantly, over the last decade. When Census 2000 information becomes available, this analysis will be updated. 28 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Chapter 3: Housing Stock Inventory of Housing Units .According to the 2000 Census, there were 26,048 residential units in Palo Alto. This was an increase of 860 units from 1990 when there were a total of 25,188 units in the City. Illustration #13: Total Number of Housing Units, City of Palo Alto 1970-2000 Total # of Units 28,000 - 1970 21,338 1980 23,747 26,ooo 1990 25,188 24,ooo2000 " 26,048 22,000 Total Number of Units 20,000 18,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990; 2000 In evaluating the rate of housing production from an historical perspective, there has been a significant decrease in the rate of housing produced in the City of Palo Alto over the last three decades. During the decade from 1970-80, the City’s housing stock increased by 2,409 units or approximately 240 units per year. From 1980-90 this rate decreased to an average of 144 new units per year or a 10 year total of 1,441 new units added tothe housing stock. The 1990-2000 data identified above reflects an even lower rate of housing unit production dropping to an average of 86 units per year. Illustration #14: Rate of Annual Housing Production, 1970-2000 Annual Rate 250 - 200 150 100 50 0 1970-80 1980-90 1990-2000 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 29 There are several reasons for the decrease in housing unit production rates. First, the City . of Palo Alto is essentially "built out." Less than 0.5% of the City’s land area is vacant and most of this land is not zoned for residential use. The opportunity to annex additional land to the City is limited because the City is surrounded on the east and west by the Cities of Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Altos. The San Francisco Bay frames the northeast boundary while Stanford University borders the southwest boundary. Stanford University is located in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Clara but also owns parcels of land in the City. In fact, one of the more significant housing projects under construction during the preparation of this Housing Element is the "Stanford West" development on Stanford property adjacent to Sand Hill Road. This development will generate 628 rental units and a senior housing complex with over 400 units. This is one of the last opportunities for large scale residential development in Palo Alto. Besides the dearth of residential land, another reason for the de.crease .in housing production was the recession during the early 1990s which affected the value of the housing market and made it less attractive to build housing. That situation changed during the mid- and late-1990s when the Silicon Valley economy boomed with the ’ expansion of the Internet and the significant growth in high technology businesses. As the number of workers and their incomes rose, housing demand increased and so did housing production. However, production could not keep pace with demand thus driving up the cost of housing even more rapidly than the growth of the economy. Land costs increased very rapidly given the limited supply of available residential land which increased financing costs. These factors combined with increased materials and construction costs made it much more difficult to produce housing, especially affordable housing. And, although the local economy has been slowing since the first half of the year 2000, it is not anticipated that this economic slowdown will substantially decrease the cost of producing new housing. The availability of land and economic issues will continue to be important variables in determining the amount and the rate of new housing produced in the City. Additional information on land availability and estimates of new housing to be produced during the time frame of this Housing Element can be found in Chapter 5 ("Future Housing Needs") and Chapter 6 ("Housing Constraints"). Housing Units by Type and Tenure The majority of housing units in Palo Alto are single family units. Approximately 64% of the total housing stock in 1990 was single family units with 94% of those single family units being single family detached units and the remainder were single family attached units (e.g. condominium and townhouse units). Multi-family units in structures of 2-4 units represented 6.5% of the houSing stock in 1990 and approximately 28% of the housing stock consisted of multi-family units in structures of 5 and more units. Mobile homes represented less than 1% of the total housing stock. The illustration below reflects .the 1990 mix of housing types in the City. 3O Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Illustration #15: Housing Stock by Type, City of Palo Alto, 1990 Single Family 16,166 2-4 Units 1,625 5+ Units 7,074 Other (includes 109 mobile homes)323 TOTAL Source: u.s. Census, 1990 (STF3) 25,188 Year 2000 Census information on housing stock type is not yet available but it is anticipated that the distribution of housing types will change only slightly with single family units continuing to make up the majority of Palo Alto’s housing stock but at somewhat less than the current 64% level. This is due to the increasing construction of multiple family housing in Palo Alto. For example, between 1996 and 2000 the City built about 335 dwelling units and 212 of these units, or over 63%, were multiple family units. In 2000, approximately 57.2% of the 25,216 occupied units in the City are owner-occupied. Homeowners live in 14,420 of the City’s occupied units and the remaining 10,796 are occupied by renter households. The percentage of owner-occupied units has been slowly but steadily increasing. In 1970, 54% of the City’s units were owner-occupied and by 1980 that percentage had increased to 55%. The 1990 owner-occupied percentage was 57% increasing only slightly to 57.2% in 2000 indicating a leveling off of this trend. It is interesting to note that the percentage of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units in the City’s housing stock is fairly similar to the proportion of owner and renter units in Santa Clara County as a whole. The County’s housing stock consisted of 40.2% renter-occupied and 59.8% owner-occupied units in 2000. In 1990, mostof the owner occupied units in the City were three bedrooms and larger in size. Approximately 77.5% of all owner-occupied units were three bedrooms or larger. The average number of bedrooms in an owner-occupied unit was 3.15 bedrooms while the average bedroom size of a renter-occupied unit was 1.64 bedrooms per unit. Year 2000 Census data is not yet available to update the number of bedrooms for owner- and renter-occupied units, but it is likely that owner-occupied units may be slightly larger in 2000 given the increasing size of single family detached dwellings over the last decade while renter-occupied units in 2000 are probably close to the same size as they were in 1990. Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates have traditionally been used as a gauge to measure the health of a community’s housing market. Low vacancy rates (typically defined as anything less than 3% for homeowner units and 5% or less for renter units) indicate a tight housing market Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 31 with few vacant units and increasing demand for those vacant units which then drive up rental costs. Data from the 2000 U.S. Census indicate that a total of 832 units were vacant out of a total housing stock of 26,048 units. This reflects an overall vacancy rate of 3.2%. However, in looking at this data more closely only 614 of the 832 units were available for sale or rent. The remaining 218 units were vacant but were being used for seasonal, recreational or other uses. Therefore, the real vacancy rate when evaluating units available for rent or sale is actually 2.4%. Of the 614 units available, it was calculated that 473 units were available for rent and 141 units were for sale. If the 473 available rental units is added to the occupied-rental housing stock in 2000 of 10,796 units, then the total number oi: rental units (occupied and vacant) in 2000 was 11,269 units, The 473 vacant units then represent 4.2% of the rental housing stock. By using the same method, the homeowner vacancy rate in 2000 was about 1% (141 vacant units + 14,420 owner occupied units = 14,561 units total). It is probable, however, that vacancy rates for apartments during 2000 were much lower. REAL FACTS estimated that occupancy rates for large apartment complexes. (50 units or more; 1,943 units total) varied from a low of 98.3% (1.7% vacancy rate) in the middle quarters of 2000 to a high of 99.3% (0.7% vacancy rate) during the fourth quarter. However, during the first quarter of 2001, average occupancy rates decreased to 95.9% (4.1% vacancy rate) reflecting the slowdown in the economy. Housing Age and Condition Like many other California communities, Palo Alto experienced a huge spurt of growth in the decade after World War 1I. Approximately one-third of the City’s current (1996) housing stock was built in the decade between 1950-60. The 1990 U.S.Census data confirmed this by indicating that the median year in which a typical Palo Alto housing unit was constructed was 1955. In fact, the City’s housing stock appears to be divided into three periods of construction or age. The 1990 U.S. Census data showed that roughly one-third of the units (8,255 units) were constructed prior to 1949, another one-third (8,385 units) were constructed between 1949-59 and the remaining one-third (8,548 units) were built after 1959. Year 2000 Census information is not yet available to update the age distribution of Palo Alto’ s housing stock but it is likely that the distribution has changed only slightly with a higher Percentage of units in the post-1960 .period due to the additional units added between 1990 and 2000 and lower percentages for the pre-1959 periods due to demolitions. 32 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Illustration #16: Year Structure Built, City of Palo Alto, 1990 1960 - 1990 Pre - 1949 34%.33% 1949 - 1959 33% Source: 1990 U,S. Census By looking at census data indicators only, Palo Alto’s housing stock is not substantially at risk for having severely deteriorated units. The majority of the City’s units were built after world War II and so there are limited numbers of very old housing units (50+ years) in the City. Further, the census data indicate that in 1990 only 51 of the City’s 25,188 total units lacked complete plumbing facilities. The number of units lacking plumbing was probably about the same in 2000 or slightly smaller due to the demolition of some older units. While a formal "windshield"survey has not been conducted in Palo Alto in recent years, there have been periodic and extensive drive-throughs of the neighborhoods in Palo Alto by both staff and consultants. Because of the high market vaiueand income levels in many Palo Alto neighborhoods, the units generally appear to be in good condition and there appear to be few, if any, pockets of deteriorating units. The City’s 1988-91 "Housing Assistance Plan" estimated that only 3% of the City’s owner occupied housing stock is substandard. The 3% figure was based on information from the City’s Housing Improvement Program, which has now been discontinued, and is the most accurate information available on substandard housing. City staff observations indicate minimal change in the amount of substandard housing since 1991. City staff has also observed that, in Palo Alto, there does not appear to be a correlation between the age of a structure and deterioration. Further, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reports that Santa Clara County’s housing stock is in significantly better condition than other areas of the State. Assuming that the proportion (3%) of owner-occupied units estimated to be substandard remains the same, only about 437 of the 14,561 owner-occupied units in Palo Alto could be considered substandard. This actual number of substandard homes is probably less, Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 33 however, given the high real estate .values of the City and the high level of investments property owners are likely to spend to maintain these values. A review of the 1990 U.S. Census data indicates that only 4.5% (598 households total) of all owner occupants are very low-and low-income and live in housing units built prior to 1940. Another 10% of owner occupants (1,320 households total) are very low- and low-income and live in units built between 1940-59. This data provides an "upper range" or maximum ceiling of rehabilitation need for owner occupied units using the assumption that very lowand low-income households often cannot afford on-going maintenance and repair as their units "age" and that these are the type of units most often in need of rehabilitation. The 1,918 units (598 + 1,320 = 1,918) represent 7.6% of all housing units in the City in 1990. Assuming that the proportion of housing units needing rehabilitation remained the same, then approximately 1,980 of Palo Alto’s housing units may have needed some rehabiltation in the year 2000. One site which may contain a greater than average proportion of units needing rehabilitation or replacement is the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. This 4+ acre development consists of both mobile home/trailers and studio rental units. The 1990 U.S. Census reported that there were 109 mobile homes/trailers in the City and it is estimated that 104 of these units are located at Buena Vista. The census data reported that, in 1990, 86 of these 109 units were occupied and of those occupied units 91% were owner occupied. Many of the units at Buena Vista are older "trailer" units. Typically, these older trailers lack adequate insulation, roofing and foundation and may also have outdated plumbing and electrical systems. Additionally, accessibility (exterior doors and stairs, hallways) is .also a concern especially for older and/or disabled occupants. No 2000 Census data is available on mobile homes/trailers but during a recent (July 2001) drive- through of the Buena Vista Mobile Park, it appeared that many of the exterior conditions described in 1990 have remained the same. The City’s rental housing stock is "younger" than the total housing stock. The median year that a renter-occupied unit was built is 1960 while the median for all occupied units is 1955. Although 2000 Census information is not yet available on the age of the City’s housing stock, it is likely that the median age of the owner-occupied has moved towards the second half of the 1950s and the median age of the City’s rental units is in the early 1960’ s. Seventy percent of the renter-occupied units in 1990 were in structures of 3 or more units. Assuming that very low- and low-income renters might be more likely to live in substandard units because of their limited income for housing costs, a review of income status and age of housing was conducted of the 1990 U.S. Census data. This review indicates that the majority (60%) of very low- and low-income tenants occupied units built after 1960. Another 28% (987 households total) of very low- and low-income tenants were living in units built between 1940-59 while the remaining 13% (462 households total) of very low- and low-income renters lived in units built prior to 1940. Therefore, the census data indicate that most very low- and low-income tenants in Palo Alto live in "newer" units (units built after 1960) and these units are typically assumed to be in no serious threat of being substandard. There are 462 very low- and low-income 34 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 tenants living in units over 50 years of age and these units are the most likely to be substandard and in need of rehabilitation. There are also 987 very low- and low-income tenants living in units built between 1940-59 and some of these units could also be in need of repair or rehabilitation. The 1,449 total units (462+987=1,449 units) represent 5.8% of all housing units in the City in 1990. Assuming the same proportion (5.8%) of rental units that are possible substandard, then approximately 1,463 housing units may have needed some rehabilitation in 2000. While it does not appear then that there is a serious problem with the condition of rental units, it should be noted that the City has been active in trying to maintain the condition of the existing rental housing stock. Using federal funds and bond authority, several rental housing developments in Palo Alto have been rehabilitated in recent years. In 1998-99, the City assisted the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in preserving and rehabilitating the 57 unit Sheridan Apartments and, in 1999-2000, assisted the Mid- Peniiasula Housing coalition in preserving and rehabilitating the 156 unit Palo Alto Gardens. The City assisted with the acquisition and rehabilitation of the 66 unit Arastradero Park Apartments in 1995. With City assistance, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation rehabilitated the 10 unit Plum Tree Apartments in 1991 and the 26 unit Barker Hotel project in 1994. The City intends to continue to monitor the maintenance and repair needs of the rental housing stock. Cost and Affordability of Housing Housing costs continue to be a concern for California communities, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. Palo Alto is a very desirable community and, consequently, the cost of housing is espe.cially high and has been rising rapidly. Between 1996 and 2000 the price of both single family detached dwellings and condominiums/townhouses more than doubled. Single-family detached home prices increased 105% from $490,000 to $1,006,600. Condominium and townhouse prices increased 107% from $264,000 to $546,600 (Source: Silicon Valley Board of Realtors, penwest.com). Using the 2000 median prices of a single family detached home ($1,006,600) and a condominium or townhouse ($546,600) as examples, the household incomes necessary to purchase a median priced home in Pato Alto can be calculated. Assuming a standard 20% down payment and an 8% mortgage with a 30 year term, a household would need to have an annual income of approximately $275,000 to afford the median sales price of $1,006,600 for a single family detached home. The monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes and insurance is estimated to be over $6,800 per month and it is assumed that the household would pay no more than 30% of their income for housing costs. Using the same assumptions, the household income required to purchase the medium price condominium or townhome in Palo Alto would be approximately $163,000 per year. This assumes a monthly payment of over $4,000 per month for principal, interest, taxes, insurance and homeowner association dues. Using a family of four as the basis for comparison, a household would have to earn over three times the County’s median Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 35 income to purchase the median priced single-family home in Palo Alto. To purchase a median priced condominium or townhouse in Palo Alto, a four person household would need to have an income of nearly twice the median level. The information in the above paragraph indicates that households either need a very high household income to afford the median priced housing units in Palo Alto in 2000 or else would need to have a substantial amount of funds for a large down payment so that the monthly mortgage costs would be reduced. Low- and moderate-income households do not have the household incomes needed to afford these units and, typically, do not have access to large amounts of funds to use for down payments. Therefore, it is very difficult for low- and moderate-income households to afford home ownership in Palo Alto. In fact, unless publicly subsidized in some manner, home ownership in Palo Alto is available only to households with above moderate-incomes. ~ In March 2001, based on a monthly survey of 13 apartment complexes representing a total of 1,943 units in Palo Alto, REAL FACTS reported that the average apartment unit was 856 square feet and rented for $2.93 per square foot or $2,512 per month. The average rent for a i bedroorn/1 bath was $2,300; a 2 bedro.orrd2 bath average rent was $3,218/month; and, the 3 bedroom/2 bath was $2,992 per month. These rental rates are double or nearly double their 1990 levels. Using 2000 median income figures for Santa Clara County, a household of 4 persons could have an income of no more than $43,500 per year to qualify as a very low-income household. By applying the formula that a household should spend no more than 30% of their income for housing, then the very low-income, 4-person household should spend no more than $1,087 per month for housing costs, incl.uding utilities. Illustration #17:2000 Income Limits/Housing Affordability County of Santa Clara, 4-Person Household Maximum Income Limit Maximum Housing Cost (30% of Income) Very Low 0-50% of Median $43,500 $1,087/month Low* 51-66% of Median $53,853 $1,346/month Moderate. 80% of Median $69,600 $1,740/month 100% of Median $ 87,000 $2,175/month 120% of Median $104,400 $2,610/month * In areas with very high median incomes, HUD caps the low-income limit based on the national median income rather than the traditional 80% of County median income. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 36 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 The chart on the previous page indicates household income levels and maximum "affordable" housing costs for a four person household. In comparing maximum affordable housing costs to the average 2000 apartment rent of $2,512 per month, it appears that the very low- and low-income households are completely priced out of the market. None of those households can theoretically afford the average apartment rent. These households either have to find a much smaller unit (i.e. studio unit or 1 bedroom unit possibly) or pay more than 30% of their income for housing costs (which is the most likely scenario). In regard to home ownership, these income groups are also unable to compete for home ownership units since their household incomes are significantly below the median priced townhome/condominium or the median priced single family, detached home. Only those 4 person moderate-income households earning at least $100,480 (115% of the County median income) appear to be able to afford typical rental rates in Palo Alto; however, home ownership is out of reach since that requires an income of at least $163,000 for a median priced condominium or townhouse. In summary, home ownership in Palo Alto is expensive and available principally to households near the upper end of above moderate incomes. Without a public subsidy in some manner, the median priced home ownership units in the City require minimum household incomes of $163,00-$275,000 depending on unit type. Only the upper end of the households in the above moderate-income range can "afford" typical rental unit housing costs, but low- and very low-income households have a much more difficult time. Very low-income households, in particular, are much more challenged in finding a rental unit that is affordable and appropriately sized for their household. The recent slowing of the economy and increased vacancy rates may bring about a modest decline in rents and home prices, but not to the extent of substantially improving the affordability of housing in Palo Alto. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 37 Chapter 4: Existing Affordable Housing The City of Palo Alto has been very active in promoting and supporting the provision of affordable housing. This chapter of the Housing Element Technical Document describes the various housing programs and policies operative in the City at the time this Element was prepared (early 2002). Also included in this chapter is an inventory of the existing affordable housing units in the City and a description of the various social service agencies that receive City funding and provide housing support services. City Housing Programs and Policies 1. Below Market Rate (BMR) Program One of the most significant housing programs adopted by the city is the "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Program. The BMR program was initiated in. 1974 as a mechanism to " increase the supply of housing affordable to individuals and families with low-to moderate-incomes. When first adopted, the BMR program applied to projects of 20 or more units. In 1976, this was lowered to projects of 10 or more units. In 1990, the threshold was further reduced to apply to projects of 3 or more units. With the adoption of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and its Housing Element, the threshold was placed at three units for for-sale housing and five units for rental housing. The raising of the threshold for rental projects was done in order to facilitate construction of small rental projects, where the BMR program has limited impact. The BMR program requires that, in for-sale projects of three or more units and rental projects of five or more units, at least 10% of the units be provided at housing costs that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Development on sites greater than 5 acres in size are required to include a 15% BMR component. The priority for the program is to include units spread throughout the community and in all projects. An alternative allows for the developer paying an "in-lieu" fee to the City rather than actually providing the units. These "in-lieu" fees are then deposited in the City’s "Housing Development Fund." (See the following page for a further description of this fund.) Program H-31 of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan recommended the adoption of a revised density bonus program that allows for the construction of up to three additional market rate units for each BMR unit above that normally required, up to a maximum zoning increase of 25 % in density and allows an equivalent increase in square footage for projects that meet this requirement. The program is consistent with State law. This density bonus program has not yet been implemented by the City but will be undertaken as part of the Zoning Ordinance update. Because of the need for affordable housing, the BMR Program represents the only assessment of impact fees made by the city on new housing construction. The BMR Program was initiated in 1974. By January 2000, there were a total of 151 ownership units and 38 rental units generated by the program. Sales and resales of BMR ’ units are administered under contract to the City by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 38 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 (PAHC), a private, non-profit organization. The BMR Program has generated approximately 7.5 BMR units per year, on average, since the initiation of the Program. This rate of production has not been sufficient to meet the City’ s need for affordable housing. To improve the rate of production of BMR units and increase the City’s supply of affordable housing, Program H-35 of the updated housing element proposes to increase the minimum percentage of affordable units required for most projects from 10% to 15% and increase the minimum percentage of BMR units to 20% for projects five acres or greater in size. The original goal of the BMRprogram was to have the initial sales price of BMR ownership units affordable to households whose incomes do not exceed 100% of the median income, adjusted for family size, as established periodically by HUD for Santa Clara County. However, with the proposed increase in the percentage of required BMR units, Program H-35 proposes to allow the BMR units to be affordable t~ those households earning up to 120% of the County median income to ease the finanicial burden On developers that provide BMR units. For all projects with BMR ownership units, certain restrictions are recorded with the grant deed to ensure that there will be continued occupancy and ownership of the BMR units by low- and moderate-income persons. When a BMR owner wishes to sell the unit, he or she must give the City the right of first refusal to purchase it. The City exercises its option and assigns the right to purchase the unit to a buyer selected by the PAHC (according to guidelines approved by the City). The price at which a unit is resold is calculat(d based on the increase in the "Consumer Price Index" for the San Francisco Bay Area during the period of ownership. Currently, one-third of the percentage increase in the Index is applied to the purchase price to determine the resale price. For example, if a unit was purchased initially for $100,000 and if the Index rose 15% during the period of ownership then the resale calculation would be $100,000 ÷ (113 x 15% x 100,000) = $105,000. Certain substantial improvements and depreciation factors are also taken into consideration in calculating the resale price. Sales and resales 6f BMR units are administered under contract to the City by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), a private, non-profit organization. PAHC also maintains a waiting list of people interested in purchasing a BMR unit. According to City policy, priority for ownership of BMR units is given to applicants who live or work in Palo Alto. Further, there are certain household income and asset limitations. The BMR program also applies to rental projects. Currently, at least 10% of the units in a rental project must be provided as BMR units to households earning between 50% and 80% of the County median income, adjusted for family size. Program H-35 would increase the minimum BMR set aside to 15% of all rental units. The rents are initially established based on HUD Section 8 Fair Market Rents and may be adjusted annually based on one-third of the Consumer Price Index, or other similar formula as adopted by the City Council. Alternatives include payment by the developer of an annual in-lieu fee to the City’s Housing Development Fund based on the difference between the initial Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 39 Section 8 fair market rents and the market rate rents of the units, or a one-time fee based on 5% of the appraised value of the rental portion of the project. 2. City Housing Funds The City maintains a "Housing Development Fund"which is capitalized from several different resources and contains several "sub-sets" of funds. Basically, the Housing Development Fund consists of the following: a) Residential Housing In-Lieu funds, b) Commercial and Industrial Housing In-Lieu funds, and c) Federal or State housing funds (i. e. CDBG and HOME) as well as program income from past loans or projects. The Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund consists of fees paid by developers of residential projects under Palo Alto’s BMR Program and any miscellaneous revenues designated for housing. When a sufficient level of funds accrue in this account, the City utilizes the funds for affordable housing development. Typically,the fund can be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and predevelopment of low-income housing. As of March 31, 2001, the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund had an unrestricted balance of $1,246,491. The Commercial Housing In-Lieu fund is capitalized with fees paid by developers/owners of new or expanded commercial or industrial developments, as required by Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The fees are intended to off-set the below-moderate incomeresidential demands resulting from the increased work force that will be generated by the development. Currently (2001), the fee charged is $4.21 per square foot. The fee is charged only on new construction that exceeds 20,000 square feet or exPansions to existing buildings of 2,500 square feet or more. Similar to -i the Residential Housing Reserve fund, the City allocates thege funds to affordable housing developments within the community. As of March 31, 2001, the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund had a balance of approximately $770,090. Program H-50 of the Comprehensive Plan proposes that the formula for calculating the commercial and industrial housing in-lieu fee for projects with impacts on housing be periodically reviewed as required under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code to better reflect the impact of new jobs on housing demand and,.,vo~.,-,"net ...., ..,.*.~,.,,.~l""~f’~A ..~--n~A ~.~ .... ,lo~°oA ÷~,_, ~’~"impact ~ ...........~,~..1~ .....reflect t~.e,~ new jc, ba ~’-" ~" ....;-- demand --d costs. The City has hired a consultant to study this fee and report back to the City Council on how it should be adjusted. The third component of the "Housing Development Fund" is State or Federal housing funds and the program income from any past housing loans or projects. For example, the City receives program income from loans made with CDBG funds in previous years. 40 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 199%2006 From 1990-2000, the City has received a range of $40,00-100,000 per year in program income from previous CDBG loan awards, primarily to applicants in the City’s housing rehabilitation program. Federal, State, and Other Housing Resources 1. Federal Resources The City of Palo Alto is an "entitlement" community under the federal Community. Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. As such, the City receives an annual allocation of CDBG funds to assist with affordable housing opportunities as well as economic development and public services in the community. On an average annual basis, the City has been receiving approximately $700,000 each year in CDBG funds (in fiscal year 2001/02, Palo Alto’s CDBG allocation was $771,000). Traditionally, the City has used about 15% of its annual CDBG allocation, per federal regulations to help fund various social service agencies who provide support services to lowand moderate-income households. Examples of some recently funded activities with social service agencies include fair housing counseling, homeless assistance and housing information and referral. In addition, over 50% (62% in fiscal year 2000/01) of CDBG funds are used by. the City to provide assistance in the development or rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to lower income households. The City directs the CDBG funds to the City’s "Housing Development Fund,’" which is then used for pre-development expenses, acquisition of land or existing buildings and rehabilitation costs of affordable housing projects. 2. State Resources The City is also eligible to apply for State of California housing funds. One of the more poPular State funds in recent years is the "HOME" program. HOME funds are federal funds that are directly allocated to large.urban areas as well as to State governments to then distribute to local Communities~ These funds can.be used for a. variety of activities, including the development or rehabilitation of renter or owner occupied housing that is affordable to very low- and low-income households. The HOME program is a very competitive program with many communities applying to the State for a limited amount of funds during an annual competition. Due to excessive demand for the State’ s HOME allocation, and rating criteria that do not favor areas like Palo Alto, it is difficult to secure an award. Staff will, however, continue to track the Notices of Funding Availability and evaluate all potentially suitable projects to determine whether or not to apply for a HOME grant. The City has also worked closely with local non-profits to secure other state and federal funding. One of the most desirable programs is the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation used Low Income Housing Tax Credits to build the California Park Apartments project and has received an award for Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 41 construction of the Alma Place SRO. In addition, Community Housing, Inc. ~eceived federal Section 202 funds for the construction of the Lytton Courtyard project, and Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition received federal Section 811 funds to construct 24 units of housing for the developmentally disabled. The City intends to continue to pursue all sources of funding and to assist local agencies and non-profits in applying for and securing additional financing opportunities. 3. Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) The HTSCC is a public/private initiative dedicated to creating more affordable housing in Santa Clara County using a revolving loan fund and grant-making program to complement and leverage other housing resources. The City of Palo Alto has contributed $500,000 toward the initial $20,000,000 investment capitalization. This resource is currently available to help leverage new affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. Affordable Housing Unit Inventory There are several different "types"of affordable housing units in the City of Palo Alto. Some affordable rental units are owned by non-profit or for-profit developers and, because of the affordability restrictions imposed by funding sources, are affordable to a certain household income level for a fixed period of time. In addition, there are 151 BMR ownership units that are privately owned but are restricted with regard to resate and price to only other low- and moderate-income households and another 38 units in the BMR rental housing program. A listing of the locations of these units can be found in Appendix B of this document. Finally, the Section 8 rental subsidy program is operated by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority and provides a rental subsidy to landlords of units who rent to eligible low-income households. Any rental unit in the City can be eligible for occupancy in this program as long as the unit meets certain health, safety and occupancy requirements. According to the Housing Authority, there were a total of 253 households in Palo Alto recdving Section 8 rental subsidy assistance during fiscal year 1999/2000. Of these 253 hduseholds, 180 were elderly and/or disabled and the remaining 73 households were family households. Four households were categorized as low- income and 247 as very low-inome. In September 2000, there were a total of 25 housing developments in the City that included 1,233 units of subsidized rental housing. These developments are owned primarily by non-profits, such as the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, but some are owned by for-profit owners. Appendix B includes a table with the addresses and number of units in each of these 25 housing developments. 42 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Housing Support Services There are many non-profit groups and organizations that provide housing related support services in Palo Alto. For example, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) was established in 1969 and was formed to encourage and develop low- and moderate-income housing in the City. PAHC has been very active in assisting the City with the BMR Program, acting as adeveloper/owner of other affordable housing projects, and providing extensive information and referral services on housing in the region. Other organizations that have received City funding assistance to provide housing related support services include the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County (Long Term Ombudsman Program), Emergency Housing Consortium, Innovative Housing, Outreach and Escort, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Senior Coordinating Council (Senior Repair Program), Community Association for Rehabilitation, American Red Cross (Rental Assistance, Single Parent Services), Miramonte Mental Health Services, Peninsula Area Information and Referral (tenant-landlord counseling), Support Network for Battered Women, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (Palo Alto Gardens Apartments, Alliance for Community Care (support services for those with mental disabilities), Clara-Mateo Alliance (homeless), and Shelter Network (transitional housing and services). The City has provided funding to the agencies mentioned above through CDBG funds as well as City General funds. Palo Alto has a tradition of assisting non-profit groups with funding so that these groups and organizations can also provide support services and direct assistance to low- and moderate-income households in the City. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 43 Chapter 5: Future Housing Needs According to State Housing Element Guidelines, Housing Elements should include an analysis of the number of housing units to be built, rehabilitated and/or conserved in order to meet the community’s current and future housing needs. Following is an analysis of Palo Alto’s new cons[ruction, rehabilitation and conservation needs. New Construction Needs The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has developed estimates of housing needs for communities in the San Francisco Bay Area for 1999-2006, the time frame of the Housing Element. Under State law, ABAG is responsible for allocating the regional housing need, established by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for each region of the state, to each jurisdiction in the San Francisco Bay Area. The allocation process used information from ABAG’s Projections 2000 to determine eacli jurisdictions fair share of the region’s housing need. Projections 2000 examines population, household, and job growth; examines various demographic factors (e.g., age and sex of the population); and, reviews transpor[ation patterns and other data. In addition to this data, ABAG considered the land use policies and the land use data of local governments, including the sites available for residential development and the availability of urban services. The housing need determination is primarily based on the number of households each jurisdiction is expected to create between 1999 and 2006. In addition, a weighting factor was given to projected job growth to partially represent the demand for housing generated by this growth. This weighting factor increased the housing need allocation for jurisdictions that were expected to add a significant number of jobs between 1999-2006. The local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County also agreed that, since urbanization should take place only within the urban service areas of the cities, about 75% of the Unincorporated County’s Sphere of Influence housing need should be allocated to the cities where these units could be better served and urban encroachments into the County would be better contained. Using available data and projections based on future employment and population trends, the ABAG estimates that the total projected housing need for Santa Clara County is 57,991 new units for 1999-2006. Palo Alto’s share of that total need is 1,397 units or 2.4% of the County’s total need. In addition to the total housing need estimate, ABAG is charged with determining the number of housing units that are needed for each of four household income levels based on County median household income. These income levels are defined as follows: Very Low-Income - 0-50% of County median income; Low-Income - 50-80% of County median income; Moderate-Income - 80-120% of County median income; and, Above Moderate-Income - greater than 120% of County median income. The purpose of this division of housing need by income level is to more equitably distribute the type of households by income category throughout a region so that no one community is 44 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 "impacted" with a particular household income group and to ensure that each jurisdiction addresses the housing needs of each economic segment in their communities. Palo Alto’s fair share of the region’s housing need by income level for 1999-2006 is described in the ¯ illustration below. Illustration #18: ABAG New Construction Need by Household Income Level, January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006 Very Low-income Households Low-Income Households Moderate-Income Households Above Moderate-Income Households 265 116 343 673 The household income distributions noted above represent objectives that Palo Alto should strive to achieve in meeting its fair share of the region’s .housing need. Since January 1, 1999, Palo Alto has successfully produced, or has approved, housing units affordable to various income groups. These units are occupied, ready for occupancy, or will be ready for occupancy prior to June 30, 2006. Palo Alto’s progress in meeting its fair share of the region’s housing need are summarized in the illustration below. Illustration #19: Progress in Meeting Palo Alto’s Fair Share of the Region’s 1999- 2006 Housing Need by Income Level, 1999-2000 Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL 1999-2006 Need 265 116 343 673 1,397 1999-2000 Built or Approved Units 24 66. 18 735 843 Unmet Need 241 50 325 None 616 One hundred and forty-three (143) of the 843 units built or approved have been constructed and are already occupied or are ready for occupancy. The remaining 700 units have received building permits and are in the process of being built. Most of these units should be ready for occupancy by the end of 2001. In reviewing the totals shown in the table above, it appears that Palo Alto has already constructed, or approved for construction, about 60% of its fair share of the region’s housing need. However, it should be noted that the totals include 62 more above moderate income units than required by ABAG’s assessment of Palo Alto’s fair share of the region’s housing need for 1999-2006. Only 108 of 724 affordable units needed, or about 15% of Palo Alto’s total need for affordable housing, have currently been built or approved for construction. Palo Alto’s current unmet housing need for 1999-2006 consists of 616 housing units that need to be affordable to very low-, low- or moderate- income households. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 45 Rehabilitation Need It is estimated that the rehabilitation need in Palo Alto is low compared to many other California communities, As indicated on page 37 of this document, it was estimated that 3% of the City’s owner-occupied housing stock or approximately 437 units might have been considered substandard in the year 2000. A review of 1990 U.S. Census data indicated that 598 units in the City were occupied by very low- and low-income homeowners and that these units were more than 50 years old (units built prior to 1940). Another 1,320 very low- and low-income homeowners occupied housing units that were constructed between 1940-59. This data provides an "upper range" or maximum ceiling of rehabilitation need for owner occupied units using the assumption that very low- and low-income households often cannot afford on-going maintenance and repair as their units "age" and that these are the type of units most often in need of rehabilitation. The 1,918 units (598 + 1,320 = 1,918) represented 7.76% of all housing units in the City in 1990. Applying this same percentage to the total number of housing units in 2000, it is estimated that approximately 1,980 of the City’s occupied housing units might need rehabilitation. Overall, the rental housing stock in the City was built more recently than the owner occupied units. Information on pages 37-38 of this document summarizes 1990 U.S. Census data and indicates that the "upper range" of rental units that are older and occupied by very low- and low-income households is 1,449 units total or 5.8% of the City’s housing stock. Applying this same percentage to the available 2000 Census datai it is estimated that approximately 1,463 of the City’s occupied housing units might need rehabilitation. The information given in the two paragraphs above indicate that the number of housing units needing rehabilitation in Palo Alto may range from 1,462 to 1,980 units. However, there do not appear to be any areas in the City that have concentrations ofunits that need rehabilitation. In fact, Palo Alto consistently has neighborhoods where the housing units are well maintained and, in many cases, reflect a high degree of pride in ownership. While the census data provides an indication of the range of units that could need rehabilitation using household income data and age of units, "drive-by" inspections of units in Palo Alto indicate that the majorityof the housing stock is in very good condition. The only area of the City that appears to have higher than average incidence of units that may need repair or replacement is the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, which contains primarily older trailer or mobile home units. 46 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Conservation Need 1. Energy Conservation By owning and operating its own utilities system, the City is committed to offering its residents a high quality of utility services at the lowest possible cost. The Utilities System attempts to invest in a mix of new energy and water supply projects, operating efficiencies, and consumer-oriented conservation and solar services, which together will enable local residents to meet their resource needs at a lower cost than in neighboring communities. Energy Services staff of the City have an active role in design review for all new construction, excluding individual single family homes. Through this review, energy efficiency is assessed and modifications made. Landscape standards are in place that require efficient outdoor water use. Energy services staff are available to assist property owners, architects, and builders, including single family, in evaluating building plans and making recommendations for improving energy and water use efficiency. In addition to its commitment to keep utility costs low and conserve energy, the City established a Utilities Residential Rate Assistance Program (RAP) in 1993, which reduces utility rates by 20% for qualifying households. Originally, qualifications were based on household income (approximately 37% of County median income) or physical disabilities. In 2001, the City extended this program to include households earning 50% or less of the County median income. This program has helped very low-income households pay for a key component of monthly housing costs making it somewhat easier for them to stay in their existing housing. 2. Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing Conservation of the existing affordable housing stock is critical in today’s economic climate. Because of the high cost of housing and lack of vacant land to construct new affordable housing, it is extremely important to preserve and protect those affordable housing units that already exist. State Housing.Element Law. requires communities to. conduct an inventory of affordable units :that might be !.’at risk" of converting to market rate units within a 10 year time frame of the Housing Element. The inventory is to include all multi-family rental units that have been funded with federal, state or local assistance. A review of multi-family units in Palo Alto indicates that the only units that are at risk are those that have been assisted with federal funds. The only State funded project is the Barker Hotel which was assisted with State of California HOME funds and those units have affordability controls until 2033,..,.~,~.-~,D .... ~...,~..1~°01 ,.oo~o~...,~.~~°°;°~ .... ~,~.~ ~;~.,~.~: The City ~ has a "Below M~ket Rate" (B~) program that requires ~ 15% of units to be affordable in projects of 3+ units or the payment of an in-lieu fee. The uNts in the B~ program have resale and affordability controls for 59 years and renew each time the prope~y title is transfe~ed and, therefore, are not at risk of conve~ing to m~ket rate. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 47 Palo Alto has 728 units in 13 developments of very low- and low-income housing that are to varying degrees subject to increases in rent or conversion to market rate housing. These projects are listed in Illustration # 22 on the following page. These projects are assisted in part by HUD with Section 8 project-based rental assistance in which a direct subsidy is.provided to the owner. The future of the Section 8 program continues to be in question. Currently, Section 8 contracts are being extended on a year-to-year basis and may be subject to rent increases in the future if the Section 8 Program is eliminated or cut back. Most of the subsidized rental projects fall under this category. There is one project with a for-profit owner considered most at-risk. (Two other at-risk projects owned by for-profit owners, Sheridan Apartments and Palo Alto Gardens, have been purchased by non-profits with City assistance between 1998-1999 and are no longer considered to be at high risk of conversion to market rate housing.) The remaining units are owned by non-profits and, for various reasons such as relatively low mortgage debt and the non-profits commitment to maintain affordable housing, are considered less at risk of being!ost as affordable housing; however, the loss of Section 8 Subsidies could result in increased rents, making the units less affordable to very low- and low-income households.. 48 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Illustration #20: Summary of Government Assisted Units "At Risk" for Conversions Terman Apartments Goldrich & Kest 221(d)(4)Section 8 92 72 Family 655 Arastradero Rd.5150 Overland Ave.Section 8 Opt:2004 & Palo Alto CA Culver City, CA ~!derly~ Palo Alto Gardens Mid-Peninsula Housing 221(d)(3) Tide 1994: Title VI 156 156 Family 648 San Antonio Rd.Corporation VI Section 8 1998 Section 8 & Palo Alto, CA 658 Bait Island Rd., Ste. 300 S(_~_cti0n 8 Elderly Redwood City, CA 94063 vouchers~ Sheridan Apts.Palo Alto Housing Corp.221(d)(4)Section 8 Opt: 360 Sheridan Ave.725 Alma St.Section 8 1999 Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA 94301 (now vear-to- year Section 8) 57 57 Elderly Lytton Gardens I Community Housing, Inc.236(j)(1)Section 8 Opt: 656 Lytton Ave.656 Lytton Avenue Section 8 1996-97, 1998 Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA (now year-to- 8) 140 220 44 Elderly Adlai Stevenson House Palo Alto Senior Housing Section 202 455 E. Charleston Ave.455 E. Charleston Ave.Section 8 Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA Section 8 Ipt: 1999 (now year-to- year Section 8) 120 24 Elderly Ferne Apartments Palo Alto Housing Corp.Section 8 101-131 Ferne Ave.725 Alma Street Mod-Rehab Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lytton Gardens II Community Housing Inc Section 202 656 Lytton Ave.656 Lytton Ave.Section 8 Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA Section 8 Opt: 1997 (now year-to- year Section 8) Section 8 Opt: 1999 (now year-to- year Section 8) 16 100 5 Family 100 Elderly Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 49 Arastradero Park Apts Palo Alto Housing Corp.Section 8 Section 8 Opt:66 574 Arastradero Road 725 Alma Street Sec. 2360)(1)2000 Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA 94301 (now year-to- year Section 8) 48 Family & Senior Oak Manor PAHC Apartments, Inc.Section 8 Section 8 Opt:33 Townhomes C/o Palo Alto Housing Mod-Rehab 2008 630 Los Robles Ave.Corp. Palo Alto, CA 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 23 Family TOTAL 946 728 50 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 3. Description of "At Risk Units" In the past, the subsidized rental projects in Palo Alto could have been divided into two categories: those that areTitle VI (National Housing Act of 1990) eligible and those that have Section 8 Project Based Subsidies. With the acquistion of Palo Alto Gardens by the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, there are no Title VI eligible projects remaining in Palo Alto. All other "at-risk" projects that have Section 8 Project Based subsidies are organized below according to their existing or previous funding source. Expiration of Section 8 Project Based Subsidies: Section 8 rental subsidies are subsidies provided directly to the project owner and the amount of the subsidy is typically determined based on the tenant’s income and the rent charged. The subsidy helps tenants "afford" their monthly rent by paying a portion of the rent for them to the property owner. HUD and the property owner enter into a contract for a specified period of time during which Section 8 rental subsidy assistance will be provided. The owner was formerly able to.renew the Section 8 assistance in periods of 5-15 years, depending on the contract. Currently, HUD is only renews Section 8 assistance on a year-to-year basis, subject tO Congressional funding. It is not know how long this year-to-year renewal will continue. During the next decade, three projects in Palo Alto will have their current Section 8 Project Based Subsidy contracts either expiring or up for renewal. The effect of a loss of Section 8 subsidies differs depending on many factors including the underlying mortgage assistance, the percentage of households receiving rental assistance and their income levels, and each project’s annual operating costs. Following is a description of the principal types of mortgage assistance which financed the affected projects. Sec. 221(d)(4) Projects The Terman Apartments complex is the only remaining project with a Section 221 (d) (4) market rate mortgage with Section 8 project based subsidy. A 221(d)(4) project uses market rate mortgages with FHA insurance. This type of mortgage has no underlying mortgage prepayment restriction which requires continued affordability. Therefore, the units in this project could be rented at market rate and there would be no requirement that the tenants be low-income. The only other Section 221 (d) (4) project in Palo Alto, the Sheridan Apartments, was recently acquired by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation with assistance from the City of Palo Alto using available CDBG funds. This project is no longer considered "at-risk" of converting to market rate units. The Terman Apartments are the only remaining subsidized rental units seriously "at-risk" of conversion. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 51 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program Projects Under this HUD program, HUD offered 5 to 10 year contracts for Section 8 assistance to owners of existing rental housing occupied by eligible very low- and low-income households, if the owner performed at least a minimum amount of property rehabilitation. In many cases, the rehabilitation work was funded by loans from local housing programs .using CDBG funds or other HUD funds. The effect of a loss of Section 8 assistance depends on the specific financial circumstances of each project, especially the degree to which the owner’s ability to cover debt service and operating costs depends on the revenue from the Section 8 rental contract. There are only two remaining Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Projects in Palo Alto that have not yet had their original Section 8 contracts expire, the Curtner Apartments and the Oak Manor Apartments, and both are owned, or controlled by, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). The remaining Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Projects have their Section 8 contracts renewed on a year-to-year basis and all of them are also owned or controlled by PAHC. The Section 8 contract assistance enables PAHC to provide affordable housing to very low-income households. Without the Section 8 assistance, PAHC would need to increase the rents paid by the tenants, which would mean that occupancy would shift to somewhat higher income households over time. However, since these properties carry relatively low amounts of amortized mortgage debt, PAHC should be able to maintain them as affordable rental units for low-income households even without the Section 8 assistance. At present, HUD continues to offer owners of 5 or more units a one year extension of their Section 8 contract. PAHC controls two larger projects which would be much more seriously affected by non- renewal of their Section 8 contracts. These projects are Arastradero Park Apartments and Oak ManorTownhomes. Both projects were acquired and rehabilitated by PAHC Under complicated financing structures in which loans, funded from tax-exempt bonds, covered a major portion of the costs. Rental income, on par with the current Section 8 contract level, is needed for PAHC to continue to meet operating costs and repay the loans. In the case of Arastradero Park the current Section 8 contract rents exceed the rental value of the units on the open market. Since the FHA insured the Arastradero Park mortgage, HUD would probably be forced to offer PAHC some type of mortgage reduction in return for loss of the rental subsidies to avoid a default and a claim on the FHA insurance fund. However, Arastradero Park has been operating under a year-to-year renewal of its Section 8 contract. 4. Cost Analysis The cost to conserve the units in the developments that have Project Based Section 8 Subsidies as very low~and low-income housing, is as varied as the projects themselves. Some of the developments have zoning controls or deed restrictions, some have longer term contracts and some have low mortgage debt; however, as noted previously, replacement is extremely difficult given the scarcity of available land. Most of these 52 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 projects have been able to extend their Section 8 contracts on a year-t0-year basis. The units most at risk are those in the Terman Apartments owned by a for-profit corporation. In 1998-99, the City of Palo Alto assisted in the purchase and conservation of Palo Alto Gardens and the Sheridan Apartments. The Palo Alto Gardens contains 156 units originally financed in 1973 under the Section 221 (d) (3) program. Its Section 8 contract expired in 1998. In June 1998, HUD converted the vouchers of eligible tenants to one-year "enhanced" Section 8 vouchers. This action provided the owners with market rents but with no increase in the tenant-paid portion of the rent. After a one-year term of the "enhanced" Section 8 vouchers, the owners would have been under no obligation to continue to accept the Section 8 households as tenants. If the owners had continued to accept Section 8 tenants, then the tenants would have had to pay the difference between the fair market rent and the real market rent set by the owners. For many of the elderly households, whose incomes are typically below$10,000 a year, this would have been a considerable hardship. In the summer of 1998, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC)began discussions with the project’s owners about a possible sale. By November, MPHC had finalized the purchase contract and submitted a formal request to the City for $1,000,000 in financial assistance for the acquistion. MPHC secured the principal financing for the project in February 1999 with an award of a tax-exempt bond allocation of $11.4 million and an award for federal housing tax credits. In October 1998, the City submitted an application to the State for federal HOME funds in the amount of $825,000 to assist with the costs of funding the Sheridan and Palo Alto Gardens projects. However, that application was not funded. Under the terms of the purchase agreement and the requirements of the tax- exempt bond financing, MPHC needed to close escrow on the purchase before the end of May 1999. City funds in the amount of $1,000,000 were needed to comPlete the purchase, but the City did not have sufficient funds available. Therefore, on February 17., 1999, the City submitted a request to HUD for approval of pre-award costs. HUD approved the City’s request on March 5, 1999. This allowed the City to use local funds for a portion of its $1,000,000 loan and expend the monies to close escrow and meet the requirements of the purchase contract ancl Other funding.- On April 12, 1999, Council approved the formal loan documents for the transaction, and on April 29, 1999 escrow was closed by MPHC on the acquistion. The Sheridan Apartment complex contains 57 single bedroom units for the elderly originally financed.in 1978 under the Section 221 (d) (4) FHA program with a 20-year federal Section 8 rental contract for all 57 units. Its Section 8 contract expired in 1999. In the spring of 1997, the owners decided to sell the project for conversion to market rate rental housing. PAHC entered into negotiations to buy the Sheridan with the intention of preserving its existing use as Section 8 assisted housing. PAHC’s initial attempts to negotiate a purchase agreement were unsuccessful because the owner demanded a price based on market rents. The City then initiated legal action to enforce its deed restrictions. Finally, on January 13, 1998, PAHC executed a purchase agreement with the owners for a $5.1 million purchase price. On February 2, 1998, the City Council approved 145,500 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 53 in CDBG funds for PAHC for predevelopment activities. An FHA loan commitment was received by PAHC in May 1998 after which the City Council authorized a maximum City loan commitment of $2.5 million in CDBG and City Residential Housing In-Lieu funds. In late August 1998, PAHC was awarded both state and federal tax credits and escrow closed on December 9, 1998. Rehabilitation work commenced immediately and has since been completed. The acquistion of the two projects described above illustrates that considerable work by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, the Mid-Peninsul Housing Coalition, City staff and others was necessary to preserve these projects for affordable housing., It also shows the various sources of financing that were required (bond financing, HISD and City funds, etc.) to allow for the purchase of these projects and the enormous costs involved, ff We combine the costs of the Palo Alto Gardens and Sheridan Apartments and the cost of other recent rental acquistions and rehabilitations (e.g., the Arastradero Park Apartments), we can detemine that the average cost to acquire, rehabilitate and conserve the units for very low-income use ranged from approximately $114,200 - $140,000 per unit. This included an average of $82,200 - $106,500-per unit for acquisition, $10,500 - $12,000 per unit for rehabilitation cost and about $21,500 per unit for other costs such as sponsor fees, transaction costs, financing including the bond issuance and establishing reserve funds. This cost range provides a basis for estimating the possible cost to conserve or replace the one remaining Section 8 project owned by a for-profit corporation. Using the cost range above, the cost of acquiring, conserving, and rehabilitating (or replacing) the 72 units of the Terman Apartments would be about $8,222,400 - $10,080,000. Because the remaining units are owned by non-profits, it is highly unlikely that they would have to be replaced or purchased at market rates. They are in danger of losing their Project Based Section 8 rental assistance, which would likely result in a modified mortgage arrangement with HUD and/or some increase in rents, but remaining well below market rates. In addition, because of the quality and desirable location of the projects, tenants receivingTenant Based Section 8 Subsidies are likely to continue living in the properties for some time. Potential funding sources to pay for the cost of conserving these units are limited. Similar to the Palo Alto Gardens and Sheridan projects, City staff would assist in pursuing such funding sources as bond financing, State of California housing program funds, HOME funds, CDBG funds and City funds. Other potential funding sources might include Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Affordable Housing Program Funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank. All of these funding sources are, however, limited. 54 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Chapter 6: Housing Constraints Housing development can be affected by economic forces in the private market as well as regulations and policies imposed by public agencies. These constraints primarily impact the production of new housing but can also affect the maintenance and/or improvement of existing housing. The discussion below, and on the following pages, analyzes.both the governmental and non-governmental ("market") constraints that can affect the housing market in Palo Alto. Governmental Constraints 1. Land Use Controls a) Comprehensive Plan The 1998,20t0 Comprehensive Plan is Palo Alto’-s chief, policy document governing and guiding the long-term development of the City. Besides the Housing Element, the most important portion of the Plan influencing the production of housing is the Land Use and Community Design Element. This element describes the land use categories that allow residential use and the general density and intensity limits for each of these categories. Four residential land use designations are contained in the Land Use and Community Design Element and are described below. Single Family Residential Allows one dwelling unit on each lot as well as churches or schools (conditional uses). The typically allowed density range is one to seven units per acre but the upper end of this range can be increased to 14 dwelling units per acre to accommodate second units or duplexes. Multiple Family Residential Allows~net densities ranging from eight to d0 dwelling units per acre with more specific density limits governed by a site’s zoning district and its location. Generally higher densities are permitted near major streets and public transit and lower densities, next to single family residential areas. The updated Housing Element proposes that the density ranges for each of the City’s three multiple family zoning districts be described to clarify the density limits of these zoning districts, including the establishment of a minimum acceptable density or a density "floor". This will help to ensure that the limited residential lands available will be developed close to their full potential. In addition, the revised text for this land use designation reinforces the City’s Commitment to the Comprehensive Plan’s goals of supporting transit use and creating a viable and attractive pedestrian-oriented environment. Village Residential This land use designation was added to the Comprehensive Plan in !998 and has yet to be applied to any lands in Palo Alto. The intent of this designation is to promote housing that contributes to the harmony and pedestrian orientation of streets and neighborhoods. This designation allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre but does not establish a density floor. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 55 The updated Housing Element recommends the establishment of a density floor for this designation and suggests text revisions to this designation to clarify its potential role in supporting transit use by encouraging development at the higher end of the density range on sites near transit facilities. The City should intensify its efforts to find sites suitable for this land use designation to increase its housing supply. Transit-oriented Residential This land use designation was also added to the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and has yet to be applied to any lands in Palo Alto. The intent of this designation is to allow higher density residential uses in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within 2000 feet of a multi-modal transit station and thus support transit use. A maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre is established but no density floor is described. The updated Housing Element calls for development standards that would encourage higher density development nearest to the transit stations while still preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods. It also calls for the development of a zoning district that will achieve these ends. The City should intensify its efforts to find sites suitable for this land use designation to increase its housing supply and achieve its goal of supporting transit and reduce automobile use. In addition to the residential land use designations listed above, the Comprehensive Plan allows residential development under non-residential (commercial and industrial) land use designations. These lands represent a significant potential housing supply but new standards must be developed for this potential to be realized. These land use designations and their gene~ral development limits are described below. Neighborhood Commercial This designation typically allows smaller shopping centers with retail uses that serve nearby neighborhoods. It also allows residential and mixed use projects with floor area ratios (FAR) no larger than 0.4 but does not describe an allowed density .range. The updated Housing Element proposes that a density range be established and that new development standards be created for residential or mixed use projects. This will clarify the City’s intent for how these sites should be used if residential or mixed use development is proposed and to maximize the residential potential of these sites. The updated Housing Element also calls for revising the zoning ordinance to support these uses. Regional/Community Commercial This designation allows larger shopping centers intended to serve markets larger than nearby local neighborhoods but it does not allow residential or mixed use. Sites with this designation are much larger than neighborhood shopping centers and contain large parking areas. These sites represent an untapped opportunity for the creation of residential and mixed use development on underutilized parking lots or other areas. This land use designation allows residential and mixed use developments with high density residential. The updated Housing Element calls for the 56 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 creation of development standards and zoning revisions that would allow such development to occur. Service Commercial This land use designation supports citywide or regional commercial facilities for people arriving by automobile. It also allows residential and mixed use projects in some locations but does not establish density limits. The updated Housing Element proposes that, through the Zoning Ordinance Update, a density range be established and that development standards and zoning ordinance provisions be revised to support such development. Mixed Use This designation allows for Combinations of Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office uses but it has yet to be applied to any site in Palo Alto. Further, it does not establish a residential density range to guide development. The updated Housing Element proposes that a density range be established through the Zo.ning Ordinance Update to realize the residential development potential of these sites. Research/Office Park This land use designation allows for office, research, and manufacturing establishments and a variety of other uses including residential and mixed use. This designation does not establish a density range for residential uses. The updated Housing Element calls for the establishment of a density range through the Zoning Ordinance Update. It also calls for revisions to development standards and Zoning Ordinance provisions to allow reasonable mixed use development to occur on sites with this designation. Light Industrial Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing and pacldng of goods areall allowed under this designation. Residential and mixed use projects are also allowed but no residential density limits are described. The Updated Housing Element proposes a density limit be established through the Zoning Ordinance_Update and suggests revisions to the FAR limits and the zoning ordinance to allow reasonable mixed use development to occur on sites with this designation. Institutional Besides the commercial and industrial land use designations described above, the institutional lands in Palo Alto represent a potential source of housing. The updated Housing Element proposes that the Public Facilities zone and Institutional land use designations allow residential development consistent with surrounding densities and intensities of development. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 57 Comprehensive Plan Policy Changes Besides the modifications to the land use changes described above, the updated Housing Element suggests a series of land use and other policy changes designed to increase the supply of affordable housing in Palo Alto. These include the following: Promote density changes that encourage the efficient development of scarce residential lands and that support transit use and the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment. Encourage the use of the Village Residential and Transit-oriented Residential land use designations. Encourage the redevelopment of parking areas with high density residential or mixed use in combination with parking structures. Revise the commercial and industrial housing in-lieu fee formula for projects impacting housing to better reflect the impact on new jobs on housing demand and costs. b) Zoning Ordinance The City’s Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool used to manage the development of residential units in Palo Alto. The Residential Districts described in Palo Alto’s Zoning Ordinance include the RE: Residential Estate District, R-l: Single Family Residence District, R-2:Two Family Residence District, RMD:Two Unit Multiple Family Residence District, RM-15: Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District, RM-30: Medium Density Multiple-Fami!y Residence District, RM-40: High Density Multiple-Family Residence District and the Planned Community District. Moreover, residential development is permitted in all other zones except the PF: Public Facilities Zone. Permitted densities, setback requirements, minimum lot sizes and other factors vary among the residential districts. Listed below are some of the more significant factors of each of the districts. RE Residential Estate District The RE District is intended to create and maintain single family living areas compatible with the natural terrain and the native vegetative environment. The minimum sitearea is one acre. Only one residential unit, plus an accessory dwelling or guest cottage, is permitted on any site. The maximum size the main dwelling on a conforming lot is 6,000 square feet. R-1 Single Family Residence District The R-1 district is intended for single family residential use. Typically, only one unit is allowed per R-1 lot although, under certain conditions, accessory or second dwelling units may be allowed in addition to the primary unit. Generally the minimum lot size for the R-1 district is 6,000 square feet. However, there are certain areas of the City where the minimum lot sizes historically have been larger than 6,000 square feet and these larger lot sizes are being maintained through the Zoning Ordinance by specific R-1 zone combining districts. 58 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Type of R-1 District R-1 General R-1 (650) R-1 (743) R-1 (929) R-1 (laSa) Illustration #21:R-1 Districts and Minimum Site Areas Minimum Site Area 6,000 Square Feet 7,000 Square Feet 8,000 Square Feet 10,000 Square Feet 20,000 Square Feet (557 square meters) (650 square meters) (743 square meters) (929 square meters) (1,858 square meters) The R-1 District zoning regulations also specify lot coverage maximums (typically a maximum of 35% lot coverage is allowed) and Floor Area Ratios (the ratio of the house size to the lot size). Generally, the maximum floor area on a single family lot is not allowed to exceed a floor area ratio of .45 for the first 5,000 square feet of lot area and .30 for any portion of lot area in excess of 5,000 square feet. These lot coverage and FAR limits may limit the development of second dwelling units on certain lots. In-addition, there are certain height restrictions that may also limit development potential. "Daylight Plane" restrictions apply that are height limitations controlling development on residential properties. In certain areas of the City where there are predominantly single-story "Eichler" homes, there may also be limitations on adding second stories to single-story units. R-2 and RMD Residential Districts There are two residential districts that allow two units on a site. The R-2 Two Family Residence District allows a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit in areas designated for single family use with regulations that preserve the essential character of single family use. A minimum site area of 7,500 square feet is necessary for two dwelling units in this district. The RMD Two Unit Multiple-Family Residence district also allows a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit in areas designated for multiple-family uses. The minimum site area for two units is 5,000 square feet and the maximum density in this district is 17 units per acre. Multiple-Family Density Districts The Zoning Ordinance provides three categories of multiple family residential use: low density (RM-15), medium density (RM-30) and high density (RM-40). In the RM-15 district, the permitted density range is from 6 - 15 units per acre. The updated Housing Element (Program H- 5) proposes that the density floor be reevaluated through the Zoning Ordinance Update process to determine if a higher density floor is appropriate. The minimum site area is 8,500 square feet and there are setback, floor area ratio, lot coverage and height limitations also. The RM-30 district allows a range of 16 - 30 units per acre while the RM-40 allows a range of 31 - 40 units per acre. All of these districts have minimum site areas, height limitations, lot coverage and floor area ratios. In addition, all of the multiple-family zones have open and BMR ("Below Market Rate") requirements. Further discussion of BMR requirements is included later in this chapter. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 59 PC Planned Community District ’ In addition to the specific residential districts noted above, there is also the "Planned Community District" that is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional or other activities, including a combination of uses. It allows for flexibility under controlled conditions not attainable under other zone districts. The Planned Community District is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit. A constraint to the PC zone related to housing is a requirement for a finding of public benefit. In a high cost area such as Palo Alto, additional public benefits discourages residential PC zone proposals. The 1998-2003 Housing Element in Program H-7, called for the development of a Planned Development Zone similar to the PC zone, but without the public benefit finding. This program has not yet been implemented but it will be addressed in the City’s current Zoning Ordinance Update. New Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts Three land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan, Transit-oriented Residential, Village Residential, and Mixed Use do not yet have corresponding Zoning Districts that would fully implement them. Program H-5 of the updated Housing Element calls for the creation of zoning districts that would allow lands with these designations to be developed at the maximum densities described in the Comprehensive Plan as well as require a minimum level of residential development. Sites with these designations will be increasingly important for the City’s housing supply and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan that support transit use and that seek to create a more pedestrian friendly and less auto-oriented environment. Residential Uses in Commercial Districts All of the City’s Zoning Districts allow for residential development except the Public Facilities zone: In the 1970s and 1980s, several mixed use projects were developed in the commercial zones that included significant numbers of residential units. However, during the late 1980s and 1990s, financing of mixed use projects became more difficult and the City has seen a decline in mixed use proposals. In addition, the zoning ordinance requirement for site and design review of mixed use projects and a requirement that the more restrictive zoning requirement of either the commercial or residential zone apply, have resulted in a constraint on the production of housing units in commercial zones. The 1998-2003 Housing Element called for the elimination of the requirement for site and design review of mixed use projects. Other programs were also adopted with the 1998-2003 Housing Element that were intended to encourage mixed use projects and to implement a review of the mixed use requirements with the intent of simplifying the zoning requirements and adding incentives that will encourage further residential and mixed use development in the commercial zones. None of these programs have yet been implemented and, therefore, carried over to the updated Housing Element, which proposes further changes in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the development of residential and mixed uses in non-residentiall zoned areas. 60 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Site Development Regulations In certain instances, the City’s site development regulations can be viewed as constraints to the development of hou’sing. The City recognizes that its residential neighborhoods are distinctive and wants to preserve and enhance their special features. Since Palo Alto is basically a "built- out" community, most new single family residential development is going to occur in existing neighborhoods through either infill lots or demolition/remodeling of existing structures. Therefore, the regulations guiding development are intended to ensure that much of what Palo Alto cherishes in its residential areas, such as open space areas, attractive streetscapes with mature landscaping and variety in architectural styles, is preserved and protected. The typical development standards for Palo Alto’s residential zoning districts are summarized in the illustration below. Illustration #22: Existing Residential Development Standards District RMD RM-30 RM-40 Max. Lot Coverage 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.45 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) O.45 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.60- 0.75 Max. Limit (Feet) 30 3O 3~ 30 4O Required Parldng 2 spaces; 1 covered 1.5 spaces per unit; 1 covered 1.5 spaces per unit; 1 covered 1.25-2.00 spaces per uniti 1 covered 1.25-2.00 spaces per unitl 1 covered 1.25-2.00 spaces per uniti 1 covered Required Open Space N/A N/A 450 per unit 50-100 per. unit; 0.35 of sit.~e 50-100 per unit; 0.30 of site 50-100 per unit; 0.20 of site Densit? 0-11 0-17 6-15 16-30 31-40 Avg. Dwelling Size at Max. Densit.v (Sq. Ft.) 1,500+ L250+ 900+ 900+ The development standards described above indicate that the maximum densities allowed by each residential zoning district can readily be achieved and can produce units of a reasonable size. Lot coverage, FAR and height standards increase as densities increase to accommodate the maximum density, allowed by each district. Open space standards are conconmitantly reduced to accommodate these increasing densities but still allow for adequate private and communal open space. Parldng standards are governed by the number of bedrooms in the case of multifamil¥ residential development and are directly related to the number of people of driving age expected in these units. All residential development standards in Palo Alto are comparable with Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 6i development standards with other Bay Area communities, including lower cost communities .such as San Jose. Given this, it appears that Palo Alto’s residential development standards are reasonable and do not significantly add to the cost of residential units in the City when compared to the high costs associated with the purchase of land,, labor and construction materials. Several site development regulations, however, are recognized in the Goals, Policies and Programs of this Housing Element as needing assessment and possible revision to reduce the constraints on developing housing. Currently, the City does not have a zoning district that permits the development of Single family detached units on lots of less than 6,000 square feet. Program H-6 (now Program H-11) of the previous Housing Element called for amending the zoning regulations to permit residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where appropriate. The proposed Planned Development zone would allow for small lot developments. Program H-7 (now Program H-12) called for modifying parking requirements to allow higher densities of housing in areas where jobs, services, shared parking and transit will reduce the need for parking. These programs have not yet been_implemented but they have been carried over into this Housing Element and will be addressed as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Program H-5 of the updated Houiing Element call for allowing increased density within commercial and industrial areas, near transit centers, and in other appropriate areas. Program H-2 of the 1998-2003 and this Housing Element, as well as other programs, calls for considering minimum density requirements which could result in more housing, as well as more affordable housing. Programs H-7 and H-8 call for changing development standards to encourage the production of second units which could also result in more affordable housing. Program H-6 calls for the use of "form codes" of diverse housing types, including smaller more affordable units. Form codes would allow, essentially, the creation of performance standards that would indicate the type of housin~ the City would desire in a particular area but would not require strict conformance to explict numeric standards. This should make it easier for housing projects of all types to be accommodated on the smaller more difficult parcels left to develop in Palo Alto, or, make it easier for higher density residential or mixed use projects be built on underdeveloped or reuse sites. Constraints on Housing for the Disabled The Disabled Households section of this document (page 18) describes the housing needs of disabled houses and what the City is doing to assist these households. This section will describe any potential or actual regulatory constraints, if any, on providing housing for the disabled in Palo Alto. Currently the City strictly enforces the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state requirements to ensure that minimum housing access requirements are met. The City also enforces disabled parking standards described in its Zoning Code for all land uses. The City is not aware of any significant constraints to the provision of affordable housing for the disabled in its Zoning Code or other regulatory provisions and has been able to allow, on an ad hoc basis, regulatory changes necessary to accommodate the needs of disabled hOuseholds as required by State law. However, given the recent adoption of Senate Bill SB520, which seeks to eliminate any discriminatory obstacles to providing housing for the disabled and other special housing needs groups, Program 64 of the updated Housing Element calls for a thorough, review of the Zoning Code and other pertinent development regulations during the 2002-2004 Zoning Code update to identify and correct any discriminatory obstacles. In addition, this new program calls for written procedures describing how Palo Alto will allow for the reasonable accommodation of households with special housing needs, including the disabled. Currently, the 62 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 City addresses reasonable accommodation requests on an ad hoc basis and needs a more formal process. The City, on an ad hoc basis, does allow for fee waivers for housing proiects serving the disabled as a means of encouraging the production of such housin~ Summary Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance allows a range of residential densities from very low density single family to 40 units per acre multiple-family. In conformance with Comprehensive Plan policy, it will eventually allow maximum densities of 50 units per acre for Transit,oriented Residential and similar mixed use developments. Residential uses are also allowed in commercial and industrial districts as well as planned developments within the"Planned Community District. While certain requirements within the Zoning Ordinance (floor area ratios, height limitations, etc.) may be viewed as constraints to development, the City has adopted these requirements as a means of ensuring that 1) the distinctive residential qualities of the existing neighborhoods are Preserved and, 2) new development reflect a certain level of quality that is individual and yet blends in with Palo Alto’s community character. Moreover, through the adoption of the policies and programs in this Housing Element, the City is seeking to reduce these constraints. Further, the updated Housing Element calls for density increases and modified development standards that would more easily allow development to occur at the higher end of ~he density range while still preserving community character. All of these efforts will be folded into the Zoning Ordinance Update. 2. Local Processing and Permit Procedures There are various levels of review and processing of residential development applications, depending on the size and complexity of the development. For example, single family use applications that require a variance or home improvement exception can be handled by the Zoning Administrator. More complicated applications, such as subdivision applications or rezoning, require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council and, in some instances, the City’s Architectural Review Board. Residential Development applications that fall under the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator are usually processed and a hearing held within 6-8 weeks of the application submittal date. This includes review by the Architectural Review Board, which is required for all residential projects except singly developed single family houses and duplexes. Rezonings and minor subdivision applications typically have a longer time frame since they must be heard before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Generally, an application will be heard by the Planning Commission 7-10 weeks after application submittal. Local ordinance requires the City Council to consider the Planning Commission recommendations within 30 days; therefore, there would be a maximum of 30 more days after the Planning Commission hearing for the City Council’s action on the application. If the application is for a major site and design or Planned Community rezoning, then the Architectural Review Board will conduct a hearing after the Planning Commission Hearing and this could affect the time frame. Further, all of the time frames referenced above assume that all environmental assessment and/or studies have been completed for the development. Additional time will be required if there are any environmental issues that need to be studied or resolved as a result of the environmental Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 63 assessment. These permit processing timelines are comparable to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval is required for all residential projects except singly-developed single family homes and duplexes. The ARB sets certain standards of design in order to keep the high quality of housing in Palo Alto. This includes a preference for naturally weathering materials, and "genuine" materials such as true clay tiles. The ARB process may add time and may result in requiring a higher level of design, materials and construction, which can be a constraint to the development of housing; however, the level of review and the upgrade in materials has the long term benefit of lower maintenance and higher retention of property values. Moreover, the construction of thoughtful and well-designed multi-family housing has sustained community support for higher density projects and has resulted in community support for residential projects at all income levels. The preferences on materials are sometimes waived for affordable housing projects. In an effort to make the design review process in Palo Alto more efficient and predictable, the City has developed design guidelines for key areas of the City and preliminarg review processes for maior development projects. The design guidelines cover sensitive areas of the City and include the E1 Camino Real area (where most of the new multi-family housing in Palo Alto is expected to locate), the Downtown, the Baylands, and the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area. These guidelines describe the design issues and neighborhood sensitivities each development project in these areas must address and the types of designs and design elements that would be acceptable in these areas and, thus, ensure that new proiects are compatible with existing neighborhoods while also creating and maintaining a desirable living and working environment. The City has established two preliminary review processes for significant development projects to assist developers in identifying critical issues to be addressed and potential design problems to be resolved prior to filing a formal application. A small fee is charged for this optional service but these processes can save a great deal of time by proactively addressin~ issues that could delay construction of a project, which, ultimately, is the greatest contributor to increasing project development costs. The Preliminary Architectural Review process allows the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) to review potential projects or proiect concepts and give useful direction during the initial or formative design steps of the project. Planning staff also review the proiect to ensure compliance with Zonin~ Code requirements and other pertinent design ~uidelines and planning policies. The preliminary process also provides other City departments with an opportunity to comment on the proposed proiect and identify concerns and requirements the proiect must address. The Development Project Preliminary Review process maximizes opportunities for developers and the City to discuss a maior development proiect and allows the City Council to review, comment and provide initial direction re~arding the nature nad design of the project before it is filed. The project issues covered include potential environmental problems and major policy issues in addition to the design issues covered in the Preliminary Architectural Review process. Planning staff and other City department staff also review the proiect for compliance with all pertinent City codes and guidelines. Both of these processes give the developer valuable information that will prevent costly project redesigns and other potential delays that could significantly increase the cost of a project. 64 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Since processing delays can significantly increase the cost of a housing basis, the City does, on an ad hoc basis, provide for preferential or priority processing for affordable housing projects. The 1999-2006 version of the Housing Element formalizes preferential or priority processin~ for affordable housing projects. In regard to codes and enforcement, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Officials, which establishes minimum construction standards. Although a locality may impose more stringent standards, it cannot adopt any that are less restrictive than those of the UBC. Thus, the City cannot modify the basic UBC requirements. The City also administers certain State and Federal mandated standards in regards to energy conservation and accessibility for disabled households. In reviewing these standards, certain requirements especially in regard to handicapped accessibility may be viewed as a constraint to housing production. The City has no direct control over these types of requirements other than worldng with local legislators on a federal and state level to modify and make the requirement more realistic. The City’s development fee structure does not appear t0 be a significant impediment to residential development. Residential developments are charged fees according to the value of the project for building, planning and fire review fees. F~r ..... 1~ n ,~,~o~ nT ,,~ ,,,~r, .... ~,,~, For infill and individual single fa~ly development, the public works fees ~e ~nimal and estimated to be less than .$500 per unit. For a residential subdivision, the most significant public works fee would be the fee. for a Street Work Pe~t, wNch is 5% of the value of the street improvements. The City’s Utility Department does ch~ge for sewer and water hook;ups. The following illustration provides fee estimates for prototype proiects that could be build in Palo Alto. The fee estimates for multifamily units are based on a one acre site being developed with a 30 unit project, each unit about 900 square feet in area and served with a one car, 200 square foot carport. The single family project assumes seven units are built on a one acre site, each unit with 2,000 square feet of living area and a 400 square foot two car garage. This illustration indicates what impact Palo Alto fees might have on a reasonably typical residential project, but does not account for unusual circumstances such as the need for a variance. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 65 Illustration #23: Estimated Fees for Residential Projects ._Planning Preliminary Review Arch. Review Board Review Environmental Review (Neg. Dec.) Subdivision (Tentative and Final Map) Zone Change Public Notices Building~ Fire~ & Public Works ¯Permit Building Plan Check Zoning Plan Check Fire Plan Check Public Works Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Utilities ~New Connections) Gas Service Sewer Service Water Service Infrastructure Parks Community Center Libraries Estimated Fee per Unit for a Multifamily Project $23 ~100 $221 $167 ,1,o0o $75o $25o $450 $17 ~273 $100 $145 $230 $5,210 $1 250 $470 Estimated Fee per Unit for a Single Family $96 $360 ~429 ~945 $715 $17 $1,700 $1,275 $425 $765 $71 ~502 $2,056 $3,900 $2,694 $7,960 $1,900 $720 The fees for parks, community centers, and libraries that add $10,580 to the price of a single family dwelling and $6,930 to the price of a multifamily dwelling were recently adopted this year (2002). These new fees are likely to increase the cost of a median priced single family dwelling 66 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 by about 1% and increase the cost of a median priced multifamily dwelling by about 1.3%. Combined with other planning, building and other fees the City charges, Palo Alto’s fee structure adds about 2.6% to the cost of a median priced single family dwelling and about 2% to the cost of a median priced multifamily dwelling. These increased costs are not signficant when compared to the cost of land, labor and materials in Palo Alto but they could impact affordable housing projects with limited budgets. Due to this factor, the City has exempted all 100% affordable housing proiects from the new parks, community centers, and libraries fees and will exempt all affordable housing units (including all BMR units) from these infrastructure fees under the new programs of the updated Housing Element. It should also be noted that Palo Alto’s fee schedule is less costly for multifamil7 units than single family’ units, which provides some incentive for the increased production of multifamily units. Palo Alto’ s building and planning permit processing fees are comparable to similar fees charged by other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. It should be noted, however, that these fees g~ ar__~e designed only to cover the ~-t cost the City incurs to process these development applicatioris and provide the support services needed by City staff ~ ........ ~.~ ~ ..... r.o~a;~oo ~.~ The City currently allows the waiver of existing fees for very low- and low-income housing projects when appropriate. The updated Housing Element atse proposes under Programs H-21 and H-22 that affordable housing projects be exempt from a~y infrastructure impact fees ~.o~... c~.,._.~w -~ .......,~-,~-~ .......-.--o-~-~°’4"" and, where appropriate, waive the imposition of development fees. Other public service districts of course may charge fees that are outside of the control of the City. The most significant of these fees in Palo Alto are school impact fees. The Palo Alto Unified School District adopted a fee schedule in July, December 2000 that specifies a fee of $2.05 per square foot for residential units. 3. Below Market Rate (BMR) Program The City’s BMR Program has been in existenqe since 1974 and has produced 151 for-sale residential units and 38 rental units as of January 2000. The program was initiated to fill a gap in affordable housing between households making above moderate-income, who it was felt could afford their own housing, and low-income households~ who could be assisted by other state and federal programs. The program has built-in provisions that result in the units in the program being more affordable over time when compared to market rate units and median income, owner households. The BMR Program could be considered a constraint. However, in high cost cities such as Palo Alto, this type of program is necessary to augment the production of moderate cost housing. The BMR program has several options for the developer and allows for the developer to recoup the direct construction and financing costs of the unit excluding land, marketing, offsite improvements and profit. In addition, the City does not apply any other impact fees, such as park or transportation fees, to residential projects. Finally the City requires that BMR units be included in for-sale residential projects of three or more units and for-rent residential projects of five or more units, and the units be mixed throughout a project. The result is a diversity of income within housing developments throughout the City. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 67 Although Palo Alto’ s current BMR Program has endeavored to increase the supply of affordable housing, it has managed to create only about 7.5 units a year of affordable housing, which is clearly not sufficient to meet the City’s need for affordable housing. To increase the supply of affordable housing, the updated Housing Element proposes that the BMR requirement for affordable housing be increased from 10% to 15% for ownership projects of 3 or more units and rental projects of 5 or more units. The BMR requirement for projects on five or more acres is proposed to be increased from 15% to 20%. The cost of these increases will be offset by allowing the BMR ownership requirement to be satisfied by providing housing affordable to those households earning up to 120% of the County median income rather than the current limitation of providing ownership housing affordable to those households earning 100% or less of County median income. 4. Land Availability The greatest housing constraint facing Palo Alto is the very limited supply of land available for residential use. Palo Alto is basically a "built-out" communityl Only 0.5% of the City’s land area is vacant. In fact, less than 5 acres of vacant, residentially zoned land remain in the City. The lack of vacant land, however, has resulted in an effort to "recycle" land parcels with commercial or industrial zoning that are vacant or have other land uses that are economically marginal. The City’s long-term policy to discourage the rezoning of residential land to commercial use, while encouraging the rezoning of commercial lands for residential use, has resulted in 46 sites being rezoned from commercial to residential since 1978. During the same time period, only 10 sites have been changed from residential to commercial. This policy continues in the updated Housing Element. Given the dearth of vacant, residentially zoned land available, Palo Alto must identify and rezone underutilized residential and non-residential lands sufficient to meet its unmet housing needs. These lands could be rezoned to allow solely residential use or to allow mixed uses that require a minimum level of residential development rather than solely commercial or industrial use. During the preparation 0f this Housing Element, City staff began the Housing Opportunities Study, which included a series of field investigations and collected other information to identify those sites most suitable for residential use or conversion to residential use. Staff focused primarily on existing commercial or industrial lands that appeared to be underutilized, or that were nearing the end of their economic life, where market forces are likelyto promote a change in use in the near future. Some of these sites were more promising than others, and should be given priority in the City’s efforts to convert non-residential sites to residential use. To this end, the City has established a list, or inventory, of sites suitable for the production of housing during the 1999-2006 time frame of this Housing Element. The range of units expected from the . Inventory is illustrated below. (The Housing Sites Inventory is described in detail in Appendix E.) The Inventory consists primarily of sites already zoned for residential use (either standard residential or Planned Community zones) or sites that have combined residential and non- residential zonings that can be relatively easy to convert to residential use in terms of policy or practical reasons. For example, most of the sites contained in the Inventory would not require 68 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 changes in the Comprehensive Plan to allow residential use. However, many of the sites may require rezoning or partial rezoning to achieve the desired dwelling unit yields. Some of the sites are vacant but most are occupied by uses or buildings that are older or underutilized and are likely to be reused with higher value residential or mixed use within the next five years. It is expected that most of these sites would be rezoned and converted to solely residential use but mixed use projects would not be prohibited as long as a minimum amount of residential development was part of the mix. These sites could generate at least 820 units using just the lower end of the density ranges allowed on these sites. In addition to the Housing Sites Inventory, a list of other sites (see Appendix F) that may be considered suitable for future residential use is also provided. This second list consists of sites that are typically zoned for commercial or industrial use and are currently occupied by non- residential uses. It also includes publicly owned properties, such as parking lots, which could accommodate residential use if the PF Zoning District were modified to allow residential use.. As in the Inventory, these sites could be considered underutilized or nearing the end of their expected economic life. These sites are likely to contain more or higher valued improvents than the Inventory which will make them more costly to purchase and redevelop but this may be offset by limiting new development to the parking lot or storage areas of these sites. These sites may also face environmental or other obstacles to their conversion to residential use but these obstacles are not insurmountable. Preparing these sites for residential or commercial use may also take more time, but most of these sites are located in areas with good access to transit or transportation facilities, are adequately provided with urban services, and are near retail and service uses that could support their redevelopment to residential or mixed use. More of these sites might be rezoned or used for mixed use development than the sites in the Inventory. These sites may require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for housing or mixed use development. Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance may also be required, such as new, more flexible development standards for commercial zoning districts that would allow more substantial combined residential and retail commercial development or require other policy changes, such as encouraging the use of air rights. The second list may act as a reserve of potential land suitable for residential development which may not be needed during the 1999-2006 time frame of this Housing Element but could be made available if the sites in the Inventory prove to be unavailable for housing. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 69 Illustration #24: Housing Sites Inventory Site No. 5-01 5-06 5-21 5-28 5-30 5-31 8-06 8-09(a) 8-09(b) 8-11 10-02 12-01 12-06 12-07 12-09 12-11 Total Site Address Bryant, Channing & Ramona 8OO High St. 657-663 Alma St. (north corner of Alma St. and Forest Ave.) 33, 39 & 45 Encina Ave. near El Camino Real 841 Alma St. 901 High St. 2650 Birch St. at Sheridan Ave, 2701 El Camino Real 2755 El Camino Real E. side Sheridan Ave. btwn. SPAR and Park Blvd. 901 San Antonio Rd. 4102 El Camino Real at Vista 4219 El Camino Real 4249 El Camino Real 4146 El Camino Real 3445 Alma St. Description Oak Court (SOFA affordable housing) Peninsula Creamery site Former Craft and Floral building Proposed Opportunity Center Power substation Auto storage/parkin g 2 vacant lots and 4 houses Former Greenworld Nursery VTA .Park & Ride Lot Underutilized industrial ’ bldgs.; portion of Page Mill Rd. r.o.w. Former Sun Microsystems/ Future JCC Former Blockbusters Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel Elk’s Lodge Vacant Alma Plaza Existing Zoning AMF CD-S(P) CD-C(P) CD-S(P) CS PF CD-S(P) AM-40 AM-40, CN PF GM(B) GM AM-30 CS(H) AM-30, AM-15, R-1 AM-15 PC Proposed Zoning AMF PC (Application pending) Mixed Use PC (Application pending) TBD Mixed Use (Application pending) AM-40 AM-40 or Mixed Use AM-40 AM-40 Mixed Use (Application pending) AM-30 CS(H) (Application pending) AM-30, AM-15, R-1 AM-15 PC (Application pending) Site Size in Acres 1.23 0.96 0.48 0.43 0.36 0.32 0.57 0.98 0.48 3.92 12.92 (portion) 0.65 15.98 (portion) 8.08 0.77 4.21 (portion) Potential Dwelling Unit Yield 53 26 10 90 10 10 15 30 15 120 200 9 120 97 5 10 820 * Total potential dwelling Unit yield is based on the low end of the allowed density range and establishes the minimum densities the City is committing to in accordance with State law. 70 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 The Housing Opportunities Study is an ongoing effort and may add more sites to this list over the life of this Housing Element. The Inventory provides more than sufficient housing opportunities for Palo Alto to meet the unmet portion (616 units) of its fair share of the region’s housing needs as described in Chapter 5. The City is committed under Housing Program H-14 to rezone enough of the lands in the Inventory to meet this need by 2004. This should allow sufficient time for developers to acquire land, receive permit approvals and build the housing needed in Palo Alto prior to June 2006. If lands in the Inventory become unavailable for housing resulting in there being insufficient land to meet the City’s remaining housing needs, it is the City’s intention that lands in the second list be evalutated and rezoned to make up the shortfall by 2004. The City’ s Housing Sites Inventory has identified sufficient land suitable for residential development to meet its 1999-2006 housing needs but its efforts to find sites suitable for housing will not end there. Palo Alto intends to continue its Housing Opportunities Study (HOS) (see Program H-13) to both add to and refine the Housing Sites Inventory. The HOS will continue to identify sites that may be available for redevelopment for housing or mixed uses and that should be added to the Housing Sites Inventory. Conversely, further investigation of sites on the second list may find that there are problems that make them unsuitable for residential development or that may only allow development at a lesser density. Sites on the second list will also need to be evaluated on a regular basis to determine if these sites may be moved from this list to the Inventory. The HOS should be considered an ongoing process for Palo Alto since new housing opportunities may arise and the City will need to be flexible to take advantage of these opportunities. The City must also continue to look.for suitable, new housing sites beyond the 2006 limit of this Housing Element. Information in Chapter 5 of this document summarizes the number of new residential units needed to meet Palo Alto’s estimated fair share of the region’.s housing needs. The information on page 44 indicates that Palo Alto’s share of the region’s housing need is 1,397 units for the 1999-2006 time frame. The 1,397 unit estimate is sub-categorized into units needed by h6usehold income level. As indicated in Chapter 5, on page 44 of this document, Palo Alto has already made substantial progress in meeting its housing needs. The following describes the remaining housing need estimates for Palo Alt0 by household income level after accounting for the number of housing units built or approved for construction between 1999 and 2000 (see Appendix D). Illustration#25: Unmet Housing Need by Household Income, 1999-2006 241 Units 50 Units 325 Units 0 Units Very Low-Income Need (0-50% of Median) Low-Income Need (51-80% of Median) Moderate-Income Need (81-120% of Median) Above Moderate-Income Need (120%+ of Median) Although Palo Alto has already provided more that enough housing to meet the needs of the above moderate-income households it is expected to generate, it has considerably more to do to Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 71 meet the needs of the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households seeking to live in the City. As indicated in the table above, the City must have sufficient land to accommodate 616 units of affordable housing. The extremely high housing costs of Palo Alto will make it difficult for the City to achieve this goal. In Chapter 3 of this document, we found that the City’s most affordable housing is multiple-family rental housing. Palo Alto needs to substantially increase the opportunities for this type of housing if it is to meet this need. To create more affordable housing opportunities, ABAG’s Blueprint 2001: Housing Element Ideas and Solutions (pages 3-10) suggests that Medium Density Residential zoning designations should allow at least 18 dwelling units per acre and High Density Residential zoning designations should allow at least 30 units to the acre. These density targets are roughly equivalent to the RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (16-30 dwelling units per acre) and the RM-40 High Density Multiple-Family Residence District (up to 40 dwelling units per acre). The Housing Sites Inventory discussed above focuses primarily on those sites that can accommodate RM-30, RM-40 or higher density residential or mixed use development to meet the City’s affordable housing needs. This inventory, with its suggested zoning changes, indicate that Palo Alto will have more than enough land to provide the opportunities necessary to build housing for 616 very low- to moderate-income households. In fact, the development potential of the Housing Sites Inventory at the lower end of the potential dwelling unit yield is about 820 units or about 42% more than would be necessary to accommodate the unmet need of 616 units. This exceeds HCD’s suggested strategy of "overzoning" lands for residential use by at least 20% abovethe minimum amount needed to meet a jurisdiction’s share of the region’s housing needs. It should be noted that most of the sites on the Inventory are zoned, or will be zoned, to support density ranges to provide the maximum potential for the construction of affordable housing in Palo Alto. The City takes its commitment to encourage the construction of affordable housing very seriously. In recent years, Palo Alto has had some success in assisting in the building, and not just planning for, affordable housing. During the late 1990s, the 107 unit Alma Place SRO (very low income housing), the 24 unit Page Mill Court (developmentally disabled, very low-income housing), and 159 low income rental units of the Stanford West Project (currently under construction) were all built, or being built, in Palo Alto. The City has established and is proposing as part of this Housing Element, numerous policies and programs to encourage the additional development of housing, particularly housing affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. These include allowing for increased densities near transit; consideration of requiring minimum densities; zoning incentives for smaller, more affordable housing; evaluation of second dwelling unit regulations to encourage the creation of more units; revised regulations to allow residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet and modifications to reduce parking requirements when houses are located near jobs, services and transit. The City will do what it can to encourage the construction of higher density, affordable residential projects. However, since the City of Palo Alto does not itself build housing, the City cannot guarantee that providing the necessary housing opportunities means that the required housing will be built. Even with the strong commitment of the City to provide affordable housing, it will be difficult for Palo Alto to provide many more units for very low- and low- income households. The primary reasons are a lack of available low cost land and the limited availability of subsidy funds. The City will continue to use public and private resources to make 72 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 a good-faith effort to provide as many units as it can in meeting its fair share of the region’s housing need, as well as, the City’s own commitment to provide housing for all income groups and a diversity of housing throughout the City. 5. Infrastructure The City of Palo Alto is an older and well-established community in terms of infrastructure. The City owns and manages its utilities, .including water and electrical. According to staff from the City Public Works Department, there are no significant infrastructure constraints that would affect anticipated residential development. The City’s wastewater and water systems both have sufficient capacity to serve expected residential growth, although some local service lines need expansion or extension. On-going maintenance and repair of existing storm drainage, water, and wastewater improvements are identified as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Needed repairs are prioritized in the CIP and projected over a multi-year period. While there appear to be no significant infrastructure cdnstraints on a citywide basis, there may be constraints on a site-by-site basis depending on the site’s proximity to existing utility and service lines and whether there would be a need to provide additional connections or upgrades to those lines. These types of improvements would typically be ~the responsibility of the property owner/developer. 6. Environmental There are some areas in the City that have specific environmental areas of concern. There are approximately 12 sites in the foothill area of the City that are within a specific earthquake fault zone area. These sites require in-depth soils reports and peer review as part of their development approval process. Moreover, the entire City is subject to moderate to severe earth movement during a seismic event. ¯ According to the City Public Works Departmen.t staff, approximately 25-30% of the City is within the flood hazard zone. Structures within this zone must meet certain building requirements when expanding or improving the property if the improvement is greater than 50% of the value of the property. Some areas of the City have isolated cases of pollution of the soil and groundwater that may require clean-up, and the close proximity of groundwater to the surface may limit excavation and require additional foundation stabilization. Finally, many available sites are limited by noise constraints from vehicular traffic and railroad trains. Sound walls or additional noise barriersmay be required to reduce noise to acceptable levels for residential use. These requirements could be viewed as constraints in that they increase the cost and may prohibit owners from undertaking improvements. The City, however, has limited control over these requirements since they are primarily regulated by state and federal agencies. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 73 Market Constraints There are a number of costs involved in the development of housing. These include land and construction costs, sales and marketing, financing and profit. Because these costs are so "market sensitive, "it is difficult for a local government to reduce them in any way. Listed below are some of the more significant market related issues. 1. Financing Costs Financing costs are primarily dependent on national economic trends and policy decisions. At the time this Housing Element was prepared (2001- 2002), fixed mortgage rates for single family residential housing varied from 6.38 to 7.25% for a 30 year fixed conforming loan as compared to 8.2% in 1997. This means that financing a home has become somewhat easier in the last few years. Adjustable rate loans were slightly lower than fixed conforming loans, ranging from starting rates of 5.75% up to 7% and with maximum lifetime caps in the 10.95 - 12% range. Financing from both mortgage brokers and retail lenders (banks, savings and loans) is available in the Palo Alto area. The availability of financing, then, is not a constraint to the purchase of housing in Palo Alto, although financing for development of condominiums, rental housing and mixed use projects, can still be difficult to obtain. Financing costs for subsidized housing are more difficult, as the competition for the limited available funds is very severe. 2. Land and Construction Costs The actual costs of developing and building housing in Palo Alto could be viewed as a constraint to housing, especially affordable housing. Vacant land is scarce in Palo Alto - less than 0.5% of the City’s land is vacant and less than 15 acres of vacant land is zoned for residential use. Because of the lack of vacant parcels, it is anticipated that under-utilized sites or sites zoned for commercial/industrial uses will become more feasible for re-use to residential designations. The City continues to review non-residentially designated areas and underutilized sites for potential residential uses and is encouraging the integration of residential use into commercial/industrial areas. The scarcity of vacant land has resulted in increased costs of purchasing any available land. Residentially zoned (multiple-family zoning districts) property has more than doubled in value since 1996 and can sell for $150-$167 per square foot or more depending on its location and development potential. Individual single family lots, if available, are typically over $900,000 or more in price for a 5,000 to 16,000 square foot lot. Commercially zoned land (outside of the downtown core) may have also doubled in value to over $150 per square foot. Thus, a one acre site would be worth in excess of $6.5 million. Construction costs in Palo Alto are also expensive but are similar to those of surrounding communities. Discussions with private and non-profit developers and City staff indicate that multiple-family residential construction costs can range from approximately $200 per square foot to $250 or higher per square foot depending on amenities and the quality of construction materials. It becomes difficult to build housing, particularly affordable housing, with this range 74 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 of construction cost. For example, using $250 per square foot as an estimate, a 1,000 square foot home would cost $250,000 just for construction costs and excluding land costs, off-site improvements, processing fees and financing costs. Even with the "economies of scale" of multifamily construction, costs are still high for those units also. Unfortunately, construction costs are dependent.on many factors including labor costs, material costs and competition in the market place and are beyond the control of the City. In order to develop housing that is affordable, especially to very low- and low-income households, substantial public subsidies are routinely required because of the high cost of land and construction. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 75 Chapter 7: Review of 1998-2003 Housing Element Background Information State Housing Element Guidelines require that communities evaluate their previous Housing Elements according to the following three criteria: Effectiveness of the Element, Progress in Implementation, and Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives and Policies. The City’s most recent Housing Element was amended and adopted in 1998 and covered the five-year period of 1998-2003. In November 1998, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, found the Housing Element to be in compliance with State Housing Element law. Therefore, the 1998-2003 Housing Element was the most current Housing Element of the City at the time that this 2001 Housing Element Technical Document was prepared. The 1998-2003 version of the Housing Element recognized that it would be an interim document, that it was essentially an extension of the 1990 Housing Element, and that it would be revised once ABAG prepared a new housing needs determination for all jursidictions in the San Francisco Bay Area. Since the 1998-2003 Housing Element is being updated in the middle of its designated time frame, many of the policies and programs have not been implemented or only partially implemented; therefore, the effectiveness of these policies and programs cannot be completely evaluated. This should be kept in mind when considering the progress of the 1998-2003 Housing Element presented below. Policies, Programs and Goals There were 23 policy statements in the 1998-2003 Housing Element that reflected the City’s overall g3als for addressing housing needs. Within each policy statement, the Element identifies specific housing programs to implement each of the policy statements. Following the outline of the 1998-2003 Housing Element, the following analysis evaluates each of the 23 policy statements and the programs and objectives quantified for each of the policy statements. This analysis is followed by a table summarizing the City’s progress in providing its fair share of the region’s housing need from 1990-1998. Policy H-l: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Palo Alto was able to meet more than half the needs of its very low- (57%) and above moderate-income households (53%) but was only able to produce 10% of the housing needed for low-income households and 15% for moderate income households. As already shown, the most affordable housing in Palo Alto is multiple-family residential development at densities allowed under the RM-30 and 76 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 RM-40 zoning districts or at even higher densities. The City must increase its efforts to produce affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households, which means that more of this type of multiple-family residential land must be made available during the time frame of this Housing Element and that the lands ctJrrently planned for multiple-family residential, or that allow mixed use, must be developed at or near the high end of their allowed density ranges. Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Program H-l: Allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit centers. Program H-2: Consider enacting minimum density requirements in multiple family zones. Program H-3: Evaluate zoning incentives that encourage the development of diverse housing types, including smaller, more affordable units and two- and three-bedroom units suitable for families with children. Program H-4: Evaluate the provisions for second dwelling units in single family areas to determine how additional units might be provided. Program H-5." Create a Planned Development zone that allows ’the construction of smaller lot single family units and other innovative housing types without the requirement for a public benefit finding. Program H-6 Amend zoning regulations to permit residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where smaller lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Program H-7: Modify parking requirements to allow higher densities and reduced housing costs in areas appropriate for reduced parking requirements. The Comprehensive Plan has created the Transit-oriented Residential land use designation that would allow increased densities near transit stations but this designation has not yet been applied to any specific sites. Other land use designations, such as Mixed Use and Village Residential could also be used to increase densities in appropriate areas. The City needs to identify sites where these designations can be applied and include them in the Housing Sites Inventory, Zoning districts for these land use designations also need to be created so they can be implemented. The Zoning Ordinance currently contains minimum density requirements in multiple-family zones but these requirements need to be clarified. This is being pursued in the current Zoning Ordinance Update. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 77 Proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance to increase housing densities in conformance with Comprehensive Plan land use designations have not been implemented but are currently being studied by the City in the Zoning Ordinance Update, which is currently in progress. Policy H-3: Support the designation of vacant or underutilized land for housing. The City continues to support the redesignation of vacant or underutilized land for housing but there has been little vacant land available for redesignation over the last three years. As a result, no new vacant lands have been rezoned for housing. There is more of a supply of underutilized land available and the City has used some of this land for residential or mixed-use residential/commercial development but only in relatively small amounts. The City must increase its efforts to find and convert non-residential land to residential use as called for in the updated Housing Element. Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality, Program H-8: Evaluate the effectiveness of existing incentives that encourage mixed use and residential development on commercially zoned land and determine additional incentives to be provided. Program H-9: Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that support the development of housing above and among commercial uses. Program H-IO: Encourage the development of housing on parking lots by adopting incentives that will lead to housing production while maintaining the required parking. Program H-11: Eliminate the requirement for Site and Design review for mixed-use projects. The City allows residential use in all commercial zones and utilizes the site-specific Planned Community (PC) zone to encourage mixed use housing projects. During the preparation of the,1998-2003 Housing Element, a review of the mixed use regulations indicated that these regulations did not facilitate mixed use development. The City concluded that a specific mixed use zoning district, or at a minimum, revisions to existing zoning standards in the commercial and industrial districts that allow mixed uses or housing, are needed to allow greater development flexibility and to decrease the need for variances and modifications to site development regulations. These revisions would help increase the potential for mixed use developments. 78 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 The City intends to continue to pursue modifications to the zoning regulations to encourage mixed use housing projects and better utilization of available land. Items to be considered include reuse of parking lots, incentives, reduced parking requirements, horizontal mixed use, and greater efforts to work with employers to obtain additional housing development. All of these items are currently being consider under the Zoning Ordinance Update and a draft revision of the Zoning Ordinance is expected in 2002. The only coordinated area plan the City is currently engaged in is in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) (southern Downtown)i The advisory group working on this plan is in the process of reviewing possible land use mixes including high density housing over commercial or office use. The work of this group will be completed in 2001. Three residential development projects were built over or replaced existing parking lots in the early 1990s but none has occurred in the last half of that decade. The City wants to continue to encourage this type of development and is looking for ways to make this type of development easier to accomplish. Also, a few, small mixed use projects have occurred in the 1990s but this type of development needs to be increased given that most of the City’s underutilized lands are in commercial or industrial areas. A means of encouraging that type of development would be to reduce the proc.essing obstacles that developers face. The issues of parking lot development incentives and modifications to the Site and Design Review process for mixed use projects are currently being considered in the Zoning Ordinance Update. A draft version of the revised Zoning Ordinance is expected in 2002. Policy H-5: Discourage the conversion of lands designated as residential to nonresidential uses, unless there is no net loss of housing potential on a community-wide basis. No residential lands were converted to non-residential use in Palo Alto between 1998 and 2000. However, institutional uses, such as churches and schools, are competing for the same land as residential uses. The City needs to reinforce its policies discouraging the conversion of residential land, especially multiple-family residential land, to protect this very limited resource. Policy H-6: Support the reduction of governmental and regulatory constraints to the production of affordable housing. Program H-12: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of h, ousing affordable to very low- and low-income households. The City continues to regularly evaluate its zoning requirements, building codes, fees, and development procedures to eliminate barriers to affordable housing. The fee waiver process is currently being developed. Draft revised Zoning Ordinance standards will be proposed in 2002. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Policy H-7: Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties. Program H-13." Continue the citywide property maintenance, inspection, and enforcement program. Program H-14: Enact development, regulations that encourage rehabilitation of historic residential buildings, remodeling of older multifamily rental buildings and retention of smaller single family residences. The City has continued to utilize various public funding sources to assist with the rehabilitation and/or acquistion of existing affordable rental housing, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, City funds and bond funds. Between 1998 and 2000 the City, in cooperation with several non-profit organizations, accomplished the following: Construction of the 24 unit Page Mill Court which provides permanent, affordable rental housing for persons with developmental disabilities and whose incomes are less than 30% of County median income. Preservation and rehabilitation of the 57 unit Sheridan Apartments which was at-risk of converting to market rate housing. Sheridan Apartments provides subsidized housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. The units were acquired by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation with assistance from the City. Preservation and rehabilitation of the 156 unit Palo Alto Gardens Apartments which was at-risk of converting to marl~et rate housing. The Palo Alto Gardens provides subsidized housing for seniors and families. The units were acquired by the Mid- Peninsula Housing Coalition with assistance from the City; Rehabilitation of the water system for the 66 unit Arastradero Park Apartments. New water lines were provided for each unit under this project. Rehabilitation of the Waverley Street House to provide affordable housing for 26 lower income persons with mental illness. Re-roofing Building "A" which contains 59 units of the 120 unit Stevenson House which provides housing for low income seniors. The City is continuing its citywide property maintenance, inspection, and enforcement program and provides rehabilitation assistance on an "as needed" basis for units occupied by very low- and low-income homeowners. Revised development regulations that encourage rehabilitation of historic residential buildings, remodeling of older multifamily rental buildings, and the retention, of smaller single family dwellings have not yet been established but are being considered under the Zoning Ordinance Update. Draft revised Zoning Ordinance standards will be proposed in 2002. 8O Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Policy H-8: Maintain the number of multifamily rental housing units in Palo Alto at no less than its current level while supporting efforts to increase the rental supply. Program H-15: Continue implementation of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Program H-16: Where a proposed subdivision or condominium would cause a loss of rental housing, grant approval only if at least two of the following three circumstances exist: ¯The project will produce at least a 100 percent increase in the number of units currently on the site and will comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program (described in Program H-20); and/or o The number of rental units to be provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing rental units; and/or ¯No less than 20 percent of the units will comply with the City’s BMR program. As indicated by the preservation of the Palo Alto Gardens and the Sheridan Apartments, Palo Alto continues to act to preserve its existing supply of multiple-family housing. In 1974, the City adopted a Condominium Conversion Ordinance (Chapter 21.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), which regulates t!ae conversion of rental apartments condominiums for projects containing three or more units. An application for conversion can be considered only if there is a Citywide rental vacancy rate that exceeds three percent, or regardless of vacancy rate, if: One below market rate unit is provided for every two market rate units to be converted. The tenants of at least two-thirds of the rental units consent to this conversion. Between 1998-2000, no rental units were converted to ownership units under the provisions of this -ordinance. The City intends to continue to regulate the potential conversion of rental units by continuing to implement the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Policy H-9: Encourage community involvement in the maintenance and enhancement of public and private properties and adjacent rights-of-way in residential neighborhoods. Program H-17: Create community volunteer days and park cleanups, plantings, or similar events that promote neighborhood enhancement. Program H-18: Conduct City-sponsored cleanup campaigns for public and private properties. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 81 The City continues to encourage community involvement in the maintenance of public and private properties and adjacent rights-of-way as is evidenced by the exemplary condition of buildings and improvements in the vast majority of the City. Policy H-IO: Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Palo Alto continues to encourage diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low- and m0derate-income households by preserving existing affordable housing, as in the case of the Palo Alto Gardens and Sheridan Apartments, and by identifying new sites for multiple-family housing. However, the City has been restricted in the provision of housing opportunities due to the. limited amount of land available for multiple-family housing. That is why the updated Housing Element calls for aggressive implementation of the Housing Opportunities Study to provide more sites suitable for this type of housing in locations that support the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including housing sites that support transit use and the creation of pedestrian oriented environments. Policy H-11: Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational and mediation opportunities. Program H-19: Implement the "Action Plan" of the City of Palo Alto’s Consolidated Plan or its successor documents. Program H-20: Continue implementation of the City’s "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Inclusionary Housing Program that requires at least ten percent of all housing units built in for-sale projects of three units or more and rental projects of five units or more to be provided at below market rates to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Program H-21: Adopt a revised density bonus program that allows the construction of up to three additional market rate units for each BMR unit above that normally required, up to a maximum zoning increase of 25 percent in density. Allow an equivalent increase in square footage (Floor Area Ratio) for projects that meet this requirement. Program H,22: Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as providing low-, and moderate-income housing opportunities. During the last two years of the City’s Consolidated Plan, the City helped to create 131 new units of affordable rental housing in the Alma Place and Page Mill Court projects and preserved 213 units of affordable rental housing in the Palo Alto Gardens and Sheridan Apartments. The City also contributed funds to help accomplish the following over the life of the 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan: 82~Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Construction of the New County Children’s Shelter, a 76,000 sq. ft. facility in San Jose designed to serve 3,900 abused and!or neglected children from Santa Clara County. Renovation of the Casa Say Youth Shelter in Mountain View - short-term shelter for runaways or at-risk adolescents. Installation of safety improvements for the Stevenson House and Lytton Gardens both of which are senior residential facilities. Construction of the 250-bed regional homeless reception center in San Jose operated by the Emergency Housing Consortium. Acquisition of a shared transitional home (Margarita Street House) for low-income veterans in conjunction with the Veterans Workshop. Between 1998 and 2000 the City added 5 new BMR rental units and 7 new BMR ownership units under its Below Market Rate program but this level of production is very low compared to the City’s need for housing affordable to lower and moderate income households. That is why the .update Housing Element calls for increasing the minimum number of BMR units from 10% to 15% of the total number of units in new residential projects. The revised density bonus program called for in Program H-21 has not yet been implemented but is being considered under the Zoning Ordinance Update. The City has, however, adopted a Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance to help preserve the Buena Vista Mobile HomePark. Policy H-12: Support agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Program H-23: Promote legislative changes and funding for programs that facilitate and subsidize the acquisition, rehabilitation, and operation of existing rental housing by housing assistance organizations, nonprofit developers, and for-profit developers. Program H-24: Use existing agency programs such as Senior Home Repair to proVide rehabilitation assistance to very low- and low-income households. Program H-25: Support the preservation of existing group homes and supported living facilities for persons with special housing needs.. Assist local agencies and nonprofit organizations in the construction or rehabilitation of new facilities for this population. Palo Alto continued its efforts to support agencies and organizations that provide shelter and other services during the 1998-2000 time period. In addition to the contributions mentioned under Policy H-11 above, the City also assisted in the Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 83 acquisition and rehabilitation of the Palo Alto Gardens and Sheridan Apartments and the rehabilitation of the Waverly Street House as a transitional housing for 13 homeless people with mental illness. No new home repairs were conducted under the Senior Home Repair Program between 1998-2000. Policy H-13: Pursue funding for the construction or rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Support financing techniques such as land banking, federal and state tax credits, mortgage revenue bonds, and mortgage credit certificates to subsidize the cost of housing. Program H-26: Maintain a high priority for the acquisition of new housing sites, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing, and housing-related services in the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds or similar programs. Program H-27: Support and expand the City’s Housing Development Fund or successor program. Program H-28." On an on-going basis, seek funding from state and federal programs, such as the HOME program and HUD Section 202 and 811 (or successor programs), to support the development or rehabilitation of housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. Program H-29: Continue to require developers of employment-generating commercial and industrial developments to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. As described in earlier discussions, the City has used every means at its disposal to pursue funding for the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing, such as the use of CDBG funds to help acquire and rehabilitate projects, such as the Palo Alto Gardens and Sheridan Apartments. The City will continue to pursue funding of all types that will help the City maintain or construct affordable housing although the competition is very severe and many of the evaluation criteria used for programs, such as HOME, do not favor communities like Palo Alto. The City is also aware that it must try to generate its own funding resources to produce housing. In particular, the City has aclcnowledged that the funding generated by the commercial and industrial housing in-lieu fee for projects with impacts on housing has not kept pace with the rapid increase in the demand for and cost of new housing generated by new employment. The updated Housing Element calls for an evaluation of and adjustments to the commercial and industrial housing in-lieu fee to reflect the impact of commercial and industrial development on housing needs. Policy H-14: Encourage the preservation, rehabilitation, and construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels and SRO housing. 84 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 The 107 unit Alma Place SRO was constructed in Palo Alto in 1998 and is evidence of the City’ s continued commitment to create and preserve SRO housing opportunities. The facility is designed to serve very low- income persons. Policy H-15: Support opportunities for Shared Housing and other innovative housing forms to promote diversity and meet the needs of different household types and income levels. To date, the City has not developed any new policies or programs to support Shared Housing. This issue will, however, be considered during the Zoning Ordinance Update currently underway. Policy H-16: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit, or social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. Policy H-17: Support family housing that. addresses resident needs for childcare, youth services, recreation opportunities and access to transit. During 1998-2000, the City assisted in the acquisition, preservation and rehabilitation of the Palo Alto Gardens Apartments and the Sheridan Apartments both of which provide housing for seniors. Palo Alto Gardens also contains units for families. The City also contributed to the rehabilitation of the water system of the Arastradero Park Apartments, which serves 66 families. Since there are not many housing projects that incorporate facilities and services that might be needed by their residents, the City has used its funds to improve community facilities that are likely to be used by those occupying affordable housing projects throughout the City. City funds have been used to improve Rinconada Park to make it more accessible to people with disabilities and to. provide playground equipment and play area renovations for the Peninsula Children’s Center, which serves children with emotional: arid behavioral disabilities. Repairs have been made to the Ventura Community Center, which serves a low-income area. Improvements have also been made to the Community Association for Rehabilitation/Swim Center, which provides warm water therapeutic swim opportunities for seniors and persons with disabilities. Although the City will continue to support housing that incorporate facilities and services needed by special populations, it will also continue to provide support for such facilities outside of housing projects. Policy H-18: Support legislation, regulatory changes, federal funding, and local efforts for the permanent preservation of HUD-assisted very low- and low-income units at risk of conversion to market rate housing or loss of federal rental assistance. The City continues to support HUD programs, such as the Section 8 rental assistance program, and will continue to monitor federal legislation and regulatory changes to Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 85 determine if and when to take aggressive action to ensure retention of these affordable housing units. Policy H-19: Support the provision of emergency shelter, transitional housing and ancillary services to address homelessness. As indicated above, the City has participated in supporting homeless shelters and service facilities in the County as well as allowing smaller temporary shelters (Hotel de Zink) in the City itself. This may not be enough to meet the needs of the homeless in Palo Alto, which may number as high as 124 people. That is why the updated Housing Element calls for the City to allow homeless shelters with a conditional use permit in the CS and CD commercial zoning districts and in the industrial zoning districts. Policy H-20: Provide leadership in addressing homelessness as a regional issue. Policy H-21: Work closely with appropriate agencies in the. region to develop and implement policies and programs relating to homelessness. Program H-30: Continue to participate in the Santa Clara County Homeless Collaborative as well as work with adjacent jurisdictions to develop additional shelter opportunities. Program H-31: Continue to participate with and support agencies addressing homelessness. Palo Alto has continued to actively participate with other jurisdictions in seelcing solutions to the problems of the homeless in Santa Clara County. The City continues to believe that homelessness is a regional issue and that it must be addressed on that basis. ¯ That is why the City has contributed funds to so many homeless shelters and service facilities outside of its jurisdiction as well as inside. The City will continue to take a leadership role and actively participate with other communities to address homelessness.. Policy H-22: Support programs and agencies that seek to eliminate housing discrimination. Program H-32: Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to ensure that fair housing laws are enforced. Program H-33: Continue to support groups that provide fair housing services, such as Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing. Program H-34: Continue the efforts of the Human Relations Commission to combat discrimination in rental housing, including mediation of problems between landlords and tenants. 86 Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 Program H-35: Continue implementation of the City’s Ordinances prohibiting discrimination in renting or leasing housing based on age, parenthood, pregnancy or the potential or actual presence of a minor child. During 1998-2001, the City continued to work towards elimination of discriminatory activities in all aspects of housing. The City has annually allocated CDBG funds to Mid- Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing to provide services to promote fair housing, including complaint investigation, counseling and advocacy. The City also contracts with Project Sentinel to provide tenant/landlord information, referral and mediation services. CDBG funds have been used to support ombudsman activities to assist with complaints related to elderly residents living in nursing homes in the City. The City has also sponsored community meetings and forums to discuss the need for housing for people with special needs and provided publications that helped seniors and others to access housing. The City intends to continue these types of activities in the 1999-2006 time period. Policy H-23: Reduce the cost of housing by promoting energy efficiency, resource management, and conservation for new and existing housing. Program H-36: Continue providing staff support and technical assistance in energy conservation and demand management to architects, developers, and utility customers. The City of Pal0 Alto is fortunate to own and manage its water, gas, wastewater and electric utility systems. Conservation of these resources is a high priority for the City. The City has a full time staff person who provides assistance with water and energy conservation. The "Residential Energy Auditor" works primarily with existing residential occupants and helps to evaluate their energy/water use and make recommendations for more efficient operations. Further, this staff person is available to work with developers or architects of new construction projects to design energy conservation features during the planning stages of the project. The City also offers on a promotional basis, programs that offer rebates for more efficient refrigerators or the use of energy efficient fluorescent lighting supplies. In 1993, the City created the Utilities Residential Rate Assistance Program (RAP) to provide rate relief to residents who lack adequate financial resources to pay utility bills. Level of income and disability are used to determine if a household qualifies for the program. Qualifying residents currently receive a 20% discount on their utility bills. In May 2001, the City Council expanded the reach of the RAP to allow three times more residents to qualify for the program than were allowed previously. Draft Housing Element Technical Document 1999-2006 87 APPENDIX D Housing Units Built and Housing Units with Approved Building Permits, January 1, 1999 - December 31, 2000 Income Level Project Name/Address Number of units Units Built." Jan. 1, 1999-Dec. 31, 2000 Very Low Income Page Mill Court Apartments 24 Subtotal 24 Low Income Stanford West 6 435 Sheridan 3 Subtotal.9 Moderate Income Subtotal Silverwood 3 Classics 4 Cottages 4 11 Above Moderate Income Subtotal Stanford West 54 435 Sheridan 32 Various 13 103 Total Built Units 143 Units with Approved Building Permits Jan. 1, 1999- Dee. 31, 2000 Very Low Income Subtotal Low Income Subtotal Moderate Income Subtotal Above Moderate Income Subtotal Total Units with Approved Building Permits Grand Total 0 0 Stanford West 57 57 Cottages 7 7 Stanford West 511 Various 125 643 7OO 843 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-01 Site Name: Oak Court Site Address(es): 845 Ramona between Channing and Bryant Site Size: 1.23 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 6 parcels, 1 owner (City of Palo Alto) Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP -Major Institution/Special Facilities. Existing Zoning: AMF conforming to SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Proposed Zoning: Same as above. Existing Uses: Vacant land. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Site has been cleared to accommodate this new development. The Director of Planning approved a 53-unit affordable housing development in December in 2001 after recommendation by the City’s Architectural Review Board. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by three locaLstreets with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Single ownership alloWs for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Development application approved for 53 affordable multifamily units; non-profit developer is currently seeking housing subsidies. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: The project will include a total of 53 multifamily units, all affordable apartments in a 3-4 story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Proposed apartments compatible with existing mix of residential and commercial uses in the area. During the development review process, the neighborhood strongly supported the project. E-1 APPENDIX E INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-06 Site Name: Peninsula Creamery site Site Address(es): 800 High St. between Homer and Channing Streets Site Size: 0.96 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Service Commercial Existing Zoning: CD-S - Commercial Downtown Service Proposed Zoning: .PC - Plalmed Community (application pending) Existing Uses: Various vacated quasi-industrial/manufacturing (creamery) buildings, truck loading and storage areas Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Buildings, storage, and loading areas are in poor condition and need extensive rehabilitation to be utilized. No significant landscaping is on the site. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by three local streets with good pedestrian access and is within approximately 2,000 feet of a transit corridor hub providing train, shuttle and bus service. The site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries.. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The site is clearly underutilized and the quasi-industrial use is not compatible with the City’s vision for its Downtown and is ready for replacement. The site is nearly one acre in size, which would be easier to redevelop than smaller sites in the area. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. The City is currently considering a proposed rezoning of the site to allow 26-61 condominiums on site. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Proposed rezoning is for 26-61 dwelling units, all condominiums (3 stories of apartments over parking). Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Proposed apartments Should be compatible withexisting mix of residential and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the area if the development is sensitively designed and integrated with the existing neighborhood. E-2 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-21 Site Name: Former Craft and Floral building Site Address(es): 657-663 Alma St. (north comer of Alma St. and Forest Ave.) Site Size: 0.48 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 2 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: CS - Service Commercial. No Comprehensive Plan Change required to allow residential or mixed use. Existing Zoning: CD-S- Commercial Downtown Service; CD-C - Commercial Downtown Community Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use Existing Uses: Vacant retail commercial building and parking lot. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Building and parking lot are in fair to good condition but have been vacant for over a decade and are nearing the end of their economic life. No significant landscaping is on the site. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing j obs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The existing retail building has been vacant for over one decade. The site’s Downtown location indicates that mixed use would be appropriate. Site suitable for maximum height construction limits per the Alma Street Design Guidelines. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 25 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 10-12 apartments over retail commercial space. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Proposed apartments may be compatible with existing mix of residential and commercial uses in the area but conflicts could arise between residential and non-residential uses. E-3 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-28 Site Name: Future Opportunity Center site Site Address(es): 33, 39 and 45 Encina Ave. near E1 Camino Real Site Size: 0.43 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 2 owners. Comprehensive Plan Designation: CS - Service Commercial. No Comprehensive Plan Change required to allow residential or mixed use. Existing Zoning: CS - Service Commercial Proposed Zoning: PC - Planned Community (application pending) Existing Uses: Vacant commercial building Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Older commercial buildings in an industrial/manufacturing area. Buildings are in fair condition but are nearing the end of their economic life. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one local street with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station and is close to a transit corridor served by buses. Site is close to existing jobs. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. With the completion of the Homer Avenue CalTrain undercrossing in 2003, the site will have adequate access to schools, parks and libraries. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: A development application for a PC zoning to allow a homeless service center and 90 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and family housing units for the site is anticipated to be submitted in the Summer of 2002. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Zoning process is expected to be completed by spring of 2003. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Probable yield would be 90 SRO and family units over a homeless service center of about 9,200 square feet in a five-story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: The homeless service center and housing units are compatible with existing commercial and medical uses in the area. E-4 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-30 Site Name: City Power Plant Substation Site Address(es): 841 Alma Street between Homer and Channing Site Size: 0.36 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner (City of Palo Alto Utilities) Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP -Major Institutional/Special Facilities Existing Zoning: PF - Public Facilities District Proposed Zoning: To be determined during the SOFA II Planning process Existing Uses: Power Substation Status of Site and Existing Improvements: The site is currently used for an electric pbwer plant substation by the City Utility Department, but the Utility Department is considering relocating the power plant to another site for efficiency reasons. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: The site is served by one major thoroughfare with good pedestrian access and within approximately 2,000 feet of a transit corridor hub providing train, shuttle and bus service. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. The site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. The site is infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: If the site is determined to be surplus, the only impediment to redevelopment could be from the existing utility use Site clean up. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Although a zoning district for the site has not been proposed, it is anticipated that 10-20 multi-family units could be accommodated on the site. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Multi-family residential use of the property would be compatible with the existing and planned mix of residential and commercial development in the area. E-5 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-31 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): 901 High Street Site Size: 0.32 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel; 1 owner Comprehensive Plan Designation: CS - Commercial Service Existing Zoning: CD-S(P) Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use Existing Uses: Auto storage and parking Status of Site and Existing Improvements: The site unimproved. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: The site is served by three local streets and near one major thoroughfare. It has good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station hub providing train, shuttle and bus service. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. The site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The site is clearly underutilized and the existing use is not compatible with the City’s vision for its Downtown. The City is currently considering a proposed rezoning of the. site to allow ten apartments on the site. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Proposed rezoning would allow a mixed use project with groundfloor commercial and ten apartment units in a two-story structure. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A mixed-use development including ten units would be compatible with the existing and planned commercial and residential uses in the area. E-6 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-06 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): 2650 Birch St. at Sheridan Ave. Site Size: 0.57 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 6 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential. Existing Zoning: RM-40 Proposed Zoning: RM:40 Existing Uses: 2 vacant lots and 4 single family houses. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Houses are in fair condition and are currently being rented. Several large trees located on the site. The site is level and would be easy to redevelop. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare arid three local streets with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment .and Reuse Potential: The existing vacant lots have been vacant for many years. Existing homes are over 40 years old and need some maintenance work. The site is surrounded by office and commercial uses and is suited for higher intensity development than currently exists. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. The potential yield would be 15-20 apartments. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial and office uses. E-7 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE, INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-09(a) Site Name: Greenworld Nursery Site Address(es): 2701 E1 Camino Real at Sheridan Avenue Site Size: 0.98 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential. Existing Zoning: RM-40, CN Proposed Zoning: RM-40 or Mixed Use Existing Uses: Operating, small scale nursery; rear two-thirds of site vacant. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Site is vacant. Several large trees located on site. Site is level and would be easy to redevelop. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access, is within 2,000 feet of a transit station, and adjacent to a transit corridor with major bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Site is vacant and ripe for development. Site is near a major, key intersection in Palo Alto (El Camino Real and Page Mill Road) and would be very attractive for more intensive development. The site is currently for sale and is being marketed for housing although mixed use would also be appropriate. Site could be combined with Site 8- 09(b) and jointly developed. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 30-35 apartments in a 3-4 story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment or mixed use complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial and office uses. APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-09(b) Site Name: VTA Park and Ride Lot Site Address(es): 2755 E1 Camino Real at Page Mill Road Site Size: 0.48 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP -Major Institution!Special Facilities. Existing Zoning: PF - Public Facilities Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: Small parldng lot operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Parking lot is relatively new and in good condition. Perimeter landscaping exists. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by two major thoroughfares with good pedestrian access, is-within 2,000 feet of a transit station, and adjacent to a transit corridor with major bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer,water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Although the site is completely occupied by the parking lot, there is an opportunity for building housing over the parking lot. The VTA has allowed joint development of such facilities in the past as a method of supporting transit use. Site is near a major, key intersection in Palo Alto (El Camino Real and Page Mill P~oad) and would be very attractive for more intensive development. The City believes the site is ideal for joint development and will be working with VTA on this matter. Site could be combined with Site 8- 09(a) and jointly developed. ¯ Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 15-18 apartments in a 3-4 story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment or mixed use complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial and office uses. E-9 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-11 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): East side Sheridan Ave. between SPRR and Park Blvd. Site Size: 3.92 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 4 parcels and portion ofpublic right-of-way, 5 owners. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Light Industrial. No Comprehensive Plan Change required to allow residential use. Existing Zoning: GM- General Manufacturing Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: Underutilized or vacant industrial buildings and sites. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures are over 40 years old and nearing the end of their economic life. Minimal landscaping is provided on site. Little or no recent investment made in site improvements. Site is partly vacant and underutilized containing very low intensity and marginal industrial uses. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station~ Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: This site represents a major opportunity for reuse especially if the existing parcels and public right-of-way can be combined. Site is close to other major transportation facilities besides those adjacent to it and may be eligible for MTC funding for Transit Oriented Development. Ratio of value of improvements to value of land is low indicating that market pressures should lead to redevelopment of this site in near future. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 120-150 apartments in a series of 3-4 story buildings. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial, office and industrial uses. E-IO APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 10-02 Site Name: Former Sun Microsystems Site Address(es): 901 San Antonio Rd. near Bayshore Highway Site Size: total - 12.92 acres; area likely to be reused - 7.5-8.6 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 4 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: LI - Light Industrial. No Comprehensive Plan change is required to allow residential use. Existing Zoning: GM ~ General Manufacturing Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: Large vacant office building and large parking lot Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structure, parking lot and landscaping in good condition. Sun Microsystems vacated the site recently due to the downturn in the high technology sector of the economy. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by three major thoroughfares with good pedestrian access but no access to significant transit facilities although bus service is provided. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: A property transaction between Sun Microsystems and the Jewish Community Center organization is in escrow. A portion of the site is to be used for a new Community Center in conjunction with a senior assisted-living facility. The remaining 4 acres of the site will be developed by Bridge Housing for a 200-330 unit multi-family condominium development. Eventually the entire site will be cleared and redeveloped. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Once the property is acquired by the JCC, it is anticipated that redevelopment of the site will be imminent. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: 100-230 units of multi-family "attainable" housing on approximately 4 acres and a 120,000 square foot assisted-senior facility of 100 units. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Multi-family development and the senior facility would be compatible with each other as well as the community center and adjacent office and commercial uses in the area. E-11 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-01 Site Name: Former Blockbusters ’ Site Address(es): 4102 E1 Camino Real at Vista Site Size: 0.65 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential Existing Zoning: RM-30 Proposed Zoning: RM-30 Existing Uses: Vacant with non-conforming retail ~ommercial building onsite with parking Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structure and parking lot and landscaping in good condition but building may be nearing the end of its economic life. Minimal landscaping is provided on site. Site has been vacant for over one year. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and access to transit facilities including bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Redevelopment will not exceed capacity of these lines. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the areal Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Site is currently on the market for residential use. The City is .considering a proposal for 9 units on the site. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 30 DU/AC allowed. Potential yield would be 9-15 units. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Multi-family housing would be compatible with existing office and commercial uses in the area. E-12 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-06 Site Name: Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel Site Address(es): 4219 E1 Camino Real at Charleston Road Site Size: Total, 15.98 acres; approximately 7.5 acres proposed to be redeveloped as multi- family housing in conjunction with hotel redevelopment. Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel Overlay Existing Zoning: CS (H) - Service Commercial (Hotel) Proposed Zoning: Same as above. Existing Uses: Hotel and supporting uses. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures, parking lot and landscaping are in adequate condition but do not maximize the economic potential of the hotel use and the site. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by two major thoroughfares and one local street with good pedestrian access and access to a transit corridor with bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infi11 site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The property owner has filed a development permit application to redevelop the site. The proposed project would demolish the existing hotel and build a new hotel and conference center on site and add between up to 302 apartments and townhouses on the site. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be 120- 302 multi-family units. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Any multi-family development on the site would need to be designed to be compatible with and minimize impacts on the adjacent single family neighborhood, which may result in development at the lower end of the density range. E-13 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12:07 Site Name: Elk’s Lodge Site Address(es): 4249 E1 Camino Real Site Size: 8.08 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 2 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF Multiple Family Residential Existing Zoning: R-1 - 0.64 acres; RM-15 - 2.2 acres; RM-30 5.24 acres Proposed Zoning: Same as above. Existing Uses: Grandfathered fraternal lodge and swim and recreation center use, supporting parking lot, and subleased area occupied by childcare center occupy the site. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures, parking lot and landscaping in fair to good condition but buildings nearing the end of their economic life. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and access to a transit corridor with bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The property is currently being offered on the market for housing in conjunction with anew Elk’s Lodge. The reuse of a portion of the site will help finance Lodge activities. Large parking lot areas could easily be redeveloped but most structures on the site will have to be removed. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be: R-1 - 1 to 5 single family units on 0.64 acres; RM-15 - 13 to 33 town_houses or apartments in one or more of 2-story buildings; RM-30 - 84 to 157 apartments in a series of 2-3 story structures. Total development potential: 1-5 single-family units and 97 to 190 multifamily units Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A new Elk’s Lodge and residential complex with a mix of single family homes on Wilkie Way and 2-3 story townhouse and apartment buildings would be compatible with the existing commercial and residential uses in the area. Any new development must be sensitively designed to be compatible with the adjacent existing single family neighborhood on Wilkie Way and the site access should be accessed Trom E1 Camino. E-14 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-09 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): 4146 E1 Camino Real Site Size: 0.77 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential Existing Zoning: RM-15 Proposed Zoning: RM-30 Existing Uses: Vacant land Status of Site and Existing Improvements: No improvements Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare with good pedestrian access and access to a major transit corridor.with bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Site is vacant and is immediately available for residential development. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be 5-10 apartments in a 2-story structure using RM-30 standards. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A new 2-story multifamily building would be compatible with the existing residential uses in the area. E-15 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-11 Site Name: Alma Plaza Shopping Center Site Address(es): 3445 Alma St. Site Size: 4.21 acres (only small portion to be redeveloped) Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 1 owner Comprehensive Plan Designation: CN - Neighborhood Commercial. No Comprehensive Plan change is required to allow residential use. Existing Zoning: PC, Planned Community (allowing a mixed retail/housing development) Proposed Zoning: PC - Planned Community to-allow mixed-use development Existing Uses: Two large commercial buildings/parking, vacant lot Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures, parking lot and landscaping in adequate condition but do not maximize the economic potential of this retail center. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access but no access to major transit facilities. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The property owner has filed an application for mixed use on the site. The proposed intensification can be accommodated on the site and provide a modest number of housing units. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be 5 single family and 5 apartments over retail commercial. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A mixed-use residential/commercial development would be compatible with the existing commercial and residential uses in the area. Palo Alto/Final Draft/Housing Element Tech Doc Appendix E Sept 25 9/25/02 E-16 APPENDIX F Additional Potential Longterm Housing Sites Sites Considered Suitable for Future Residential Use Site No. 4-02 5-02 5-03 5-04 5-05 5 -22 5-29 8-01 8-02 8-03 8-04 8-05 8 -07 8-08 8-10 8-12 8-13 8-14 8-15 9-01 9-04 10-01 11-03 12-02 12-04 12-05 12-08 12-12 12-10 12-13 Site Address 285 Quarry Rd. 400/430 Forest Ave. at Waverly St. 1093-1095 Channing Ave. 855 E1 Camino Real University Ave. Circle area 153 Hamilton Ave. 49 Wells Ave. at Urban Ln. 1795 & 1805 E1 Camino Real at Park Avenue 2650-2780 E1 Camino Real at Page Mill Road N. side E1 Camino Real btwn. Cambridge & Sherman Aves. 231 Grant Ave. between Park & Birch 2310-2500 E1 Camino Real (Cambridge/California area) S. side Staunton St. btwn. Oxford & College Ayes. 2209-2237 E1 Camino Real (east corner of E1 Camino Real and College Ave.) 2305-2333 E1 Camino Real (east corner of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Ave.) 2805-2905 E1 Camino Real (at Page Mill Rd. and Pepper Ave.) 3001-3017, 3111-3127 E1 Camino Real (at Olive and Acacia Ayes.) 1515 E1 Camino Real at Churchill 340 Portage Avenue 720-738 Colorado St.; 733-737 San Carlos Ct. 2605 Middlefield Rd. at Moreno 3864 Middlefield Rd. & 525 E. Charleston 611 Hansen Way at E1 Camino Real E. corner E1 Camino Real and Curtner 3941/3945 E1 Camino Real 3981 E1 Camino Real 4315-4329 E1 Camino Real NE corner Maybell & Clemo 4035-4043 E1 Camino Way 4101-4121 E1 Camino Way (east of East Meadow Dr.) Description Hoover Pavilion CSAA Office/Surgery Center (planned and zoned for housing; RM-40) St. Alberts Church Town & Country Shop. Center Intermodal transit Center/Red Cross Former Fasani Carpets/Turner Martin Underutilized commercial site Vacant lot and fast food restaurant Mayfield site (planned and zoned for housing; RM-40) City. parking lots County Mental Health Building 2-story commercial structures Various commercial and office buildings Various older, underutilized commercial uses Various older, underutilized commercial uses Mix of underutilized commercial uses Mix of underutilize~l comm. uses; vehicle storage Medical Office (planned and zoned for housing; RM-15) Fry’s site (planned and zoned for housing; RM- 30) Single-family houses Former Coop Market CAR facility Varian Manpower Office; Jiffy Lube; Compadres Restaurant Existing motel Mayflower Motel Palo Alto Bowling Alley (planned and zoned housing; RM-30/RM-15) Vacant orchard and 4 homes (planned and zoned for housing; RM=40) Existing home/commercial uses Small shopping center Site No. 12-14 12-16 12-18 12-19 12-20 13-01 13-03 Description Small, older commercial uses Mix of vacant and marginal commercial uses Site Address 4125-4139 E1 Camino Way (north of James Rd.) 3700 E1 Camino Real (btwn. Barron Ave. and La Selva) 4200-4232 E1 Camino Real 4085 El Camino Way at West Meadow 3505-3783 E1 Camino Real 4111 & 4161 Alma St. 725 San Antonio Rd. & 4151 Middlefield Rd. (Woolworth’s Nursery) 687 Arastradero Rd. Various commercial/office uses Goodwill Store Various underutilized commercial uses Church and YWCA Office uses 15-01 Greenhouse, vacant Palo Alto/PCJune02/AppendicesRev-PC Rev. 6/14/02 APPENDIX G Resource Persons Contacted During Preparation of 1999-2006 Housing Element City Staff. Julie Caporgno, Department of Planning and Community Environment Joan Taylor, Department of Planning and Community Environment Catherine Siegel, Department of Planning and Community Environment Suzanne Bayley, Department of Planning and Community Environment Roland Rivera, Department of Planning and Community Environment Anna Camaraoto, Department of Planning and Community Environment Curtis Williams, Contract Planner Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Litsie Indergand, Peninsula Interfaith Action Edie Keating, Peninsula Interfaith Action Bonnie Packer, Planning Commission Sally Probst, League of Women Voters Jo Ann Acero, Mid-Peninsula Housing Bob Golton, Palo Alto Unified School District Tina Allen, Palo Alto Unified School District FOCUS Group Martin Bernstein, Architect Dave Ahn, Habitat for Humanity Tony Carrasco, Architect Steve Blanton, Real Estate Broker Sunny Dykwel, Real Estate Agent Dan Dykwel, Real Estate Agent Laura Ferrell, Contractor Judith Wasserman, ArchitectJARB Member Drew Maran, Contractor/ARB Member Vera Goupille, Lytton Gardens Senior Complex Bill Phillips, Stanford Land Management David Baker, Architect Scott Ward, Contractor APPENDIX H Bibliography/DataSources Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Needs Determination, May 2000 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2000 Bay Area Economics, MarketAnalysisfor 753 Alma Street, April 21,1995 Bay Area Housing, Blueprint 2001: Housing Element Ideas and Solutions City of Palo Alto, Consolidated Plan, July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005 City of Palo Alto, Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2003 City of Palo Alto, Municipal Code, Chapter 18,1998 Edition County of Santa Clara, Office of the Homeless Coordinator, 1995 Overview of Homelessness in Santa Clara County, March 10, 1995 HomeBase, Homelessness in the Bay Area, 1990 Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc., Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Forecasts for the Palo Alto Unified School District, December 1992 State of California, Department of Finance, Household and Population Reports, 1980-96 United States, Bureau of the Census, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census United Way of Santa Clara County, United Way Needs Assessment for Santa Clara County, 1993-94 Palo Alto/Final Draft/Housing Element Tech Doc Appendices Sept 25 9/25/02 0 o,1 o o o,1 0 0 o o o 00 0 o o 0 o o o N E o o 0 0 cq o o 0 c o o DEpARTIV~NT OF HOUSING AND CO~ DEVELOP~NT Di~si0n of Housing Policy Development 1804) Third Street, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 ATTACHMENT Dw~:hcd.¢zz.gov (916) 323-3176 F,~: (9t6) 327-2643 May 3, 2002 Mr. Steve Emslie Director of Planning and Community Environment Department of Planning and Inspection City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Mr. Emslie: RE: Review of the City of Palo Alto’s Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Palo Alto’s draft housing element, received for our review on March 6, 2002. As you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A meeting with Ms. Julie Caporgno and Ms. Catherine Siegel, of your staff, on April 23, 2002, assisted our review. This letter and Appendix summarize that meeting and our review. We commend the City for its efforts to develop a housing element that addresses local and regional housing needs, including many innovative actions taken by the City, such as a program to exempt infrastructure impact fees for affordable housing and redevelopment of parking areas to provide additional residential capacity. We also eornmend the City’s approach to public participation and establishing a vision to increase affordable housing through mixed use and transit oriented land use strategies. However, some revisions will be necessary to comply with State housing element law. In particular, the element should be revised to expand and clarify the analysis of the land inventory and governmental constraints. We look forward to reviewing the revisions in the near future. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate the courtesy and assistance of Ms. Caporgno and Ms. Siegel during the course of our review. We would be glad to meet in Palo Alto again or otherwise provide additional assistance to aid the City in revising its housing element. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Mc Dougall, of our staff, at (916) 322-7995. l~. ~teve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 2 In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Deputy Director Enclosure CC:~ulie Caporgno, City of Palo Alto Catherine Siegel, City of Palo Alto Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Catherine Ysrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG’s Office Terry Roberts, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Kimberley Dellinger, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty S. Lyrm Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon Ruben Duran, Law Firm ofNeufieid, Jaffe & Levin David Booher, California Housing Council Sue Hestor, Attorney at Law Gary Hambly, Building Industry Association Paul Carnpos, Home Builders Assoc. of Northern California Shannon Dodge, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Eve Bach, Arc Ecology William Litt, Bay Area Legal Aid APPENDIX City of Palo Alto The following changes would bring City of 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. A.Housing Needs~ Resources and Constraints Include an analysis and documentation of househoM characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition 65683(a)(2). The element should include more information on the degree of overpayment in the City, in order to assist in the development of programs to meet the community’s needs. For your information, 62.6 percent of renters were overpaying in 1990, of which, 81.9 percent had income less than $35,000. Also, 31.7 percent of owners were overpaying and 24.8 percent of this number had incomes less than $35,000. According to the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Determination for the 2001-2006 housing element cycle, Palo Alto has 674 overpaying low income owners and 2,312 overpaying low income renters. lnclude 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 land inventory analysis should be expanded to indicate and clarify the following items: While the element includes a general discussion of the City’s efforts on the redevelopment of housing opportunity sites in the planning period (pages 64-65), the element should more specifically discuss existing uses, general character and viability of the sites judged suitable for redevelopment, including recent development trends, relative market conditions and realistic development capacity. For example, site 8-09(a) has a nursery as an existing use. The element should discuss whether it is an operating nursery and the realistic redevelopment potential of the site. Also, site 10-02 is described with a use of Sun Microsystems. The element should discuss the status of its use and the viability of its redevelopment. In the case of housing sites with a mix of densities or planned commmaity developments, the element should clarify the mix of housing types and intensities. For example, site number 12-07 (Housing Sites Inventory) should explain the extent of land assigned RM- 30, RM-15 and R-1 and should indicate the anticipated housing types, such as small lot single family or three to four story, garden style apartments. According to the element, most housing development will be on infill sites. Consequently, the element should indicate whether the adequacy of existing infrastructure will impact the feasibility of development of any sites in the inventory, especially for lower-income housing. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement,. or development of hoasing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), including land use controls, 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 the need for housing for persons with disabilities identified pursuant to paragraph (6) (Section 65583(a)(4)). Land-Use Controls: While the element includes a brief overview of residential districts, the element should be revised to include a more comprehensive description and analysis of residential development standards and their potential impact on the development and cost of housing in each of the City’s residential zoning districts. For example, the analysis for each residential district should include lot coverage, height restrictions, parking requirements, open space requirements and floor area ratios. D_D_es_j_ima Review: The analysis the architeetaxral review process should be expanded to analyze its impact upon housing affordability. The element should indicate whether objective standards and guidelines exist to allow an applicant for a residential development permit to determine what is required; mitigating many of the cost impacts. In addition, the element mentions the anticipated use of "form codes", which stresses building types as opposed to uses. The element should discuss the potential impacts of utilizing "form codes" with regard.to the supply and affordability of housing. Fee_.__~s: Although the element includes a general discussion of fees, the element should include a comprehensive analysis of fees and exactions imposed through the development application process, including planning fees (i.e., general plan amendments, rezones, variance, etc.). Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: In accordance with recently enacted legislation (SB 520 - see enclosures), the element should analyze the potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities and demonstrate the City’s efforts to remove governmental constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, such as accommodating procedures for the approval of group homes, AlIA retrofit efforts, an evaluation of the zoning code for ADA compliance or other measures that provide flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities. We have enclosed the recent statute for your information. B.Housin~ Programs Include a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions 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, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate financing. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions (Section 65583(c)). Program actions should include specific implementation actions to ensure the City can meet housing element requirements and demonstrate its commitment.to implementation. Program and policy descriptions with language such as "consider", "explore the feasibility", "during the zoning ordinance update", do not demonstrate, in most Cases, firm commitment to the program or policy. As a result, programs should be revised to demonstrate firm commitment to the implementation of the City’s goals, policies and program. Where appropriate, the element should also clarify the completion dates for programs and identify funding sources (sending examples of program descriptions under separate cover - also see Qs & As). For example, the element should revise programs including, but.not limited to the following: Program H-2 (Encourage development densities at hig.~her end of density range) - The program should be revised to describe how the City will encourage densities at the higher end of the range. Program H-19 (Elimination of Additional Design Review for Mixed Usesl - The program should indicate when this action would be completed. Program H-21 (Allow Waivers of Deve~ _ The element should clarify the circumstances where a developer can expect a fee waiver. For example, would projects with 20 percent of the units for lower income households qualify for a waiver? Program H-46 (Seek Funding to Support Development and Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing) - The program should specify funding sources and when the City will apply for funding. Policy H-19 (Support Family Housing) - While the element includes a policy to support families and special needs groups, there is no program action to implement this policy. 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 all income levels, including 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 all household income levels, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning 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 comment A2 above, further analysis of the suitability of sites described in the element is needed. The adequacy of sites earmot be established prior to a more detailed analysis; however, the element should be revised facilitate compliance with this requirement, as follows: Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing- While Program H-51 (page 24 of 30) permits homeless shelters in certain zones with a conditional use permit, the element should also describe how the conditional use process and development standards eneoumgg, and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters and/or transitional housing. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities (Section 65583(c)(3)). o o As noted above (A3), Palo Alto’s element requires a more thorough analysis of potentiai ’ " governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to add programs to remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In accordance with recently enacted legislation (SB 520), the element should contain a program that removes constraints or provides reasonable accommodations for housing intended for persons with disabilities. The housing element shall contain programs which "assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households" (Section 65583(c)(2)). State density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915, et. seq.) (Law) was revised in 1989 to require local governments to adopt an.ordinance that would offer developers a 25 percent density increase over the maximum allowed density if specified percentages of the units cons~.~cted wou!d~ be occ,api~d by very low, low or elderly households. The Law precludes local governments from offering incentives to developers that would undermine the intent of this statute to significantly contribute to the economic feasibility of developing lower-income housing (Section 65917). For this reason, density bonuses for the development of moderate-income units are not to be offered under the provisions of the Law (the 1989 amendments eliminated the eligibility of moderate-income units) unless the developer has already met the State standards for lower-income or senior units. The element describes situations in which the City offers density bonuses for the development of moderate-income units (Program H-36). The City’s density bonus ordinance should be revised to comply with the provisions of the Law. We are sending, under separate cover, a copy of our publications State Density Bonus Law, and a Model Density Bonus Ordinance to assist in developing an ordinance that conforms to State Density Bonus Law. The housing program shall conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock (Section 65583(c)(4). The element states that Palo Alto has a housing stock in very good condition and the only disproportionate incidence of repair or replacement needs occurs in the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (Page 45). As a result, the City should develop a program t~ conserve this low and moderate income housing resource unaer Goal H-2: to conserve zaid n~aintain the "---:-~: ,- housing stock or should strengthen Program H-39 to include more proactive preservation efforts such as rehabilitation activities. The housing program shall promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color (Section 65583(c)(5)). The City’s fair housing programs (Programs H-54 through H-57) should be expanded to describe the City’s role in implementation and how fair housing information is disseminated to potential complainants. We have enclosed a copy of the Deparmaent’s publication, Housing Element Questions and Answers to facilitate your revision. ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager June 26, 2002 Review of Draft Housing Element IncorpOrating Revisions Based on State Comments RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed revisions to the. draft Housing Element Technical Document and Chapter 4 (Housing) of the Comprehensive Plan responding to the comments issued by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised draft Housing Element and submittal to the State for a mandatory 90-day review. BACKGROUND Attached to this memorandum are draft versions of Chapter 4 - Housing - of the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element Technical Document, Attachments A and B, respectively. These two documents constitute the draft Housing Element amendment of the City of Palo Alto. In early March 2002, the City of Palo Alto submitted a draft Housing Element amendment to HCD for review and comment. HCD completed its review of the draft Housing Element amendment and forwarded its comments to the City in early May 2002 (see Attachment C). The purpose of this staff report is to summarize the comments made by HCD and describe how staff has revised the Housing Element to respond to these comments. The attached documents have been redlined to identify the additions and deletions to the existing draft Housing Element amendment that was forwarded by the City Council to City of Palo Alto Page 1 HCD: The City Council is expected to review the suggested staff and any Planning Commission revisions to the draft Housing Element amendment at a public hearing in September. It should be noted that HCD has also formally informed the City of Palo Alto that the City’s existing Housing Element is no longer in compliance with State law since the City’s Housing Element amendment was not adopted before the December 31,2001 deadline mandated by State law. An out-of-date Housing Element may jeopardize the City’s ability to compete for the limited housing funds available to build affordable. housing and may expose the City to possible litigation by housing advocates and others. ANALYSIS The comment letter from HCD commends Palo Alto for its efforts to develop a Housing Element that addresses local and regional housing needs, including innovative actions "...such as a program to exempt infrastructure impact fees for affordable housing and redevelopment of parking areas to provide additional residential capacity". The City is also commended for its public participation process and establishing a vision to increase affordable housing using mixed use and transit-oriented land use strategies. HCD’s letter explains that limited revisions to the draft Housing Element amendment will be necessary to comply with State law. These revisions are relatively minor and do not significantly affect the overall direction of the draft Housing Element endorsed by the City Council in March of this year. The revisions are divided into two main categories in HCD’s letter. The first category addresses the topic of Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints and relates primarily to the text of the draft Housing Element Technical Document. The second category addresses Housing Programs and relates primarily to the text of Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan - Housing. State Comments on the Technical Document related to Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints Overpayment Analysis HCD’s indicates that the Housing Element should include more information on the degree households overpaid for housing (i.e., devoted more than 30% of household income for housing). Staff has added substantial information on this subject on pages 27-28 of the draft Housing Element Technical Document. This information documents overpayment data based on the 1990 Census; 2000 Census information is not yet available on this subject. Housing Site Inventor~ HCD indicates that the analysis of the City’s proposed Housing Site Inventory should be City of Palo Alto Page 2 expanded to better demonstrate the likelihood of these istes being developed within the timeframe of this Housing Element. Staff has revised Appendix E of the draft Housing Element Technical Document to include a data sheet on each Housing Inventory Site which identifies the following topics: existing land use; the status of the site and its improvements; the availability of access, infrastructure and services; redevelopment and reuse potential; and potential dwelling unit yield and mix of housing types. Land Use Controls HCD also requested that amore comprehensive description and analysis of the City’s residential standards and their potential impact on the development and cost of housing should be provided in order to evaluate governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing. Staff responded by preparing a matrix of the City’s key residential development standards and described how those standards allowed for reasonable housing development without significantly impacting the cost of housing in Palo Alto (see pages 61-63 of the draft Housing Element Technical Document). The text was also revised to point out the Housing Programs the City .has added to reduce governmental constraints on the production of housing. Design Review_ The State also requested more information on the City’s design review process and the availability of objective design guidelines, a more detailed analysis of fees and exactions as they affect the cost of residential development, and a more detailed discussion regarding constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. A description of the City’s design processes, including the preliminary review of applications, and design guidelines has been added on pages 65-66 of the Technical Document. This description indicates how these procedures and guidelines can actually reduce housing costs by reducing delays in project processing. Fees A detailed analysis of the City’s fees, including recently adopted fees for parks, community centers and libraries, is provided on pages 66-68 of the Technical Document. This analysis shows that the City’s fees add no more than 2% to 2.6% to the cost of a typical home in Palo Alto, which is insignificant when compared to land, labor and construction costs. However, the City does recognize that these fees can create problems for development of affordable housing; therefore, the draft Housing Element includes policies and programs to exempt affordable housing from certain fees. Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities A new subsection addressing the issue of houslng constraints for persons with disabilities is provided on page 63 of the Technical Document. This section indicates that the City currently enforces all applicable laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to provide adequate housing for persons with disabilities and is unaware of any City of Palo Alto Page 3 constraints related to the production of this type of housing through its zoning ordinance or other regulations. This subsection also identifies the Housing Programs the City will implement to ensure that there is no housing discrimination for persons with disabilities. State Comments on Chapter 4 related to Housing Programs Action Plan HCD indicated that certain of the Housing Programs contained in the draft Housing Element should be reworded to demonstrate the City’s commitment to carrying out these programs. Staff re-evaluated all of the housing programs and made revisions which we believe will addresses HCD’s concerns by: providing more specificity in terms of how a policy will work, including clarifying its intent, or indicating the fimeframe in which a ¯ program is expected to be implemented. Examples of Housing Programs changed include programs H-2, H-3, H-5, H-19, H-21, H-42 and H-46. In some cases, such as Housing Policy 19, new programs were added to demonstrate the City’s commitment to supporting and implementing its housing policies. In addition new programs were proposed to reinforce existing housing policies or programs to further demonstrate the City’s commitment to the production of affordable housing. Examples include Housing Programs: H-32a - provide preferential or priority processing for affordable housing applications. H-46a - continue support for the Santa Clara County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate program promoting low- and moderate-income homeownership. H-49a - ensure that development regulations provide for development of shared housing or other innovative housing types. H-50a - ensure that development regulations provide for development of housing that provides services to households with special needs. Housing Site Inventor5, The second comment in this category reiterated HCD’s concern that more detailed analysis was needed of the viability and suitability of the sites identified in the Housing Site Inventory. That issue has been addressed in the draft Housing Element Technical Document as described in the previous section addressing the State’s comments on housing needs, resources and constraints. Additionally, HCD wanted information on how the City would encourage and facilitate the development of emergency homeless shelters and transitional housing. To address this, staff is proposing the addition of Housing Program H-51 a, which calls for the creation of location and development criteria for both emergency shelters and transitional housing to expedite the processing of applications for these types of housing. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Governmental Constraints HCD indicated that the issue of potential governmental constraints needed more thorough analysis; particularly in regards to persons with disabilities and that a program to address potential governmental constraints to the provision of housing for disabled persons should be added. The Housing Element needs to particularly address the components of Senat~ Bill SB520, which is.designed to reduce housing discrimination based on family status, disability or other discriminatory practices. Staffis proposing the addition of Housing Programs H-57a and H-57b that continue the City’s efforts to identify and eliminate potentially discriminatory regulations hampering the production of housing for the disabled and continue the City’s efforts generally to end housing discrimination. Housing Program H-57a also calls for the creation of development procedures to better facilitate reasonable accommodation requests for housing for persons with special needs. New Housing Program 50a seeks to remove obstacles to the creation of housing providing services .to special needs households. Densi _ty Bonus Requirements HCDe expressed concern that the wording of Housing Program H-36 indicated that density bonuses for moderate income households would be allowed without addressing the needs of lower-income or senior households first as required by State law. Staff has proposed language revisions to Housing Programs H-35 (which addresses density bonuses) and H-36 clarifying that the City’s density bonus programs will comply with State law. Affordable Housing Stock Conservation HCD also raised concerns related to the physical condition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and the City’s efforts to preserve this unique source of affordable housing. HCD suggested that a program was necessary to conserve this source of housing. To address this issue, staff is suggesting that Housing Program H-39 be modified to indicate that the City will, to the extent feasible, seek appropriate funding for the preservation of the affordable housing provided by the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Fair Housing Programs HCD also asked the City to expandthe discussion of the City’s role in combating housing discrimination and the dissemination of fair housing information to those that may be affected by housing discrimination. Staff has proposed the addition of Housing Program H-57b, which reiterates the City’s ongoing commitment to eliminate housing discrimination and clarifies that the City provides funding and support to the Mid- Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing in its efforts to disseminate information regarding fair housing. City of Palo Alto Page 5 CONCLUSION The proposed revisions to the draft Housing Element amendment described above address the comments and concerns raised by HCD. Although not considered significant changes to the Housing Element, they do reinforce and strengthen the City’s commitment to meeting its.fair share of the region’s housing needs. Furthermore, these revisions are consistent with the overall direction of the City’s housing policies. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend adoption of the Housing Element as revised to the City Council and submittal of the adopted Housing Element amendment to the State for its final review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report will be prepared prior to adoption of the draft Housing Element by the City Council. The Comprehensive Plan Environmental Report was certified by the City Council on July 20, 1998. The addendum will be prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental. Quality Act Guidelines. ATTACHM-ENTS/EXtIIBITS Attachment A: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 : Housing Element - Revised Attachment B: Draft Housing Element Technical Document Attachment C: Letter from State Department of Housing and Community Development COURTESY COPIES David Neuman, Stanford University, 855 Serra Street, 2nd Floor, Stanford, CA 94305 Housing Element Technical Advisory Committee Prepared by: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DepartmentJDivisi0n Head Approval: ~~_ ~’~ ~:~ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes June 26, 2002 EXCERPT HousingElement: Review and recommendation to the City Council on the revised Draft Housing Element which incorporates changes based on state review. These changes include modifications to the Site Inventory. Chair Burt: Our next item is a Review and recommendations to the City Council on the revised Draft Housing Element to the Comprehensive Plan, which incorporates changes based on state review. These changes include modifications to the Site Inventory. Before proceeding I would like to recognize Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I will step down and not participate in this. My employer is a non-profit affordable housing developer that is about to be contracted with by the City to do some analysis of the housing sites. Chair Burt: So Commissioner Schmidt will not be participating in this item. At this time, Julie, would you like to commence with a Staff Report? Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance.Planning Manager: Thank you, Chair Burt. The item before the Commission tonight is the Draft Housing Element. Tonight there are three items regarding the Housing Element on which we wanted to focus the Commission’s attention. First, changes to the Housing Element document that have been made since last October when the Commission last reviewed the Housing Element. The Housing Site Inventory which was not discussed by the Commission at their October meeting and Staff" s responses to the State Department of Housing and Community Development after its review of the Draft Housing Element which was completed in May of this year. After the Planning Commission last reviewed the Draft Housing Element in early October the City Council discussed the Element at four separate meetings. In general the Council supported the provision of affordable and attainable housing or housing that is affordable in a more generic meaning than what the term "affordable" usually implies. That is less than 120% of the County median which is today consider around $96,000 for a family of four. We don’t have any up to date census data for Palo Alto but I believe the median income for Palo Alto would be well above $110,000 to $115,000. At the four Council meetings the main discussion was the Housing Site Inventory, the criteria for listing, its purpose and the individual sites on the Inventory. At its initial review in October the City Council raised several issues related to the Housing Element, which Staff addressed at the next meeting in early February. The Council wanted assurance that new housing development should be focused on providing affordable and again attainable housing rather than enabling more high-end market rate housing. They felt that the Housing Site Inventory was too inclusive and contained sites that may not be appropriate Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 for high-density residential or mixed-use development. They were concerned that new housing development may not keep pace with job growth and that new housing will result in additional service demands and additional housing production may increase traffic level of serve impacts. Staff modified the Housing Element to address Council issues by reducing the Housing Site Inventory, focusing high density housing near transit stations and along the E1 Camino Real and San Antonio corridors. This was because in particular the VTA bus route 22 along E1 Camino is the most heavily used bus route in Santa Clara County. In fact the new bus-rail transit line is proposed by the VTA to be located along this route because of its heavy usage. Staff also added more policies to the Element to provide opportunities for affordable housing as well housing for middle-income buyers and renters. These included encouraging the production of smaller units, restricting the size of main units in DHS Zones, which is a zone in the SOFA II area, and increasing densities to produce more units and allow market forces to reduce housing costs. These are in addition to various policies already included in the Element. Staff also included language that required new development to be consistent with surrounding densities and intensities of development and designed to preserve neighborhood character. As I mentioned before the Inventory was the real focus of the Council meetings. Staff provided the Council with inventory criteria for site selection which consisted of the following, there were two separate items. One consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies such as utilizing vacant and under-utilized land for housing, using existing urban facilities and infrastructure efficiently, supporting transit use by encouraging transit oriented and pedestrian friendly development, encouraging infill development, encouraging mixed-use development particularly in city centers, encouraging mixed-use development to provide housing, encouraging the provision of diverse housing opportunities for lower income households, improving the jobs/housing imbalance by providing housing, creating opportunities for new mixed-use development. In addition to policies in the Comprehensive Plan that we used for our criteria there are also site characteristics that we incorporated. These included sites that were vacant or under-utilized, sites that had single owner or parcel assembly was not required or very limited, sites that were at least half an acre or more, sites that were already zoned or planned for housing or mixed-uses that allowed housing, sites where adequate public facilities and urban services were available, sites compatible with adjacent land uses including single family neighborhoods, good pedestrian access and proximity to schools, parks, jobs, libraries, good likelihood ofrezoning for housing prior to 2004 in order to demonstrate to the state that land is reserved for housing within the timeframe of the Housing Element which is 2006. I know there has been some concern about the two dates. We proposed in the Housing Element to rezone properties that weren’t adequately zoned or planned for housing by the year 2004 so the state understood that there would be that two year period of time in which those housing sites could be developed with housing. Allow reuse or redevelopment of already developed sites particularly non- residential sites appropriate for housing. In general, that any impediments to development of housing are limited. Page 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 Staff also developed the Site Inventory through using a process that I will describe 3 briefly. First of all we looked at sites that were listed in the Comprehensive Plan for 4 multiple family housing that are vacant or underdeveloped. We also tested the criteria 5 against these sites to ensure that everyone of these sites could accommodate high density 6 development but we assumed they would since the Council had already approved them 7 for high density development through the year 2010. We also listed sites with pending 8 development proposals that meet the criteria because pragmatically we felt that those 9 sites would be developed and zonings were in place so that the City wouldn’t have to 10 initiate zonings for those sites. They would be done privately so it would limit the number ofrezonings that the City would have to undertake. Then finally sites that meet the criteria and seem likely that we could rezone by the year 2004, that the property owners would be amenable to our proposing rezonings on those sites. As a result of the process that I just described Staff identified the list that you see in from of you. We distributed to you tonight a more detailed matrix of the Inventory that shows the application of these criteria. The sites that are in bold in your matrix are the ones that would not require any rezonings to meet the state requirements Some of the sites that are not in bold, the City could develop with housing under our existing zoning but the state wouldn’t recognize them. For instance it was a light industrial zoning district, the state wants us to actually rezone to preserve that site. now if somebody were to come in and develop it in housing and develop it under the light industrial zoning district the state isn’t going to say you have to go back and change it because the housing is there. So it is kind of dependent upon how imminent it is that development will occur or the City is going to have actually go in and rezone these sites. I was going to just walk you through these sites to show you the likelihood of development and why we selected them to be incorporated on a list. The first one is Edgewood Plaza which the City is currently undertaking an evaluation of whether or not this site should be redeveloped and as part of that redevelopment there would be 38 units allowed on the property.. The Oak Court Development, which has already gone through the whole development review process and Palo Alto Housing Corporation is in the process of trying to obtain funding for the site. There is a property in SOFA that is kind of a remnant medical use. Since SOFA has now changed considerably we felt that that would be an appropriate site to include in the Inventory. The Creamery site or 800 High site which is currently going through the development review process. The former Kraft and Flora building, which I believe is vacant. The Opportunity Center, which is in the process of going through development review. The power substation in the SOFA area, which is owned by the City Utility Department, and it has been determined that that site is more than likely surplus and so that has the opportunity for redevelopment. There is a site on Birch and Sheridan where two vacant lots and four houses. The Green World Nursery, which is currently being marketed for housing. VTA Park & Ride Lot, it is my understand that the VTA is interested in some sort of joint use on that property. At Sheridan and Park Boulevard there has been interested expressed in redeveloping that site with a housing project. There is a medical office on E1 Camino Real that is around half an acre. The Sun Microsystems site, which it is my understanding the JCC has acquired. Page 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 The information that we included in Appendix E, which is more detailed information on 2 all of these sites we got from the JCC representative who indicated that they are planning 3 on incorporating along with the community facility senior housing as well as what he 4 called attainable housing, that Bridge Housing was proposing about 225 units of 5 attainable, lower end market rate housing and then about 100 units for assisted living for 6 a senior facility. The former Blockbuster site, a proposal is under review for that site for 7 nine units. The Hyatt Rickey’s where there is some development is under consideration 8 for that site. The Elk’s Lodge is in process of working with a developer to put forward a 9 proposal on that site. The Palo Alto Bowling Alley, which is our understanding it is 10 being marketed for housing. There is a vacant piece of property on E1 Camino Real. 11 Alma Plaza, which is currently going through the development review process. Then 12 1215, we will probably remove that from the list because that site is already under construction. It will go as credit towards our housing units but since it is already developed it is a benefit but we will have to provide eight more units. Then San Antonio Road, I know you have reviewed a subdivision map for that property. We would still like to retain it on the Inventory. It is our understanding that the owner is not adverse to changing the land use or rezoning the property but they don’t want to rezone or change the land use on the property. So this would be one that the City would have to initiate that change and if that happened prior to the development of this for single family then it could be used for multiple family development. That is very briefly the rationale for the Inventory that you see before us. As a result of the last Council meeting, the Council asked us to send the document to the state for review and also refer the Inventory to the Planning Commission for their recommendation and review. The Council at that time accepted the criteria that I had mentioned to you that we used for selection of sites with some minor modifications. They asked us also to include in the Housing Element a policy related to the importance of preserving the unique character of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods which we included in Policy H-1 and they asked us also to remove the [Clemos] site from the Inventory, which had previously been on the Inventory when it came before you although you really didn’t discuss it. So that item has been removed from the Inventory because the International School at the time was considering locating on the property. It is my understanding they aren’t any more but we didn’t add the site to the Inventory. We were waiting to see what the Council would do when it goes back to them. That takes care, briefly, of the Inventory. The final topic I want to focus on tonight were comments from Housing and Community Development, which were focused on the housing programs and the housing text in Chapter Four of the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Needs Resources and Constraints in the Housing Technical Document both of which you received. In Chapter Four the state wanted more commitment from the City in the application of the programs identified in the Element. We have inserted language in the Element that should address the City’s plan for action, how to implement the programs. So that should satisfy the state. We also modified Program H-39 to seek funds to preserve Buena Vista Mobile Home Park since it is a unique source of affordable housing and that is something else that the state wanted to see some language or some method of preserving that resource. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Staff also added language to address requirements of State Senate Bill 520 related to housing discrimination and in a related area expanded the discussion of the City’s commitment to fair housing and emergency housing. HCD’s comments on the Technical Document requested information on overpayment and an analysis of the City’s residential standards and fees and their impact on the development and cost of housing. That information has been incorporated in the Housing Technical Document that you have received and redlined for your benefit. Finally, the state requested additional information on the individual Housing Sites Inventory to better demonstrate the likelihood of these sites being developed within the timeframe of this Housing Element. In response to that Staff prepared Appendix E of the Technical Document, which provides specific data for each listed housing site. Finally, the Next Steps for the Element. After the Commission reviews the Element and makes a recommendation the Council will review the document. We are hoping that will occur sometime in September. Subsequent to the Council adoption the state will have 90 days to determine the Element’s compliance with state housing law. In closing I just want to state that the City has also been notified by the state that currently we do not have a Housing Element that is in compliance with state law. The state has indicated that, I am reading now from the letter that we received from the state, "Failure to adopt a Housing Element pursuant to the statutory schedule also leaves a community at risk of legal challenges and may reduce a communities competitiveness or eligibility for certain state funding resources." With that I conclude Staff’s report. Thank you. Chair Burt: Questions from Commissioners before heating from the public? Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Julie, on the Housing Inventory you list in the far fight-hand column the potential dwelling unit yield for each of these different properties. I take it that this is the total number of units as opposed to the below market or affordable units that might be derived. Ms. Caporgno: That is the total number of units, that is not the below market rate component. The reason there are so many is because we only have to provide 616 below market rate units. We have provided all of our share of market rate so from now on the only credit we will be getting as far as the state is concerned will be credit towards the below market rate component. Since we know that all that housing won’t be affordable, that only a portion of it will be, we have more units than actually are needed but there is only a percentage of those that will be below market rate, therefore, we feel the state would accept the supposition that of those let’s say 1,000 units 60% of them will be affordable. That is probably a very high estimate. We do know as we went through that list that several projects are strictly affordable units. The Opportunity Center with 95 units, Oak Court with 53 units and I don’t know with the JCC project if there would be a component or how much of that would actually provide affordable units or below market rate units. Then we are proposing as a policy in the Housing Element a 15% BMR requirement for every housing development. So with that it would be more Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 understandable if the state were to say that we are closer to the 600 units that you need, even though maybe not all of those, we are going to meet all of that need. Commissioner Griffin: I guess I didn’t see how we got to that point because in fact you have 1,141 units and you need 600-plus. IfI were sitting up in Sacramento I might be tempted to ask the question, how do you get to that 600 here when these are in fact the total? I am not sure if I am asking that question so that you understand what my meaning is but evidently the state does not require us to indicate the amount of below market units that we will produce from our inventory. Ms. Caporgno: I think they understand there is a BMR component for all those units and then some of those projects, as I have mentioned, are strictly affordable. So we did in the Technical Document we have actually stated that we think we will probably be able to provide about 250 affordable units. That is acceptable to the state. The state realizes that we aren’t in the housing business nor can we control market forces but we are doing the best we can to provide sites that could accommodate the regional need. Commissioner Griffin: So then you are telling me that we are predicting 200 out of this 1,100 will be BMR units? Ms. Caporgno: Approximately 250 we are predicting will meet that 600 unit need. Commissioner Griffin: That was the answer to the question, thanks. Ms. Caporgno: Can I just add one more thing? Now, that is probably a pragmatic assumption. There may be more. We don’t know for certain. There could be a large housing development come in that is strictly affordable. Based on the information that we have to date that is our estimate. Chair Burt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I am going to ask you a leading question. The reason for my question is I want it to be clarified for the public what the impact of our recommendations are vis-a-vie the Inventory and also ultimately when the City Council makes a decision that we are not, if we recommend all these parcels for the Inventory, we are not saying absolutely that this has to be built in this way. Each of these projects when it comes to us will go through the appropriate environmental review and the appropriate considerations vis-a-vie the neighborhood and the impact and the traffic. That we are not making any decisions vis-a-vie any of these projects that they are good, bad or indifferent. We are just saying that these are potential sites. Some are more potential than others such as Oak Court but these are potential sites for housing. Is that correct? Ms. Caporgno: What we are saying is the City would be demonstrating on this list that they have provided sites that would accommodate the need that the state has indicated we need to provide. We are not saying that all these sites will be developed. We have no control over the numbers of units that will be developed. In the past the City has never Page 6 1 produced the amount of housing that has been required of it. It is just that we need to 2 demonstrate that it is there for development if in fact that were to occur. As I said, a 3 large number of these sites are already designated on the land use diagram for housing. 4 There is nothing that would require, there is nothing that says that somebody would have 5 to develop this site within this timeframe and if the site is not listed on this Inventory the 6 site can still develop for housing. So it is more of an estimate of what we think could 7 develop that would meet our regional housing needs and demonstrate to the state that we 8 have sufficient land for that need. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Wynne, you look like you want to say something. Ms. Furth: I think it was a good leading question. One of the things to keep in mind is that local governments do still have most control over land use decisions. Housing policy is generally decided at the Federal and state level when it comes to funding and funding is the principle determinate of what kind of housing gets built. Most of our housing subsidy in fact goes to market rate housing in the form of mortgage interest deductions. The state has not come forth with a plan to fund even the desired below market rate housing projects, as you know, because of the competitions that those who wish to provide that kind of housing, that have City approval, there are still not enough resources to go around. So we have projects that the City has approved, that neighbors have welcomed and that the state has not funded. They while not offering us sufficient funding to carry forward with the housing initiatives that the City vigorously supports and while not yet removing our zoning authority, we are in this sort of interim - in between stage where because they are not allowed to impose un-funded mandates, they can’t order us to build the housing. Similarly we of course have no power to order people to build anything on their property. We can ask them to maintain what they have in decent order but we can’t say go out and build. What they are really saying is demonstrate that you are removing impediments that keep people with money and with the desire to build housing from doing it. That is what this list is about. Ms. Caporgno: I was just going to add, I didn’t respond to one thing that was asked. That was as far as the review process for any project if they were actually to develop housing, yes, they would have to go through the entire development review process. The Inventory does not entitle a project at all. It is just a list of what we think, these are the sites that we feel will be developed and we are identifying them. If they aren’t appropriately zoned then we would initiate a rezoning on those properties but it would go through an entire environmental review process and development review process for that rezoning. Chair Burt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I just want to say before the public comment that I cannot participate in the discussion of or vote on the inclusion of one of the properties listed on Appendix F to the Housing Element, which is entitled, Additional Potential Long Term Housing Sites. That is site number 13-03, that is the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield and that is because I have a deed of trust on that property. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you for that clarification. I had a couple of questions. In the Housing Site Inventory I don’t see a couple of the sites that are referenced in the Comp Plan. One is the Town & Country Shopping Center as a prospective mixed-use site and the other is the Hoover Building. Ms. Caporgno: Initially we had the Hoover Pavilion on the site and Stanford had requested that site be removed. The list that had come before you initially included the Hoover Pavilion prior to it going to Council on October 9, 2001 and Stanford had requested that site be removed and the Council accepted that. As far as the Town & Country site, it is a site we put on the second tier which are sites that we feel would be appropriate for housing but we are not including them on the Inventory, we are not committing to any rezonings of these properties. The reason we put it on the second list is because we contacted Town & Country, they are interested in housing on a portion of the property in the future but not in the timeframe of this Housing Element and that is one of the state requirements. We must look at properties that we could either rezone or that we feel would be redeveloped within the timeframe or by the year 2006. So Town & Country possibly will be in your subsequent Housing Element Inventory. Chair Burt: So I understand that the reason for removing Town & Country from this phase is that we agree that it is not feasible within the timeframe. I didn’t understand on the Hoover Pavilion. Is there a process or a practice by which private land owners can merely request that their prospective sites be removed from our City consideration? Ms. Caporgno: It is my understanding that if we had to rezone the property we would need the permission of the property owner in order to rezone it. When we first established a list we sent letters out to all of the property owners to inform them that we are proposing listing them on the list and if they sent us information stating that they didn’t want to be included on the list then we didn’t include them on the list. We thought that we had sufficient information or sufficient sites to eliminate these properties. So that is what we have before us. Chair Burt: Wynne. Ms. Furth: Again, this is a list of sites which with appropriate zoning could reasonably be expected to produce this number of units before 2006. What is removed from that list and put on Appendix F are sites like both the Hoover Pavilion and Town & Country which are viewed by the City Comprehensive Plan or by the City Planners or the City public officials as good sites for housing someday but because of the present development there and the intentions of the owner the planners have concluded it is unlikely to flip to a different use in that time period. The Council can of course rezone property on its own initiative. Even the Planning Commission can initiate a zone change. The problem for this kind of document is that this is a list of places which are likely to yield some housing in the next few years and those property owners all have rights to amortize out their existing improvements on those sites. The amortization period is going Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 to be more than four years. So even if we rezoned it tomorrow they wouldn’t produce that kind of housing.unless the owners wanted it to. Chair Burt: Thank you. We have before us four public speakers and we are looking at what would be an appropriate time to take a break. We are up to five, six, seven. So I think that it may be appropriate at this time to take a break prior to public comments. Also, before we do so out of courtesy to members of the audience who are here for item number three which is the LM District Zoning Ordinance Update discussion, does it look, Staff, like we are going to have an opportunity to move into that item tonight? It is looking to me like that may not be feasible. Ms. Grote: We would really hope that you can get into the discussion. We can give you a presentation that we have prepared and you could at least start discussing it. We have identified 10 policy issues and made recommendations on those 10 issues that were in your report. We would like to be able to get to that discussion. If the Commission feels that you can’t do that there is .the potential to continue it to July 10. We would like to get into part of that discussion though, tonight. Chair Burt: Okay so for the interests of those members of the public who are here for item number three there is still going to be an attempt to at least proceed into the Staff Report and we will proceed on a best effort basis. Realistically it may not be feasible to do so. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Can we tell people who want to have public input that we will allow public input at a continued meeting so they do not have to stay? Is that a possibility, Pat? Chair Burt: It certainly seems that if we are able to enter that item tonight we would not be able to complete it. So I think we could in advance notify the public that they would have additional opportunity for public comment at the meeting when we would continue and you are anticipating it would be July 10. Ms. Grote: That is correct. It is not without its implications on the overall scheduled. We had planned on bringing to you the low density residential information, at least the beginnings of that, on July 10. So to continue this will have implications on the schedule that you should be aware of but it is possible to continue it. It is certainly possible to leave your hearing open in order to accept public testimony. Chair Burt: So for clarification, for those members of public who are not able to stick it out until wee hours tonight there would be an additional opportunity to comment on item number three most likely on July 10. At this time we would like to take a five to 10 minute break and then we will hear from the public on the Housing Element. Since I don’t anticipate that we will be done hearing from the public until after ten o’clock we have given further consideration to being realistic about our ability to get to item number three tonight, the Zoning Ordinance Update on Office Research, Indus.trial Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and Manufacturing Districts. It just doesn’t look like we are going to get to it so we want to make sure that anyone from the public who is here for that item is forewarned that it will be carried over until July 10. Yes, Curtis. Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: I just wanted to note for the Commission that we have two of our design consultants in the audience tonight and they are here observing, Marcy Macinelli and Joseph Reidy are in the back here. They will be coming to you probably in late July with a presentation of the anticipated process .that they look to go through with you. I did want you to know who they are if you see them around. They also probably will be contacting you individually to get some of your thoughts on how they can help you in the design process as we move through the process. Just in case they don’t stay through the whole issue tonight. Chair Burt: Thank you and thank you for coming. Our first speaker is Sally Probst to be followed by Deborah Ju. Ms. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, Palo Alto: Hello Chairman Burt and Commissioners. You have previously looked at this Housing Element before you sent it to the City Council before they had Staff send it to the state. So I know tonight is not a full blown review. It is not necessary. It is not called for. I did want to make a couple of comments and I would appreciate your consideration. First let me say I think this Staff has done an excellent job along with its consultant, but a lot of it has been Staff, of providing this draft and specifically answering the questions the City Council raised and of responding to the letter from HCD, which was a pretty moderate letter. They have done an excellent job. I particularly like what they did in the Appendix E, the Housing Sites. So now I support this Housing Element. It.not only complies with state law but it also makes a meaningful attempt to provide possibilities for the housing that the City needs so desperately for the people who make the City work, for teachers, emergency workers, nurses and even doctors and young adults who have to come home and double up with their parents. Believe me it is happening all over town. I question, however, a couple of things. Under Program H-5 Revised, on pages eight and nine under Density Limits and Residential Uses, they have added, and I know this was in response to a criticism, but they have added a repetitive reference to, "existing traffic levels of service at nearby intersections." This addition simply adds a restraint to building in many areas of the City where appropriate infill housing could, and I believe should, be built. Earlier I distributed or asked the Clerk to distribute to you an editorial from the Sacramento Bee and I hope that you have had time to glace at it. It is an excellent editorial. It says some of the things that I would like to say like, "The old traffic standards don’t work in many urban areas because they measure only one thing, the number of cars on the street. They ignore important competing values such as reducing speeds in residential neighborhoods, improving pedestrian and bicycle access, making bus use more convenient or the urgent need for affordable housing. Level of service standards are counter productive." Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 Then last week when the City was talking about traffic criteria, criteria for traffic standards, Irvin Dawid mentioned a bill that is in the legislature and that is what this editorial is about, which says the same thing. If you insist on level of service standards in urban areas you won’t do infill development, you won’t do smart growth, but you will add regional congestion, regional pollution and sprawl. You will use up the outside agricultural lands because that’s easy. If our Housing Element is going to add this further constraint, which I hope it won’t, we will have to indicate that at the end when it talks about what are the constraints that mitigate against doing anything about affordable housing in your city. A couple of other comments about the sites. Now that it looks as thought the International School as withdrawn from the [Clemo] site, I know that is not back here, it was on the original Housing Element. I think it should be returned. It is a good area for multi-family housing, it is a good area for affordable housing. Then another site I want to talk about is one that Annette has to not listen about, San Antonio and Middlefield Road. There was a temporary subdivision that came in and was approved to put about a dozen monster homes in this area. I believe.there is a permanent subdivision that is now coming through for approval It seems to me that we shouldn’t be approving subdivisions for monsters when this is a perfectly good area for multi-family housing. One other thing, we have a couple of mealy words in the Housing Element. Right from the start we have wanted stronger words. I don’t like "consider" and "encourage." I like "require" and "provide for." I understand we have to mealy-mouth a little bit. On the 30% of.Redevelopment Agency funds there is a suggestion that this will be looked at later, a couple of times, I am very glad. I understand that there is still a question about the Redevelopment Agency and some problems about that. So I can understand that maybe it is better to look at the 30% but I would urge you to, in sending this to the City Council, ask for 30% of Redevelopment funds for affordable housing now. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Deborah Ju to be followed by Penny Ellson. Ms. Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have put something on the overhead that ! hope will help people follow along. I am here tonight because I have serious concerns about the quantity of housing the Draft Housing Element promotes. Palo Alto cannot absorb this amount of growth because of our existing traffic congestion and overly stretched infrastructure. We cannot sustain the Housing Element’s volume approach to creating affordable housing relying on the production of six or seven market rate units for every BMR unit provided. We must find ways to fund and build affordable housing more directly. Our pursuit of affordable housing cannot be allowed to lead to over-development. One often stated goal is to provide affordable housing for our teachers, fire fighters and police officers. The high density small unit focus of the Housing Element would not meet this need. Teachers, fire fighters and police officers who are married want homes with yards where their children can play. The Housing Site Inventory identifies sites for the development of as many as 1,568 new residential units prior to 2004. Five hundred ninety-six of these units are slated for E1 Camino south of Los Robles where traffic conditions along the Charleston corridor are already at a Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 standstill during peak commute hours. This is the most heavily traveled school corridor in the City and must be protected against increased traffic impacts. High density housing should be placed .near train stations and supporting retail to reflect the Comp Plan vision ofwalkable neighborhoods. The Draft Housing Element treats the E1 Camino and San Antonio bus corridors the same as transit stations. It is unclear why these two bus corridors are singled out and why bus corridors in North Palo Alto such as Embarcadero and University are not included. In any case, this inclusion of bus corridors ignores the reality that very few people in Palo Alto actually use the buses. It is good to encourage bus usage, however, it is poor planning to assume that the buses will lower traffic impacts when they will really have very little effect. Palo Alto is not laid out in a hub the way large cities are. Nearly every adult has his or her own car and drives to work, to take their children to school, to the grocery store, to soccer practice, etc. The provision for a new 50 unit per acre density should be rejected. Current zoning categories already lead to more growth than we can absorb. All mandatory minimum density provisions should be eliminated. It is critical that the Planning Commission and City Council retain maximum flexibility to consider all factors at a given site such as proximity to a train station and supporting retail and to ensure lower density development adjacent to single family homes. We must maintain Planning Commission and City Council site and design review for mixed-use projects. Review of minor design points by the ARB cannot address the critical issues that large projects raise. A new provision should be added to the Housing Element, Which would prohibit high density developments near intersections which are already close to failing. While rezoning commercial property to residential is generally good neighborhood-serving retail should be preserved to foster walkable neighborhoods. Provisions allowing decreased parking requirements should be rejected because residents ’ will own cars and you would be unfairly shifting parking and traffic impacts onto neighboring properties. Increased densities in R-1 neighborhoods should be rejected. While a duplex or second unit may be appropriate in a specific location the Draft Housing Element in effect could convert existing R-1 neighborhoods to R-2 violating the reasonable expectations of adjacent property owners. A new provision should be added to the Housing Element requiring the study of the carrying capacity of our infrastructure including schools, parks, libraries and recreation facilities keeping in mind the lack of land and funds to build new facilities. The Housing Element should limit growth to that level. In conclusion, traffic throughout the City is becoming unbearable and there does not appear to be any solution. We must carefully plan our future development so we do not destroy the quality of life in our community. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Penny Ellson to be followed by Patricia Saffir. Ms. Penny Ellson, 513 E1 Capitan Place, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here this evening because I am concerned about this strategy to build thousands of units of housing in order to get a small percentage of affordable housing. This strategy does not answer the need for affordable housing and it exacerbates the infrastructure shortage problems the City already faces especially in South Palo Alto. I am very concerned about the high Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 mandatory minimums that would encourage higher densities along E1 Camino Real to levels that South Palo Alto infrastructure cannot support. These higher minimums absolutely should not be approved without a plan in place to manage the additional traffic particularly along Charleston Road, our primary school corridor. There also need to be plans in place to provide retail, open space, library, recreation and school services to these additional residents in order to support the Comprehensive Plan goals for a walkable community. In my discussions with City Traffic Planners it has become abundantly clear that they have no solution to the current Charleston Road problem beyond calming current flow a little bit. This is not meant to be a criticism of the Traffic Department. They are faced with a sticky problem that is made worse each year by background growth on and around the corridor. However, knowing this it seems unwise to me to put in place provisions for higher densities that will feed large volumes of additional traffic onto this already over burdened residential arterial, our primary school corridor. More than 800 kids a day are crossing this street. Placement of housing in proximity to bus lines is not a solution. It is a sad fact that buses are underutilized in Palo Alto. However, it is a fact. Putting housing next to bus lines does not mean residents will use buses. There is a bus line that runs to the Stanford Research Park area from my Green Meadow neighborhood in South Palo Alto. Although we have numerous neighbors who work in that area my husband road that bus very often alone during the peak hours for many years. People in Palo Alto generally don’t choose to ride the bus. That is a fact that we need to accept and incorporate in our planning. It seems to me that we are about to change a very significant piece of our Comprehensive Plan without putting in place plans for infrastructure that will make the new Housing Element workable. I worry that my five year old daughter will not be able to cross Charleston Road safely when she starts school at Fair Meadow next year. I worry for every member of my neighborhood that we will have to take our cars to get to the schools, the library, the park and community center that lie on the other side of that street. I implore you not to open up our community for higher density development until we have plans in place to handle the additional load on our community infrastructure. Please, push this back to Planning, there is more work to be done. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Patricia Saffir to be followed by Bob Moss. Patricia J. Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Pat Saffir, First of all I think we should all feel pretty good about having sent the state a Housing Element with which they found very few deficiencies, mostly just requests for more information and in some places more specificity about our plans. It seems to me as I read the new draft that the Staffhas done an adequate job of answering their concerns and providing the required information. I have only one possible question. On page seven, Program H-2, where we still use the wording "consider increasing minimum density," it’s a term that the state seems to feel does not indicate sufficient commitment. So I would suggest that perhaps we should change that by omitting the "consider" as the Staff has suggested in Program H-5, paragraph eight on page nine. Page13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Under developing sites means fewer more expensive units and we really should get serious about not allowing that to happen. Otherwise I urge you to review this draft expeditiously and forward it to the City Council so that we can come into compliance with state law as soon as possible and not jeopardize any funding that we really may want. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Janet Owens. Mr. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, Palo Alto: Thank you, Chairman Burt and Commissioners. A couple of corrections in the document. On page 47, I already talked to Staff about this, there is a reference to Palo Alto not having a Redevelopment Agency when we really do even though it doesn’t function yet there is a full Redevelopment Agency. On page E-14 in discussing the former Blockbuster site there are two statements, that is has been vacant for a year, that is incorrect. It has been occupied by PA Cycles since last July. There may be other errors in here but I am not going to go through all of them. Just a few general comments. First I would like to associate myself with the comments by Deborah Ju and emphasize a couple of points. First of all, we used to have an RM-50 zone and it was removed in favor of RM-40 because it didn’t work. Putting it back in again would be another mistake. As for having minimum densities, if you have that in effect there are several projects, which are built right now which would never have been built, the Rosewalk for example, and the one at E1 Camino and Charleston. Both of those are built significantly below the maximum density and the developers all said they would not have built at the maximum density. The vacant lot at 4146 if you increase the density there it will not be built, I guarantee you. The woman that owns it refused to build at 15 units an acre. Make it 30 units an acre and you are not going to see anything built there. A few comments about the specific sites. On the table you have on page 70 where you talk about maximum densities. I think calling for 300 units at the Sun property is very, very optimistic. I doubt you will ever see more than 125 to 150 built there. 525 San Antonio, you know they have already gone into the subdivision for R-1. Rezoning that as RM-40 is a violation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance because you would be putting the highest possible density of multi-family directly adjacent to R-1. That is a no-no, you don’t want to do that. If you want to zone that multi-family and hope they will develop it, it should be zoned no more than RM-30 and preferably RM-15, otherwise it is nonsense because they are never going to build it. On page 75 you have a little discussion about the cost of property and building. Those figures are conservative. You heard tonight about the [Clemo] property. The reason the International School walked from that is because the property owner was putting on such onerous conditions and cost so much that they couldn’t afford it. That land costs in excess of $7.5 million an acre. So you can rezone it for anything you want. You are not going to build any housing there, nobody can afford it. Commissioner Griffin had a good point when he said that the numbers you have here look like you are going to provide over 600 Units of affordable housing are basically nonsense. In 35 years we have managed to build about 1,420 units total of affordable housing. If we are optimistic and we say we will be building on the average of 40 units of affordable housing a year by 2006 maybe we will Page14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have 150 or 160 units. We are never going to build 600 units of affordable housing in Palo Alto. Not with land costing $7 million an acre. The proper response to the state is you guys are out of your mind. Anybody who says we need to house 430 farm workers and miners has a disconnect from reality. Anybody who thinks we are going to have affordable housing for 600 units in a city which is recognized nationwide as having one of the highest housing costs in the country is out of their mind. You can send this is and tell them fond hopes but what we really should say is send us lots and lots of money first and then we will talk about affordable housing otherwise it is nonsense. We can put this out and tell them we are going to build it but it ain’t going to happen. Trying to cram things into commercial areas is a mistake. The area you should be looking at to rezone is a triangle between San Antonio, Charleston and 101, which is not much retail. It is offices and crummy commercial right near 101 and right across the street from the Sun property. That is where you should be making you big hit for affordable housing. There it is really possible and it won’t be taking necessary retail away from the community. By the way, most of the properties you have on Appendix F are never going to be developed for housing. You are not going to develop any of those Stanford properties, Varian is not going to go for housing, Stanford won’t allow it. Why even bother putting it in? Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Janet Owens to be followed by Angelica Volterra. Ms. Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, #421, Palo Alto: There are many good suggestions in the proposed Housing Element for changes that would encourage continued development of low income housing in Palo Alto. However, I was most impressed by the number of worthwhile changes that you have agreed to consider and the length of time they have been on your agenda but not effectively considered and refined and not put into action. In 30 years in urging support for subsidized housing I cannot remember any time when I did not feel that time was one of the most serious constraints to making progress toward meeting reasonable housing goals for Palo Alto. It is still true. So I urge you not just to massage concepts and express hopes but to move aggressively forward in adopting measures and programs and then actually implementing them. I think Palo Alto should be very proud of what has already been accomplished but this is no time to rest on our laurels. Just ask those who are directly impacted by the severe housing shortage. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Angelica Volterra to be followed by Joy Ogawa. Ms. Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, Palo Alto: Thank you very much for the opportunity of addressing you this evening. I would like to discuss a number of points. First with regard to the illustration 24 on page 70 of the June 26 Staff Report, this illustration is entitled "Housing Sites Inventory." I would like to point out with respect to site 3-01, Edgewood Plaza, that the uses "7.9 acres" as the site size in acres for Edgewood Plaza is a very misleading figure. According to information provided by Mr. Benest in public meetings and according to the preliminary report for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for Edgewood Redevelopment Proj ect of those 7.9 acres 3.4 acres actually comprise portion of streets that are adjacent to the Edgewood Plaza and public Page15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 right-of-ways. According to this preliminary report the site acreage actually available for a development at Edgewood is more reliably reported as anywhere from 4.3 to 4.5 acres. Both numbers are actually mentioned in the preliminary report. I believe it would be more appropriate, more accurate and less misleading also to include in the site inventory the actual figures for lands that are available for development. Number two, I would like to state my categorical opposition to the proposal to build up to 38 residential units on the Edgewood site, which would presumably be in addition to a commercial center at the site. Edgewood Center is located in a Palo Alto neighborhood that consists exclusively of single family homes. I am concerned about trying to cram in 38 units to this site in an attempt to get a few units of below market rate housing. High density non-single family homes on the Edgewood site would not be compatible with the neighborhood and would result in significant unacceptable impacts on the neighborhood. Number three, I would like to express my concern about the use of redevelopment in connection with the Edgewood Center for the purpose of fulfilling the City’s housing goal. The Edgewood Center is being characterized as a blighted area in order that redevelopment can be utilized as a tool purportedly for the purpose of revitalizing the center. However, use of redevelopment at this site could establish a precedent by which the City can take by eminent domain private property and turn it over to developers for the purposes of building housing to satisfy housing goals. I am very concerned about the significant implications of such actions. Fourth, finally, I join other neighborhood residents in expressing general concerns about the Housing Element. I am concerned about our infrastructure including schools, parks, libraries and recreation facilities and their ability to absorb the amount of growth that will result. I am also concerned about overwhelming traffic impacts on our City.streets of high density development in Palo Alto. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Herb Borock. Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I want to first say I support the comments of some previous speakers, namely Deborah Ju, Penny Ellson, Angie Volterra and many of Bob Moss’ comments. Relaxation of parking requirements has huge potential to impact parking and traffic in adjacent neighborhoods. I think the document does refer to the flexibility of parking. I am concerned about that. I think relaxation of parking for mixed-use not only relaxes parking for the housing component of the mixed-use but also for the commercial component because it allows more commercial development than would otherwise have been allowed. The parking requirement at present is a major limitation to the amount of potential commercial development in this City. This creates potential for increased commercial development along with the housing when you relax the parking requirements in mixed-use. Generally, I feel that unless you can demonstrate an actual reduction in parking demand it is totally irresponsible to reduce the parking requirement. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Shared parking does not work. If you are actually serious about encouraging the use of public transit by residents in order to commute to work using public transit residents in mixed-use projects must be able to leave their vehicles at home .during the day. Otherwise you are going to drive to work. So to assume that the residents will remove their cars during the day is ~totally contradictory to the transit corridor concept for new housing. Relaxation of the parking requirement will release a Pandora’s Box of new development with huge traffic and parking impacts not just new housing development but new commercial development as well. An EIR must be done for this Housing Element because the Housing Element creates the potential for significant environmental impacts. The ErR should be at least a Supplemental ErR that is circulated for public review and comments. Relaxation of height requirements for mixed-use create similar potential for increased commercial as well as residential development. On a different subject I am very concerned about program H-3 and H-32A. H-32A is a new program added to this document and the language I am referring to in H-3 is also new language. They talk about "preferential or priority processing" for residential or mixed-use. Well, first what does preferential or priority processing mean? Second, maybe I don’t have a problem with the residential part of these programs I do for the mixed-use part of these programs. All a developer needs to create something called mixed-use is to put in a single housing unit along with commercial. You could have a project with 100,000 square feet of commercial office with one BMR housing unit under a PC application. That application, as I read these programs, would be eligible for preferential or priority processing. I think the potential for abuse is great and I am sure that developers will figure out creative ways to abuse these programs. I also have a comment on Policy H-5. I don’t have a problem with H-5 but I was reading through the document and maybe I missed something. What I don’t see is a policy that discourages the conversion of existing housing especially existing housing in commercial zones to non-residential uses. Policy H-5 talks about converting residentially zoned land to non-residential zoned land. That is good but why aren’t we seeing the discouragement of loss of housing wherever it occurs? Finally, I want to say I support Angie Volterra’s comments on Edgewood. I think that using redevelopment to force 38 housing units in addition to increasing the amount of retail on that site is abuse of redevelopment. The success of redevelopment in Palo Alto, of that concept, will depend on the neighbor’s perceptions of the success of Edgewood not on whether th.e City is able to use that property to meet state requirements or to add funds to their affordable housing coffers. Thanks. Chair Burt: Thank you. Herb Borock to be followed our final speaker LaDoris Cordell. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Borock: Hello again. I would like to start off with a question. When is this going to the City Council to have some idea for the citizens planning their calendars? Ms. Grote: Just to answer that, it is in September and we don’t have a date at this point but it will be in September. Mr. Borock: Thank you. None of the comments that you have heard already this evening have to do with people’s concerns about the programs and policies that are being proposed to enable the City to meet its goals for affordable housing. I don’t really believe that is what the document before you is about. What it really is is a developer’s wish list for market rate housing. I agree with the previous speaker that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is needed because these policies and programs make significant changes and have significant impacts that were not considered in the Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan. I believe that if not this evening then certainly by the time this gets to Council that the public will provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that an EIR is needed. The affordable housing goals have a timeline in ABAG of 2006 but the Housing Inventory stops at 2004. It should be the same for both. Even at 2004 the Stanford senior housing project I believe will be built which will convert a substantial number of additional units in the apartment project to affordable housing as a condition of that project. Instead of providing the required BMR units at the senior project what was done in the Sandhill Project’s approval was provide those additional units at the apartments as the senior project was ready for occupancy. The Mayfield site should be on this list. It has been on the list in every housing element going to the state until now. The JCC we have been told has bought its own site. The fact that somebody on Staff or somebody on the Council has a wish that this community despite the polls is always going to go ahead and support additional money being spent for turning Mayfield into a community center doesn’t matter. What matters is what is existing policy and existing policy is the site is zoned RM-40 and it has always been listed as 235 units. The [Clemo] site I guess should go back on. The 525 San Antonio is coming in for R-1 and that is how it should be on the site. There was an exchange with Commissioner Packer and Staff about some leading question but I didn’t get the answer. The answer as understood from the City Attorney which is in the City Council minutes is that it is going to be difficult for the Council to condition projects to make them smaller than what the entitlement is in this Housing Element. That essentially a state law is structured that if you have these policies and programs in then projects can and will come in for 100% of the FAR they are allowed and it will be the __ of the Council to make it less. There was one program, I don’t believe I have written it down, that comes in from a typographical error in the current Comp Plan. That is a reference to the condominium conversion ordinance it refers to the wrong year. It says 1974. That was an obsolete one. In Title 22 you will find the date which I think was about 1981. Program H-36 which increases the bonus for floor area for more BMR units is currently 25%, which is an Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 increase because the original program didn’t have any increase in FAR it just increased in numbers of units. That hasn’t been tested yet and it now goes to 50% bonus. Essentially this is part of the developer’s wish list for projects such as 800 High or Hyatt Rickey’s. How do we get to this point? Those of you, four out of the people on the Commission that can participate and five out of the nine Council Members participated in some way in the Comprehensive Plan C-PAC process either as Commissioners or C-PAC members or Council Members and there was a split. The Housing Element, part of the Element, was a grassroots citizens developed document and then there was a technical appendix, which was supposed to be updated for statistics. Now what has happened is we have had a consultant throw out the Housing Element produced by citizens and has given us something that is completely different from what we currently have which is why you will be doing an Environmental Impact Report. Chair Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is LaDoris Cordell. Ms. LaDoris H. Cordell, 4124 Wilkie Wag, Palo Alto: Good evening. At the City Council meeting, I believe it was, of April 1, 2002 1 recall the City Council giving to you, the Planning Commission, a directive to come up with sites that would not impact traffic and would not impact single family residential neighborhoods. There is nothing that I could find in the Housing Site Inventory that responds to that directive. No such sites are listed. It is as if the City Council’s mandate to you has been entirely ignored. It is the case the case to that the entire Housing Element pays lip service to concerns about levels of service and protection of single family residences. However, at the same time that Element calls for higher densities throughout thereby undermining those concerns. Finally, I apologize to you ifI have failed to see those sites, sites which should have been designated by you in the Housing Inventory in response to the Council’s directive to you. And, I ask that the Planning Commission kindly point out to me and others of us who try as we may have been unable to find those sites pursuant to that directive. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. That concludes our public comments. At this time we will open things up to the Commission for questions and comments. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I think I want to ask for clarification from Staff. We have not talked much about the-state mandate. Sometimes I read it and I feel pretty angry and sometimes I don’t feel angry at all. Something I think we have forgotten is that I believe the state law reads that if we do not have a Housing Element in place with some reasonable amount of housing options, not that we have to build because we don’t build it, but with some reasonable amount of options. Then a developer can go to court, say this city does not have in place a housing plan and can say I want to put up housing at this density and since they have no other options and have nothing on the plan and need 600 units I want to build it. They have in theory at least some power to make that happen. In other words, we have a large development on our plan, we may or may not want to build Page19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that many units but it may impede our ability to drop that number of units. Am I not correct? Ms. Caporgno: My understanding is that I know that if we don’t have a certified Housing Element that we can be legally challenged. Now what that would entail I am not sure of what the result would be but if we haven’t met our housing need and the state has determined that we have a certified Housing Element then our whole Comprehensive Plan is in jeopardy as far as being able to implement it. Commissioner Cassel: In terms of developers being able to challenge it? When you say implement it the developers can come in and challenge the plans we have in place and say we ought to be able to build something. Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Chair Burt: May I ask a question before other Commissioners proceed? Would Staff review for the Commission not only what we have in the report of the comments from the state but the Council’s direction and request of the Commission about our responses to both of these aspects? Ms. Caporgno: At the last Council meeting on April 1, Council recommended that the City send the Draft Housing Element that you see before you, primarily, to the state for review, They also recommended that the Inventory be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The criteria that we had established was modified to include two items that the criteria, we had this in there but they specified it more explicitly, they wanted to insure compatibility with adjacent land uses, which is one of the criteria you see on the matrix. That matrix has remained unchanged. And that when projects came through that the level of service with neighborhood services shouldn’t be degraded. Now as far as establishing criteria we can look at if there are sufficient services available for. our projects. We can’t look at an actual traffic level of service analysis for individual projects because there is nothing proposed. So we are looking at it from more of a global standpoint as far as is there traffic capacity from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint to serve the project and are the projects on that list. Obviously the ones that are already designated on the Comprehensive Plan have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Sites that could accommodate housing under the Comprehensive Plan but aren’t actually designated for housing also were evaluated as required through the environmental review process for the Comprehensive Plan. So there are only one or two sites on that Inventory that would actually have to be evaluated for additional housing for traffic purposes to determine whether or not they meet the level of service under the Comprehensive Plan. That does not mean that when the individual projects come through there would be additional traffic analysis at a project level basis in which you would look at the intersections and what impacts the individual project could possible create and what mitigations would be required. So that is basically what we have sent to the Commission based on the direction of the Council and we feel we have complied with that. Page 20 Chair Burt: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Michael.1 2 3 Commissioner Griffin: I will wade into troubled waters here by saying that in fact I 4 really do have a lot of empathy for the comments that have been raised this evening 5 having to do with the impacts that this Housing Element is going to impose on the City of 6 Palo Alto. I can’t deny a lot of the things that Deborah Ju and her cohorts have discussed 7 this evening. I am as troubled about them as is she. On the other hand I think we are in a 8 difficult conundrum here where we are being asked by the state to provide a document 9 that we have spent a lot of time and effort preparing and it seems to me that there are 10 some legal ramifications if we don’t proceed with the approval of this document. I really 11 am perplexed as to what the alternatives are. We are not at this stage going to tear the 12 darn thing up and start all over again from scratch. I don’t know if, Wynne, you would wish to discuss the different alternatives are before us here.13 14 15 Ms. Furth: I have to admit I wasn’t prepared to discuss the consequences of civil 16 disobedience tonight. The other and more serious side is there is a lot of uncertainty 17 about what the consequences will be in the coming years. We keep in touch with other 18 cities up and down the state. Typically these are cities that actually have quite a bit of 19 housing activity program because the people who live there are concerned to provide a 20 range of housing types and affordabilities even in very popular places and they are 21 finding themselves with new kinds of lawsuits submitted, as Phyllis has suggested, either 22 by would-be developers or housing advocates arguing that cities have failed to meet these 23 various statutory standards and that in the absence of us coming up with a credible 24 housing element they should be able to force rezoning or force development at maximum 25 permitted levels. Those lawsuits haven’t progressed to the point where that has 26 happened. One of the early inclusionary zoning ordinances was on the peninsula and the 27 city won and we in fact already have inclusionary zoning ordinances. That is what our 28 BMR program is. I think I can say with confidence that if the City does not have a 29 credible Housing Element and as pointed out that means not having a funded plan for 30 developing the affordable housing that we need. We are in an interesting and small group 31 of cities, though a lot of them are in this area, that have met their market rate housing 32 regional quota and what is remaining is affordable housing. That leaves aside the issue of 33 whether the City has a concern about what is called attainable housing, which is also 34 addressed here. I can at least say with confidence that if we don’t provide a credible 35 document, credible by their standards which as you know says identify a group of 36 policies about how you are going to process these things so that you have to some extent 37 reduced impediments and identify a list of sites where you believe housing could be 38 located should the owners wish to do so. We will have a harder time getting funding for 39 the project we do wish to proceed with and we will probably spend more time in 40 litigation. We will know more about this as time passes and we will look further into this 41 as this proceeds through its heating process. I can at least tell you that much. 42 43 44 45 46 MOTION Commissioner Griffin: Well, that being said, I will tell you I do not consider myself particularly a housing advocate. I think that housing is development just like an office Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 building is development and it causes traffic impacts and impacts on the infrastructure on this City that is potentially detrimental to the way we live here. Nevertheless it seems to me that we are obliged tonight to proceed with this document. I am going to move that we do accept it as it has been presented to us. Pat if you would add any other nice verbiage here to make this motion more complete I welcome your additions. Chair Burt: I think the Staff Report is straightforward in its recommendation to us, which is that they are recommending that we recommend to the city Council adoption of the Revised Draft Housing Element and submittal to the state for a mandatory 90 day review. If that is the verbiage that you would like in your motion that seems concise. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second that. Chair Burt: Have you already spoken to your motion, Michael? Commissioner Griffin: I believe I have, yes. Chair Burt: Phyllis, did you want to speak to your second? Commissioner Cassel: Yes. I won’t say all the things I have written. I will disagree with Michael in one very important aspect. Housing is not the same as every other development we have in this community. To survive we need clean water, food and housing. You will not survive without housing. We know that. Now it may just be a tent but you better have housing and you better have it warm in the wintertime. I have taken care of people who need housing. They are in the hospital, they have medical care, they have no housing, there was no point in having them in the hospital. It is a very frightening experience to watch, to see. So housing isn’t the same. Housing is basic. Now we need other things as well or we want other things and they work together and we feed them back and forth but we must provide some housing. It doesn’t mean that we have to put everyone who lives on the east coast that is tired of winter weather in the City of Palo Alto. It does mean that we need to be reasonable about accepting housing in this town. From there I work and support this same as Michael supports it but I start from a very different perspective. When we decide that cars are more important than people and cars are more important than housing then I think we have a problem from where we are starting from. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have to deal with these issues. We dealt with a very serious parking issue earlier where that was not considered and totally inadequate parking was put on a site. It does mean that we need to work with various issues and make them go together. We need to start with space for housing. A couple of other conmaents. The BMR program is not intended to solve all of our housing needs. It is only one tool of many tools. We need the program. No one that I know of expects us to build enough market rate housing to complete all of our below Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 market rate program. The City is not being asked to produce 1,500 units by 2004, we are being asked at this point to produce 600 units by 2006. We are all aware that we can’t do that. If the state would like to provide the funding we would be delighted but they haven’t yet seen fit to do it. It is simply a goal. On the other hand we have on the table several proposals that will meet part of that. I think we are doing well. We don’t have a minimum zoning at the moment. There is no minimum zoning that I know of and when we talk of setting that, that is a new idea for this town, we are nog talking about saying the maximum is 30 so every unit on that site needs to be 30. I think we have been talking in a couple of places and it was actually proposed by the SOFA area to look at a minimum zoning in that area but it is lower than the 30. It is simply higher than a single-family residential area. So it is a range. I think I have said plenty. I have a list of things but I suspect others of you have something to say. Chair Burt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I will support the motion and I will probably add to what Phyllis probably had on her list. I want to be proud of living in a city that recognizes that it is not an island, that it is part of a region, that is part of a state and part of a great country. And that we don’t only think of the number of cars that go down our street but we can go beyond that and we can think of providing housing for all levels of income. And that we can go beyond what we may become if we don’t do this, become another Atherton where only one kind of housing can exist. So I think this Housing Element is a good thing. It is a good thing that the state makes us do this because it makes us focus, it makes us want to think about the things that we can do as a city, which is just to enable housing to be built since we are not in the building business ourselves. I think this Housing Element is good. I have a couple of problems with some of the language that got added in Program H-5 which creates, I believe, more barriers as Sally Probst mentioned. It adds certain barriers to the higher density TOD proposals tying that density to levels of service. If the Senate Bill 1636 is passed it may be that that language could not be implemented. So we will see how that comes out. I don’t want to go about word changing now I would rather go ahead with the motion. I don’t want to make amendments I just want to point that out. I would also point out that since the state wants us to identify barriers to housing I think maybe we should be honest and say sometimes we are our own barriers to housing when we raise concerns about trying to be compatible with neighborhoods, etc. Sometimes it is important that we look at that this but that can also be a constraint. Maybe that could be added to the list of constraints. I will support the motion because this is an excellent Housing Element and I commend the Staff or all of its work. Chair Burt: Bonnie, I want to give you another opportunity to expand on what you were saying. I think that if Commissioners see substantive aspects of this plan that are contrary to either Comprehensive Plan objectives or other goals I think the Council would welcome us pointing them out. If you have that available now or would like to point them out in more detail later, for instance aspects of H-5 that if you perceive it to discourage the transit oriented development in those couple areas of the City that are truly Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 well suited for it then I would encourage those sorts of substantive comments and recommendations. Commissioner Packer: Are you handing me a little platter? Well, it is the language that is repeated in many of the bullets in Program H-5. "Development of these sites at the high end of the density range should only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities and will not significantly worsen existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections." I find that that is really a barrier. One, it will never be able to prove that the project is going to make significant use of transit facilities. That is a very difficult burden for a developer to be able to prove. And the level of service issue depends on how you work the numbers. It could go both ways. So I think those could be potential barriers to getting those densities in those transit centers. So that was the main issue. I don’t know if the maker of the motion would agree with having Staff look that or just raising that to the Council as eliminating that language as creating a barrier. Ms. Caporgno: May I suggest tot the Commission that if there are certain areas that you would like to have changed you can recommend that and we would incorporate that in the Staff Report that goes to Council. We would then make a decision as to whether or not we were supportive of it. In this particular instance the version that you had seen on October 3 didn’t have this in it and when we went to Council that was one of the things that came out of the Council meetings and we incorporated it. So it may be that you want to recommend to Council that this is something that they reconsider. At this point that is why it was included because Council had directed us to include it. Chair Burt: If this is acceptable to the Commission, why don’t we go through and allow Commissioners to make their comments bearing in mind that we are at 10:20 and then loop back and see if there are specific recommendations that we would like to add as comments to Council or recommended changes in the plan supplementing the motion that is on the floor. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: So you want us to indicate whether we support or do not support the motion at this time? Chair Burt: We can indicate the support of the general motion and if there are in addition specific points that Commissioners would like to make because basically the Commissioners haven’t yet had an opportunity to point out what they might see as recommended changes and then we can see whether we have consensus on some of those recommended changes. Commissioner Bialson: Can I speak to it now? Chair Burt: Please do. Commissioner Bialson: I am going to support the motion almost under protest. I think that we are forced to have this Housing Element. I think that we need to deal with the Page 24 1 realities of the political and legal situation we find ourselves in. I think it is part of the 2 troubled relationship that has’ been created between the cities of this state and the state 3 government. I just don’t see any alternative to it. I do not think that we need to ease any 4 of the language in the Housing Element. I think that with regard to Bonnie’s comments 5 this is an appropriate time to raise that but I don’t agree with changing that language. I 6 think the Council was correct and honest in saying that we are going to review all 7 projects that come before us in light of what impact they have on the surrounding 8 neighborhood and traffic. I guess what I am saying here is that I, with great reluctance, 9 am going to support this motion. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am maybe the lone person here. I won’t be supporting the motion at least as it stands now. While I understand we are in this predicament I think there are some issues that need to be addressed in the plan that is presented. As general comments I think the most appropriate housing additions, if you will, are where we would be converting general office to housing, those sites and every place that we can stop the erosion of the existing housing stock is appropriate. All references to flexibility, FAR and heights in my opinion should be eliminated. Any flexibilities should be clearly defined by compatibility. I think this just opens the barn door if we just talk about flexibility in heights and FARs as a generality. I believe we need to retain site and design review by the Planning and Transportation Commission as we did when it came to us previously. Increased density considerations should be evaluated against negative impacts and not assume a greater FAR or height in relation to density increases. Mixed- use should not include general office. Any mention of extra BMR units gaining favor should be quantified and qualified because fight now it is so general that one BMR unit extra opens the door to I think excessive development perhaps. In lieu fees, the plan pretty much addresses this but I would support that no in lieu fees be used for BMR or park lands. I am concerned that many of these sites are on South E1 Camino and the potential impacts of that are considerable. I would also like Staff to respond to the comments that a couple members of the public made about the Housing Element Update needing an EIR. In regards to the Site Inventory I would recommend removing any sites that contain retail, neighborhood serving or recreation sites from the list. What we are trying to do is create housing near where we have retail and neighborhood serving commercial. So to eliminate that by putting housing there seems counter productive to me. I believe the Mayfield site should be added to the Housing Site Inventory as well. I have some specific comments but I will stop there and let Pat make his comments as well unless you want me to continue. Chair Burt: I will make a couple and then we can loop back. First I would to just make a generalized kind of philosophical comment in response to something Michael said about not being a housing supporter. It made me think that we are all supporters of our own homes. We are supporters of housing there. We are generally supporters of housing for our family and our friends and it is a question of how much housing we support and what type we support for those people who are more anonymous to us. I think we all need to reflect on those concepts as kind of overlying concept when we look at this. I think we Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 are all housing supporters in different forms and we need to look at whose housing we support. Second, I would like to get clarification from Staff that we still have an opportunity in parallel to proceeding to Council here that additional actions can be taken while this plan is being submitted to the state to modify in the future the Inventory, to further develop criteria for both selection and prioritization of sites and prioritization of density of sites, which are all areas that I don’t think we have adequately refined yet. Ms. Caporgno: The Council had directed the referral to the Planning Commission particularly to look at the Inventory and to determine based on the criteria that I identified for you and that was in your Staffreport. They had in essence approved that but they wanted the Commission to evaluate that and then to evaluate the sites in conjunction with that criteria. That is why I went through that listing of the sites and identified whywe had selected what we had selected. Again, I guess that with the identification of the sites one of the thing that is important for the state is that these sites could be developed with housing by the year 2006. So that means that if they aren’t already zoned for housing that the City makes the commitment that those sites are going to be rezoned within the period by 2004 because the state needs some evidence that there is a timeframe that would enable that housing to actually go through the development process and be on the ground by the year 2006 so it is not just a paper exercise. Although it may end up that we don’t have the housing but that we have accommodated the need. We have identified sites and as Wynne had mentioned there aren’t any impediments to development of that site. As far as prioritization of the sites that is something that the Commission could do however, it is the market that is going to determine when those sites come in. We can’t say that you have to develop site A before site C is developed. What is on the Inventory can be developed or may not be developed. What is not on the Inventory can be developed. Any site that is under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning allows housing can be developed with housing. This Inventory won’t change that. Chair Burt: Part of what I was meaning by the prioritization is that we would by identifying our best sites for higher delasity we would then be able to look at zoning those most appropriately. We have already talked about the transit oriented development as our most suitable site. So to refine that process and if we go forward and allow this plan to be adopted so that we continue on our timeline I don’t want to lose the opportunity to continue to improve this. I think we have made great progress since when we first reviewed it that we are looking at more transparent criteria. I would frankly like to see us evolve toward something that is more of a i’ating system where we would agree upon some sort of a point scoring system that would maybe not in itself dictate the outcome but it would give a reference point. We have not only the primacy of really two sites in the City that are adjacent to really the transit centers and that would be perhaps a highest scoring, where we should have our greatest density. That is not necessarily equal to a transit corridor. Right now we speak of those as being almost co-equal in importance, so as to differentiate those. We also haven’t really looked at how we rank sites based upon their adjacency to amenities such as either public facilities or walkable retail. So to take those kinds of criteria and say what is an appropriate weighting? How important is it that Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 it is adjacent to the transit station? How important is it that it is along a transit corridor versus the transit station? How important is the adjacency to retail or other public facility amenities? To then look at ultimately weighing that against other neighborhood impacts and community impacts to come up with a more refined set of basis for developing density zoning. Ms. Grote: Yes, I think that is a very good and useful land use exercise. It is not necessarily required for the Housing Element and I think you mentioned that. In order to take action on this Element tonight you wouldn’t have had to of completed that kind of exercise. If the Commission would like to do that we can incorporate that into the Zoning Ordinance Update for further refinement analysis evaluation of these particular sites. It is not needed for tonight’s action. Chair Burt: That would make me more comfortable with going forward with a plan that may at present be acceptable for submittal to the state but not meeting all of our community interests and citizen interests and ultimately our best long term housing plan. Ms. Caporgno: I know that the transit oriented zoning district will be addressed through the Zoning Ordinance Update. Some of these site or there may be other sites that would be accommodated by that type of zoning district. We don’t have that zoning district in place now so it is impossible for us to include that with this Element. Those are the types of things that as you go through your process with the Zoning Ordinance Update you can look at individual sites that are either on the Inventory or even on the other lists that we have incorporated or some other sites and determine whether or not they are more appropriate. This list would accommodate the state’s needs but it could be modified as time goes on to address other sites that you feel are more appropriate or you want to add to the Inventory. Chair Burt: Great. I would like to concur with something Karen had said on I think H-19 where we are looking at still allowing to not have site and design review for mixed-use projects. I would support deleting that from the plan. I would also support not including office retail as a mixed-use designation. I am trying to remember where in the plan that might be shown. Ms. Furth: That is a Comprehensive Plan category. It is one of the three varieties of mixed-use they suggest. Chair Burt: But it is not integrated into this Housing Element? Great. Then H-19 I would support deleting that from this plan. Commissioner Cassel: As a seconder of the motion I don’t want that deleted. Chair Burt: Okay. Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: It is part of the Comprehensive Plan and we have been talking about it at other levels and we will be talking about zoning and we have talked a lot about trying to use mixed-use in those ways. Chair Burt: So you are referring to that mixed-use. Okay. H-19 consider eliminating the requirement for site and design review and I would not support it. Commissioner Cassel: We are considering it. Chair Burt: On H-19 you are talking about? Commissioner Cassel: We are considering a number of things in our Zoning Ordinance. We haven’t done it yet. Chair Butt: Right, and we may not have support on the Commission tonight for deleting that consideration but I would not want to support the implication of that. Commissioner Holman: The last time the Housing Element came to us we did support retaining site and design review for mixed-use projects. Commissioner Cassel: All it says is consider. Commissioner Packer: When we consider itwe may decide to keep it. So there is no reason to delete this program because all it does it ask us to think about whether we want site and design review. That’s all. Ms. Caporgno: When it came before you in October the wording from the existing Comprehensive Plan I believe is eliminate the requirement for site and design review through the Zoning Ordinance Update. You recommended, as Commissioner Holman pointed out, deleting that and we had added the word consider. So it watered it down basically. The Council talked about it but they didn’t give any direction either way on that. So that is why it is included the way it is. We had forwarded to Council Commission’s recommendation but we hadn’t incorporated that in our recommendation to Council. Since they didn’t really discuss it, they just mentioned that they had some concerns about, we added the language to consider it. That way through the Zoning Ordinance Update process it could be determined if it was satisfactory after we had a mixed-use designation in place that met with everyone’s satisfaction. Ms. Furth: You will recall that one of the other policies in the Comprehensive Plan is to try to develop the use of form codes to a level where people would be better able to understand what the look of projects that would be allowed in particular areas would be before there was ever an application. The thought was that perhaps that combined with design review by the Architectural Review Board would get you the same kind of results as running it through the Planning Commission as well. All ARB recommendations to the Director are appealable to the City Council. So the Council and ARB are already involved whether or not you have site and design review. Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: I guess if we are clear that we will be addressing this decision as part of the ZOU then I would be amenable to leaving it as it is. One other question for clarification. I am referring to page 6 of 32. We have actually shortfalls in the very low and moderate housing primarily. Can you clarify what those designations are? Is a good example or the only example we have of very low the SRO on Alma and the Opportunity Center that is pending? Is moderate essentially what we have been describing as attainable housing or is it a different designation? Ms. Caporgno: Moderate housing is considered 80% to 120% of the county median. So it would be affordable to someone earning between 80% and 120% of $96,000 per year. Very low income is considered less than 50% of that median income. This is for a family of four. So it would be a family of four earning around $48,000 per year. As far as what are examples of it, the SRO is single room occupancy so obviously they are not families in that development but there probably are individuals who are in the very low or very, very low categories. The very low category is under 30% of the median income. As far as the Opportunity Center a portion of Opportunity Center will be for SRO development and a portion of it will be for family units. So those probably would classify either in the very low or very, very low classification also. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Pat, the frustrating thing about moderate income housing is we really don’t have good programs statewide, federal-wide anyway to really subsidize them. We subsidize individual home ownership with tax deductions, mortgage deductions. We have some BMR units but as I pointed out earlier they do not meet all of our needs and won’t. It is one of the most frustrating things to meet this moderate income need and about the only way you can do it is with small .units that have some maximum size and lots of them. That is very hard to do in Palo Alto. Chair Burt: Understood. Okay, Karen and then I am obliged to remind folks that evidently we have an issue with the parking garage closing at 11:00 tonight and tow away. So we are going to be in a rush mode. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I just have a few specific comments and then I would still like a response to the EIR question for the Housing Element. Program H-5 has several bulleted items and one of the bullets says address the loss of housing due to lot combining. I would rather see that prohibiting lot combining. And then minimum densities should be subject to impact and review and not by right. Then Program H-11, smaller than 6,000 square foot lots, I think there might be an unintended consequence as a result of that. The smaller than 6,000 square foot lots I think should only be applied to properties that are not currently residentially developed. Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Then Program H-29, I think there might also be an unintended consequence there because it talks about requiting developers to preserve and incorporate where feasible. I am not comfortable with the language "where feasible." Existing cottages or duplexes within the project and then it talks about also retaining the same number of rental units. I don’t remember what program that is. I don’t have that marked fight in front of me. Where essentially what happens is if you have a duplex for instance that the same number of rental units need to be retained. Chair Burt: Karen, I apologize but we have Commissioner Griffin who has to run to airport. What I might suggest for this evening is we have a number of items that I think are of interest to the Commission for additional consideration as we move into the ZOU and if Staff and the Commission agrees that these items can be folded into the respective categories of the Zoning Ordinance Update then we could agree that we will readdress those when we have the ZOU come before us on these respective areas. If the Commission finds it acceptable that for purposes of forwarding this document to the Council and to the state we can live with it as it is now under and understand that we will have a future opportunity to address these issues. Will that be acceptable? I am sorry to have interrupted but it was only because Michael is going to leave if we don’t wrap. So if everyone is agreeable to that understanding then maybe we can call the vote on this. MOTION PASSED All in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) We have five to one in favor with Commissioner Holman objecting. So that concludes this item for this evening. Page 30 G ATTACHMENT G Site No. 4-02 5-02 5 -03 5-04 5 -05 5-22 5 -29 8-01 8-02 8-03 8 -04 8-05 8-07 8-08 8-10 8-12 8-13 8-14 8-15 9-01 9-04 10-01 11-03 12-02 12-04 12-05 12-08 12-12 12-10 12-13 12-14 12-16 Additional Potential Longer Term Housing Sites Sites Considered Suitable for Future Residential Use Site Address 285 Quarry Rd. 400/430 Forest Ave. at Waverly St. 1093-1095 Channing Ave. 855 E1 Camino Real University Ave. Circle area 153 Hamilton Ave. 49 Wells Ave. at Urban Ln. 1795 & 1805 E1 Camino Real at Park Avenue 2650-2780 E1 Camino Real at Page Mill Road N. side E1 Camino Real btwn. Cambridge & Sherman Aves. 231 Grant Ave. between Park & Birch 2310-2500 E1 Camino Real (Cambridge/California area) S. side Staunton St. btwn. Oxford & College Aves. 2209-2237 E1 Camino Real (east corner of E1 Camino Real and College Ave.) 2305-2333 E1 Camino Real (east corner of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Ave.) 2805-2905 E1 Camino Real (at Page Mill Rd. and Pepper Ave.) 3001-3017, 3111-3127 E1 Camino Real (at Olive and Acacia Aves.) 1515 E1 Camino Real at Churchill 340 Portage Avenue 720-738 Colorado St.; 733-737 San Carlos Ct. 2605 Middlefield Rd. at Moreno 3864 Middlefield Rd. & 525 E. Charleston 611 Hansen Way at E1 Camino Real E. corner E1 Camino Real and Curtner 3941/3945 E1 Camino Real 3981 E1 Camino Real 43 i5-4329 E1 Camino Real NE corner Maybell & Clemo 4035-4043 E1 Camino Way 4101-4121 E1 Camino Way (east of East Meadow Dr.) 4125-4139 E1 Camino Way (north of James Rd.) 3700 E1 Camino Real (btwn. Barron Ave. and La Description Hoover Pavilion CSAA Office/Surgery Center (planned and zoned for housing; RM-40) St. Alberts Church Town & Country Shop. Center Intermodal transit Center/Red Cross Former Fasani Carpets/Turner Martin Underutilized commercial site Vacant lot and fast food restaurant Mayfield site (planned and zoned for housing; RM-40) City parking lots County Mental Health Building 2-story commercial structures Various commercial and office buildings Various older, underutilized commercial uses Various older, underutilized commercial uses Mix of underutilized commercial uses Mix of underutilized comm. uses; vehicle storage Medical Office (planned and zoned for housing; RM-15) Fry’s site (planned and zoned for housing; RM- 30) Single-family houses Former Coop Market CAR facility Varian Manpower Office; Jiffy Lube; Compadres Restaurant Existing motel Mayflower Motel Palo Alto Bowling Alley (planned and zoned housing; RM-30/RM- 15) Vacant orchard and 4 homes (planned and zoned for housing; RM-40) Existing home/commercial uses Small shopping center Small, older commercial uses Mix of vacant and marginal commercial uses Site No.Site Address Selva) 12-18 4200-4232 E1 Camino Real 12-19 4085 E1 Camino Way at West Meadow 12-20 3505-3783 E1 Camino Real 13-01 4111 &4161 Alma St. 13-03 725 San Antonio Rd. & 4151 Middlefield Rd. (Woolworth’s Nursery) 15-01 687 Arastradero Rd. Palo Alto/PCJune02/AppendicesRev-PC Rev. 6/14/02 Description Various commercial/office uses Goodwill Store Various underutilized commercial uses Church and YWCA Office uses Greenhouse, vacant Map I Housing Developed and Proposed under Existing Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999 - August 2002 MapJ Housing Developed and Proposed under Existing Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999 - August 2002 Map K Housing Developed and Proposed under Proposed Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 1999-2006 w/Housing OpponuniW Sites .....______ Housing Developed and Proposedunder Proposed Comprehensive Plan Housing Element1999-2006 w/Housing Opportunity Sites ATTACHMENT M ADDENDUM TO AN EIR USE OF A FINAL EIR PREPARED FOR A PROGRAM EIR Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City ofPalo Alto has prepared an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because changes made to the project that are described below are considered minor under CEQA; they do not raise important new issues about the significant impacts on the environment. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiting preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. Changes to the Housing Element include a Housing Sites Inventory (Attachment A) comprised of 16 sites with eight of the sites proposed to be converted from non-residential use to residential or mixed use. A map depicting all the inventory sites as well as individual site maps are included in Attachment A. These sites were identified as the sites most suitable for residential use during the preparation of the Housing Element amendment in an effort to find a sufficient number of suitable housing sites that would allow the City to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs as identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and as required by the State of California. The specific land use changes considered in the Housing Element amendment for the 8 sites are listed on the Housing Sites Inventory. Development of all of these sites could generate about 290 more housing units than anticipated in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the proposed Housing Sites Inventory, the Palo Alto Housing Element amendment also includes revised Housing Policies and Programs that are summarized in Attachment B. Additional units that could be generated by Housing Programs H-1 (encourage higher_densities near transit facilities), H-2 (encourage development at the higher end of the allowed density range and increased minimum densities in some zoning districts), and H-5 (encourage higher maximum densities on residential sites near transit and higher residential densities for mixed use sites near transit). This anticipated development from implementation of the Housing Element amendment would still generate fewer units than the 425 additional dwelling units projected in the High Growth Alternative evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. This residential development potential is considered the maximum likely to occur through the horizon of the Comprehensive Plan given existing development trends in Palo Alto. In addition, it is expected that the proposed conversions from non-residential to residential land uses identified in Table 1 will reduce the number of potential new jobs in Palo Alto by about 1,550 jobs. This reduction in jobs should have beneficial impacts on traffic congestion in Palo Alto and the region. The Housing Element amendment is intended to encourage new housing development, including the development of sufficient affordable housing to meet the City’s needs, provide programs to help meet the City’s and the region’s housing goals, and reinforce City policies supporting transit use and decreasing automobile use as well as many other City goals and policies described in the Comprehensive Plan. Most of these policies and programs are procedural or give direction to decision-makers and planners as well as the community regarding the City’s housing priorities and the mechanisms to be used to achieve these priorities. Several policies and programs do include mitigation measures that seek to address possible environmental effects such as increased traffic in neighborhoods. The Palo Ako Housing Element amendment is designed to encourage and facilitate the provision of housing opportunities but will not in itself allow actual development of any site. All new development would require appropriate City development and architectural review to be followed. At each stage in the development review process, appropriate additional project level environmental review would be required in conformance with State law and City policies. Some of the new policies and programs contained in the Housing Element amendment could have physic, al environmental effects which may be different than those already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. These include Housing Programs H-1, H-2 and H-5 (mentioned above) all of which seek to allow for higher density residential development in certain circumstances. In addition, Housing_Program H-36 or 37 allows for 50% density bonus to encourage the production of affordable housing, which could increase the amount of housing provided in Palo Alto although this increase cannot be predicted at this time. While these programs could generally allow or encourage higher density development on infill sites (the only housing sites available in Palo Alto), they do not allow development to occur that is not consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the zoning provisions that ensure consideration of neighborhood compatibility. Any site identified on the Housing Sites Inventory that requires amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning changes, and development and architectural review applications to facilitate development would be subject to review processes that apply to all property in Palo Alto. In addition, any future development of the inventory sites will be subject to project-level CEQA review in conformance with State law and City policies. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed by a Final EIR entitled "1998- 2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR", and findings were adopted by City Council Resolution 7780 on July 20, 1998. Specifically, the following impacts were reviewed and found to be adequately considered by the EIR: Aesthetics Biological Resources Geology and Soils Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Public Services Transportation!Traffic Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Recreation Utilities and Service Systems The attached environmental analysis (Attachment C) completed for this project evaluates and compares each of the aforementioned impact categories as discussed in the Final EIR in conjunction with the Housing Element amendment. Below is the key to the abbreviations used for the attached existing land use maps for each site showing surrounding land uses. Please refer to the Zoning Code Title 18.04 "definitions" for specific details for each use category. AC AS ASFR ASST CR DCC EAD GBO GBS HOTEL HOSP MAN MFU MO PEF PFSCH PO PRK PS RI RS RSE SFR 2FU V Animal Care Automotive Service Attached Single Family Residential Automobile Service Station Commercial Recreation Day Care Center Eating and Drinking General Business Office General Business Service Hotel/Motel Hospital Manufacturing Multi Family Use Medical Office Private Educational Facility Public Facilities - School Professional Office Parking as a principal use Personal Service Research and Development Religious Institution Retail Service Retail Service (extensive Single Family Residential Two Family Use Vacant MO MFU V PRK SFR R SFR SFR~ SFR DCC SFR SFR ,,,.:, / This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 05-01 HOS Existing Land Uses 100’ This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 05-06 05-30 HOS Existing Land Uses 05-21 HOS Existing Land Uses This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS The City of Palo Alto 05-28 HOS Existing Land Uses This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ’ Existing Land Uses m~W~,~.l,~]~ a 1 t,. _.o_ ~ " ... = o~~o, ~)Z-/~(~--)~ ,HOSP ~This map is a produc! of the City of Palo Alto GIS The City of Palo Alto ~,n~,100’ mvera. 2002-07-31 09 5751 ox 08-06 HOS Existing Land Uses GBO MFU GBO 08-09 (a) 08-09 (b) MFU Rs The City of Palo Alto 08-09 (a) 08-09 (b) HOS Existing Land Uses This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS MFU GBO " .:: GBO GBS City of Palo Alto GIS HOS The City of ~Existing Land Uses RAD RAD MFU ASST RAD/MAN RAD/GBO RADiGBO RAD!GBO i RAD/GBO (’~t,.\ R I-.ILSTo,\’ ROA D ~ R~E/MANiG’BO V ~ AS EAD / ~ J ASST IPEF ! RSE / ~ RSE / ASST / The Cily of Palo Alto m~ra, 2002~7-31 10:35:06 10-02 HOS Existing Land Uses This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 250’ EAD ,// MFU ~/ EAD The City of Palo Alto 12-01 HOS Existing Land Uses This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS~12-06 12-07 HOS¯ h o c ~,y o f Existing Land UsesPalo Alto mvera, 20024~7+31 10:50;25 O’300’ 12-15 MFU 12-09 MFU HOTEL mve~, 29024)7-31 10:57:22 09 12-09 HOS Existing Land Uses This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This map is a product of the Ci~ of Talc ~lto 018 12-11 HOS Existing Land Uses APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-01 Site Name: Oak Court Site Address(es): 845 Ramona between Channing and Bryant Site Size: 1.23 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 6 parcels, 1 owner (City of Palo Alto) Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP - Major Institution/Special Facilities. Existing Zoning: AMF conforming to SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Proposed Zoning: Same as above. Existing Uses: Vacant land. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Site has been cleared to accommodate this new development. The Director of Planning approved a 53-unit affordable housing development in December in 2001 after recommendation bythe City’s Architectural Review Board. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by three local streets with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. Thi~ is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Development application approved for 53 affordable multifamily units; non-profit developer is currently seeking housing subsidies. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: The project will include a total of 53 multifamily units, all affordable apartments in a 3-4 story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Proposed apartments compatible with existing mix of residential and commercial uses in the area. During the development review process, the neighborhood strongly supported the project. E-1 APPENDIX E INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-06 Site Name: Peninsula Creamery site Site Address(es): 800 High St. between Homer and Channing Streets Site Size: 0.96 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Service Commercial Existing Zoning: CD-S - Commercial Downtown Service Proposed Zoning: PC - Planned Community (application pending) Existing Uses: Various vacated quasi-industrial/manufacturing (creamery) buildings, truck loading and storage areas Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Buildings, storage, and loading areas are in poor condition and need extensive rehabilitation to be utilized. No significant landscaping is on the site. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by three local streets with good pedestrian access and is within approximately 2,000 feet of a transit corridor hub providing train, shuttle and bus service. The site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The site is clearly underutilized and the quasi-industrial use is not compatible with the City’s vision for its Downtown and is ready for replacement. The site is nearly one acre in size, which would be easier to redevelop than smaller sites in the area. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. The City is currently considering a proposed rezoning of the site to allow 26-61 condominiums on site. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Proposed rezoning is for 26-61 dwelling units, all condominiums (3 stories of apartments over parking). Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Proposed apartments should be compatible with existing mix of residential and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the area if the development is sensitively designed and integrated with the existing neighborhood. E-2 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-21 Site Name: Former Craft and Floral building Site Address(es): 657-663 Alma St. (north comer of Alma St. and Forest Ave.) Site Size: 0.48 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 2 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: CS - Service Commercial. No Comprehensive Plan Change required to allow residential or mixed use. Existing Zoning: CD-S - Commercial Downtown Service; CD-C - Commercial Downtown Community Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use Existing Uses: Vacant retail commercial building and parking lot. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Building and parking lot are in fair to good condition but have been vacant for over a decade and are nearing the end of their economic life. No significant landscaping is on the site. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The existing retail building has been vacant for over one decade. The site’s Downtown location indicates that mixed use would be appropriate. Site suitable for maximum height construction limits per the Alma Street Design Guidelines. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 25 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 10-12 apartments over retail commercial space. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Proposed apartments may be compatible with existing mix of residential and commercial uses in the area but conflicts could arise between residential and non-residential uses. E-3 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-28 Site Name: Future Opportunity Center site Site Address(es): 33, 39 and 45 Encina Ave. near E1 Camino Real Site Size: 0.43 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 2 owners. Comprehensive Plan Designation: CS - Service Commercial. No Comprehensive Plan Change required to allow residential or mixed use. Existing Zoning: CS - Service Commercial Proposed Zoning: PC - Planned Community (application pending) Existing Uses: Vacant commercial building Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Older commercial buildings in an industrial/manufacturing area. Buildings are in fair condition but are nearing the end of their economic life. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one local street with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station and is close to a transit corridor served by buses. Site is close to existing jobs. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. With the completion of the Homer Avenue CalTrain undercrossing in 2003, the site will have adequate access to schools, parks and libraries. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: A development application for a PC zoning to allow a homeless service center and 90 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and family housing units for the site is anticipated to be submitted in the Summer of 2002. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Zoning process is expected to be completed by spring of 2003. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Probable yield would be 90 SRO and family units over a homeless service center of about 9,200 square feet in a five-story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: The homeless service center and housing units are compatible with existing commercial and medical uses in the area. E-4 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-30 Site Name: City Power Plant Substation Site Address(es): 841 Alma Street between Homer and Channing Site Size: 0.36 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner (City of Palo Alto Utilities) Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP - Major Institutional/Special Facilities Existing Zoning: PF - Public Facilities District Proposed Zoning: To be determined during the SOFA II Planning process Existing Uses: Power Substation Status of Site and Existing Improvements: The site is currently used for an electric power plant substation by the City Utility Department, but the Utility Department is considering relocating the power plant to another site for efficiency reasons. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: The site is served by one major thoroughfare with good pedestrian access and within approximately 2,000 feet of a transit corridor hub providing train, shuttle and bus service. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. The site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. The site is infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: If the site is determined to be surplus, the only impediment to redevelopment could be from the existing utility use site clean up. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Although a zoning district for the site has not been proposed, it is anticipated that 10-20 multi-family units could be accommodated on the site. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Multi-family residential use of the property would be compatible with the existing and planned mix of residential and commercial development in the area. E-5 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 5-31 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): 901 High Street Site Size: 0.32 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel; 1 owner Comprehensive Plan Designation: CS - Commercial Service Existing Zoning: CD-S(P) Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use Existing Uses: Auto storage and parking Status of Site and Existing Improvements: The site unimproved. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: The site is served by three local streets and near one major thoroughfare. It has good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station hub providing train, shuttle and bus service. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. The site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The site is clearly underutiiized and the existing use is not compatible with the City’s vision for its Downtown. The City is currently considering a proposed rezoning of the site to allow ten apartments on the site. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Proposed rezoning would allow a mixed use project with groundfloor commercial and ten apartment units in a two-story structure. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A mixed-use development including ten units would be compatible with the existing and planned commercial and residential uses in the area. E-6 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-06 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): 2650 Birch St. at Sheridan Ave. Site Size: 0.57 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 6 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential. Existing Zoning: RM-40 Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: 2 vacant lots and 4 single family houses. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Houses are in fair condition and are currently being rented. Several large trees located on the site. The site is level and would be easy to redevelop. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and three local streets with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The existing vacant lots have been vacant for many years. Existing homes are over 40 years old and need some maintenance work. The site is surrounded by office and commercial uses and is suited for higher intensity development than currently exists. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. The potential yield would be 15-20 apartments. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial and office uses. E-7 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-09(a) Site Name: Greenworld Nursery Site Address(es): 2701 E1 Camino Real at Sheridan Avenue Site Size: 0.98 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Mukiple Family Residential. Existing Zoning: RM-40, CN Proposed Zoning: RM-40 or Mixed Use Existing Uses: Operating, small scale nursery; rear two-thirds of site vacant. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Site is vacant. Several large trees located on site. Site is level and would be easy to redevelop. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access, is within 2,000 feet of a transit station, and adjacent to a transit corridor with major bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Site is vacant and ripe for development. Site is near a major, key intersection in Palo Alto (El Camino Real and Page Mill Road) and would be very attractive for more intensive development. The site is currently for sale and is being marketed for housing although mixed use would also be appropriate. Site could be combined with Site 8- 09(b) and jointly developed. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 30-35 apartments in a 3-4 story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment or mixed use complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial and office uses. E-8 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-09(b) Site Name: VTA Park and Ride Lot Site Address(es): 2755 E1 Camino Real at Page Mill Road Site Size: 0.48 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP - Major Institution/Special Facilities. Existing Zoning: PF - Public Facilities Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: Small parking lot operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Parking lot is relatively new and in good condition. Perimeter landscaping exists. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by two major thoroughfares with good pedestrian access, is within 2,000 feet of a transit station, and adjacent to a transit corridor with major bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Although the site is completely occupied by the parking lot, there is an opportunity for building housing over the parking lot. The VTA has allowed joint development of such facilities in the past as a method of supporting transit use. Site is near a major, key intersection in Palo Alto (El Camino Real and Page Mill Road) and would be very attractive for more intensive development. The City believes the site is ideal for joint development and will be working with VTA on this matter. Site could be combined with Site 8- 09(a) and jointly developed. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 15-18 apartments in a 3-4 story building. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment or mixed use complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial and office uses. E-9 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 8-11 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): East side Sheridan Ave. between SPRR and Park Blvd. Site Size: 3.92 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 4 parcels and portion of public right-of-way, 5 owners. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Light Industrial. No Comprehensive Plan Change required to allow residential use. Existing Zoning: GM - General Manufacturing Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: ~ Underutilized or vacant industrial buildings and sites. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures are over 40 years old and nearing the end of their economic life. Minimal landscaping is provided on site. Little or no recent investment made in site improvements. Site is partly vacant and underutilized containing very low intensity and marginal industrial uses. Access, Infrastructure and Sergices Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and is within 2,000 feet of a transit station. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: This site represents a major opportunity for reuse especially if the existing parcels and public right-of-way can be combined. Site is close to other major transportation facilities besides those adjacent to it and may be eligible for MTC funding for Transit Oriented Development. Ratio of value of improvements to value of land is low indicating that market pressures should lead to redevelopment of this site in near future. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 40 DU/AC anticipated. Potential yield would be 120-150 apartments in a series of 3-4 story buildings. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A multi-story apartment complex would be compatible with existing mix of commercial, office and industrial uses. E-10 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 10-02 Site Name: Former Sun Microsystems Site Address(es): 901 San Antonio Rd. near Bayshore Highway Site Size: total - 12.92 acres; area likely to be reused o 7.5-8.0 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 4 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: LI - Light Industrial. No Comprehensive Plan change is required to allow residential use. Existing Zoning: GM - General Manufacturing Proposed Zoning: RM-40 Existing Uses: Large vacant office building and large parking lot Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structure, parking lot and landscaping in good condition. Sun Microsystems vacated the site recently due to the downturn in the high technology sector of the economy. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by three major thoroughfares with good pedestrian access but no access to significant transit facilities although bus service is provided. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: A property transaction between Sun Microsystems and the Jewish Community Center organization is in escrow. A portion of the site is to be used for a new Community Center in conjunction with a senior assisted-living facility. The remaining 4 acres of the site will be developed by Bridge Housing for a 200-330 unit multi-family condominium development. Eventually the entire site will be cleared and redeveloped. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Once the property is acquired by the JCC, it is anticipated that redevelopment of the site will be imminent. Potential, Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: 100-230 units of multi-family "attainable" housing on approximately 4 acres and a 120,000 square foot assisted-senior facility of 100 units. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Multi-family development and the senior facility would be compatible with each other as well as the community center and adjacent office and commercial uses in the area. E-11 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-01 Site Name: Former Blockbusters Site Address(es): 4102 E1 Camino Real at Vista Site Size: 0.65 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential Existing Zoning: RM-30 Proposed Zoning: RM-30 Existing Uses: Vacant with non-conforming retail commercial building onsite with parking Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structure and parking lot and landscaping in good condition but building may be nearing the end of its economic life. Minimal landscaping is provided on site. Site has been vacant for over one year. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and access to transit facilities including bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Redevelopment will not exceed capacity of these lines. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Site is currently on the market for residential use. The City is considering a proposal for 9 units on the site. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Maximum density of 30 DU/AC allowed. Potential yield would be 9-15 units. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Multi-family housing would be compatible with existing office and commercial uses in the area. E-12 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-06 Site Name: Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel Site Address(es): 4219 E1 Camino Real at Charleston Road Site SLze: Total - 15.98 acres; approximately 7.5 acres proposed to be redeveloped as multi- family housing in conjunction with hotel redevelopment. Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel Overlay Existing Zoning: CS (H) - Service Commercial (Hotel) Proposed Zoning: Same as above. Existing Uses: Hotel and supporting uses. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures, parking lot and landscaping are in adequate condition but do not maximize the economic potential of the hotel use and the site. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by two major thoroughfares and one local street with.good pedestrian access and access to a transit corridor with bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The property owner has filed a development permit application to redevelop the site. The proposed project would demolish the existing hotel and build a new hotel and conference center on site and add between up to 302 apartments and townhouses on the site. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be 120- 302 multi-family units. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: Any multi-family development on the site would need to be designed to be compatible with and minimize impacts on the adjacent single family neighborhood, which may result in development at the lower end of the density range. E-13 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-07 Site Name: Elk’s Lodge Site Address(es): 4249 E1 Camino Real Site Size: 8.08 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 2 parcels, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential Existing Zoning: R-1 - 0.64 acres; RM-15 - 2.2 acres; tLM-30 - 5.24 acres Proposed Zoning: Same as above. Existing Uses: Grandfathered fraternal lodge and swim and recreation center use, supporting parking lot, and subleased area occupied by childcare center occupy the site. Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures, parking lot and landscaping in fair to good condition but buildings nearing the end of their economic life. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access and access to a transit corridor with bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The property is currently being offered on the market for housing in conjunction with a new Elk’s Lodge. The reuse of a portion of the site will help finance Lodge activities. Large parking lot areas could easily be redeveloped but most structures on the site will have to be removed. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and . redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be: R-1 - 1 to 5 single family units on 0.64 acres; RM-15 - 13 to 33 townhouses or apartments in one or more of 2-story buildings; RM-30 - 84 to 157 apartments in a series of 2-3 story structures. Total development potential: 1-5 single-family units and 97 to 190 multifamily units Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A new Elk’s Lodge and residential complex with a mix of single family homes on Wilkie Way and 2-3 story townhouse and apartment buildings would be compatible with the existing commercial and residential uses in the area. Any new development must be sensit,.’vely designed to be compatible with the adjacent existing single family neighborhood on Wilkie Way and the site access should be accessed from E1 Camino. E-14 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-09 Site Name: N/A Site Address(es): 4146 E1 Camino Real Site Size: 0.77 acres Number of Parcels and Ownership: 1 parcel, 1 owner. Comprehensive Plan Designation: MF - Multiple Family Residential Existing Zoning: RM-15 Proposed Zoning: RM-30 Existing Uses: Vacant land Status of Site and Existing Improvements: No improvements Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare with good pedestrian access and access to a major transit corridor with bus service. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an infill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: Site is vacant and is immediately available for residential development. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be 5-10 apartments in a 2-story structure using RM-30 standards. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A new 2-story multifamily building would be compatible with the existing residential uses in the area. E-15 APPENDIX E HOUSING SITE INVENTORY INDIVIDUAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Site Number: 12-11 Site Name: Alma Plaza Shopping Center Site Address(es): 3445 Alma St. Site Size: 4.21 acres (only small portion to be redeveloped) Number of Parcels and Ownership: 3 parcels, 1 owner Comprehensive Plan Designation: CN -Neighborhood Commercial. No Comprehensive Plan change is required to allow residential use. Existing Zoning: PC - Planned Community (allowing a mixed retail/housing development) Proposed Zoning: PC - Planned Community to allow mixed-use development Existing Uses: Two large commercial buildings/parking, vacant lot Status of Site and Existing Improvements: Existing structures, parking lot and landscaping in adequate condition but do not maximize the economic potential of this retail center. Access, Infrastructure and Services Availability: Site served by one major thoroughfare and one local street with good pedestrian access but no access to major transit facilities. Site is close to existing jobs, parks, schools and libraries. This is an thrill site adequately served by sewer, water and other utilities. Adequate police, fire and emergency services are available in the area. Redevelopment and Reuse Potential: The property owner has filed an application for mixed use on the site. The proposed intensification can be accommodated on the site and provide a modest number of housing units. Single ownership allows for easy parcel assembly and redevelopment. Potential Dwelling Unit Yield and Mix of Housing Types: Potential dwelling unit yield would be 5 single family and 5 apartments over retail commercial. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses: A mixed-use residential/commercial development would be compatible with the existing commercial and residential uses in the area. Palo Alto/Final Draft/Housing Element Tech Doc Appendix E Sept 25 9/25/02 E-16 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 0 Ix.) I 0I 0 0 0 0"t3 0 o o 0 0 ATTACHMENT C I.AESTHETICS The 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use are located on infill sites that have already been developed with urban uses or on small vacant parcels surrounded by existing urban development. All these sites are on fiat land and do not encroach on any prominent vistas or views. The scale of development of these sites will be comparable to the scale of existing surrounding development. Compatibility will be ensured by the application of: 1) the land use and design policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan, 2) the development standards of the Zoning Code, and 3) the development and architectural review processes of the City of Palo Alto. The light and glare generated by new residential or mixed-use development will be comparable to the existing development contained on or surrounding these sites. II.AIR QUALITY The proposed growth in households and population that could be accommodated on the 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use are roughly within the growth parameters envisioned in ABAG’s Projections 2000 for the 2000-2010 time period. This means that population growth is consistent with the expectations of the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Further, the rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled for Palo Alto is likely to be lower since the overall affect of the redevelopment of the 8 sites proposed for conversion will be to reduce the total number of jobs in Palo Alto also bring housing closer to existing jobs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element amendment is consistent with the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The City of Palo Alto is located in the San Francisco Air Basin, which currently does not meet the California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions or particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Motor vehicles are the primary source of CO emissions. To the extent that residential development replaces existing or proposed commercial and industrial development and the internalization of trips in Palo Alto is enhanced by bringing housing closer to jobs, the amount of vehicle miles traveled may actually be slightly reduced thus reducing CO and other emissions. The Final EIR for the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan indicated that CO emissions are likely to decrease even with increased traffic due to increasingly stringent emission control programs for automobiles and the replacement of older, more polluting vehicles with lower emission vehicles. The Final EIR concluded that, both for the project and High Growth Alternative, the impact of the Comprehensive Plan on local CO concentrations would be less than significant. The proposed growth in households and population that could be accommodated on the 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use could expose more people to potbntial sources of pollution particularly on housing sites 8-11 and 10-02 which would convert industrial sites to housing use. This could result in complaints about odors or exposure to toxic air contaminants and could, in turn, result in future limitations being imposed on nearby industrial uses. The other six sites could be exposed to pollutants from major thoroughfares but the level of pollution from these sources is not expected to be substantial. III. The Housing Element amendment will not itself change land use designations, rezone any land, or entitle any development. Development on the 8 sites currently planned for non-residential uses would require, if applicable review processes that apply to all property in Palo Alto. Based on current information, no specific hazard to residential use is known to exist at any of the sites proposed for conversion to residential use. When residential development is proposed on any of the 16 sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory in the future, an analysis of the potential adverse impacts to future residents from then-existing nearby land uses will be done during project level specific environmental review for the sites in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element amendment will not result in a significant impact with respect to potential toxic air contamination or odors. Further, the policies and programs contained in the Air Quality section of the Natural Environment Element will act to reduce any potential impacts on the City’s air quality. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use are located on sites already occupied by existing urban development. Commercial or industrial buildings and large parking lots occupy most of these sites. Roughly 80-90% of the total surface area of these sites is covered by impervious surface. The proposed Housing Element amendment should not slightly increase the amount of existing impervious surface on these 8 sites. Redevelopment of these sites will not significantly affect any candidate, sensitive or special status species or its habitat since there is virtually no extent habitat available. Increasing densities on other sites as called for by some Housing Programs will not result in a significant impact since the sites subject to these programs would already be developed and substantially covered by impervious surfaces. The implementation of the Water Resources and Creeks and Riparian Area policies and programs contained in the Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan would also provide mitigation for the potential impacts associated with the redevelopment and intensification of sites on the Inventory. None of the 16 housing sites contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive environmental community nor will such habitats be significantly affected indirectly by residential or mixed use of development on the 8 sites proposed to be converted to residential or mixed use. There will be no substantial adverse effects on any wetlands either directly or indirectly as the result of the redevelopment of the eight housing sites since the amount of new impervious surface and additional runoff will not be significant. Redevelopment of the 8 housing sites will not interfere with: 1) the movement of any native or migratory wildlife species, 2) any native or migratory wildlife corridors, and 3) impeded the use of native wildlife nurseries since none of these resources exist on these sites. IV. Few trees of any significant size, including heritage trees as defined by the City’s Municipal Code, are located on the 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use. These trees may be preserved during the redevelopment of these sites since many of them are located at the edge of existing development. Further, the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance will require the protection of any heritage trees during construction and will also require mitigation for the removal of any heritage tree. City design review policies and procedures will also ensure that any significant trees removed, even those that are not heritage size, will be replaced in new landscaped areas. The redevelopment of the 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use in the Housing Element amendment will not interfere with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES There are no known archaeological resources located on the 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed use although all of the sites are located in a moderately sensitive archaeological area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. None of the eight sites contains any of the 385 buildings listed in Palo Alto’s Historical Report and Inventory; however, one site contains a building considered historically significant. Site 5-06 contains the Peninsula Creamery building, which is eligible for the California Register. Housing development on the site could incorporate the existing historic building within the project. Otherwise, an EIR would be required to address the individual impacts from the proposal. The Peninsula Creamery site is currently subject of a development application for 61 units. The current proj ectproposes to demolish the historic resource. A project EIR has been circulated to address the significant adverse impact from loss of this resource. Site 5-21 contains a building that is 50 years old or older but is not considered significant historically. This site will, however, be thoroughly evaluated for historic and architectural value prior to development as required by existing City ordinances and policies. Also, at the time of future development on any of the Inventory Sites, buildings over 50 years of age would be evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources per the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15064.5. If a building found to be eligible for either the National or State Registers is identified on or adjacent to the any of the project sites, the following mitigation measures could be required by the City: Following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) (3); or Feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource could be adopted through fully enforceable permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) (4)). All 16 sites on the Inventory are already occupied by existing urban development. These activities would have already disturbed and then covered any archaeological or paleontological resources located on these sites. However, in the event that the redevelopment of these sites uncovers any cultural or historic resource, construction activities will be halted and an archaeological investigation of the site will be conducted as required by City development review processes and conditioned in any development permits issued for these sites. If warranted, data collection and artifact preservation activities will be implemented as part of this process. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The 16 proposed housing sites, including the 8 sites proposed for conversion to residential or mixed uses, identified in the Housing Element Update are not on or near any earthquake fault lines nor are they near any areas subject to landslides. However, Palo Alto is within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and severe ground shaking is probable. The ground shaking potential for the land supporting the proposed housing sites ranges from "strong" to "very strong" as identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. This EIR states: "Seismic ground shaking is a significant hazard within Palo Alto because of the City’s close proximity to the San Andreas fault, the Hayward fault, the front-range fault system and several other faults within the Bay Area that have a capability of producing a large magnitude earthquake. The level of shaking is influenced by different underlying rock formations, soil conditions, and the amount of underground water present." The Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a comprehensive set of goals, policies and programs regarding geology and geotechnical hazards. In general, these goal.s, policies and programs direct the City to protect life and property from natural hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, flooding and fire. Policies and programs focus on emergency preparedness, with an emphasis on planning and public education, and the incorporation of these criteria into the development review process. The City also minimizes hazards through the strict enforcement of the seismic safety 4 VI. restrictions of the Uniform Building Code, providing incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the Downtown area, and retaining a qualified geotechnical engineer to update City code requirements for excavation, grading, and filling so that they conform to currently adopted standards. Implementation.of these policies and programs will reduce potential seismic impacts to the less than significant level. Significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil will not result from this Housing Element Amendment. The 8 sites proposed to convert to housing sites are already covered by impervious surfaces. In addition, the ten other sites on the Housing Inventory currently planned for housing are already mostly covered by impervious surfaces. The Final EIR for the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan indicates that soil constraints are adequately mitigated by the goals, policies and programs of the Natural Environment Element so that potential problems such as expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, lateral spreading, or collapse that could harm either people or property will be avoided. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Housing sites 8-11 and 10-02 are industrial sites proposed to be converted to housing that may be exposed to hazardous materials used on adjacent industrial sites. The normal operating procedures of industrial establishments should be sufficient to prevent hazardous spills from affecting people that live in the vicinity. Most ofPalo Alto’s industrial uses are "clean" or use minimal amounts of hazardous materials, such as the research and development office uses near site 10-02. The Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals, policies and programs to mitigate potential hazardous materials impacts including the use of best management practices and strengthening local regulations of hazardous materials users to prevent spills and contamination. The City currently has permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use and handling of hazardous materials and includes the verification that each facility meets the requirements of the applicable codes adopted by the City. No hazardous materials will need to be transported, used or disposed of nor will people be exposed to these materials as a result of the Housing Element amendment. No hazardous materials will be handled or emitted within ¼ mile of a school as a result of the Housing Element amendment. Several of the proposed.housing sites identified in the Housing Element Update are located on sites used previously for industrial or commercial development, which may have contained hazardous materials in the past. Before these sites can be redeveloped, a full investigation of the past uses and an inventory of the hazardous materials that were stored or used on these sites will have to be provided by the project proponent during the CEQA review for any development project proposed on these sites. This is required by the City’s regulatory, development review and environmental review processes prior to the issuance of a development permit. The Natural Environment Element contains policies and programs requiring the clean up of contaminated groundwater and soils. 5 Some of the buildings on the proposed housing sites were built prior to 1980 and could contain asbestos and/or lead based paint. Demolition of these structures could expose construction workers or other persons in the vicinity to harmful levels of asbestos or lead. The following requirements would be met to address any exposures: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that all potentially friable asbestos containing materials be removed prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. As appropriate, a lead survey of painted surfaces and soil around buildings built prior to 1978 will be performed prior to demolition. Requirements in the California Code of Regulations will be followed during demolition activities, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. All 16 housing sites on the proposed Housing Sites Inventory are all located within the City’s urban service area and are already covered by the City’s emergency response plan. The plan may need to be revised to account for nighttime residential populations in or near industrial areas and the need to inform people living there of the City’s evacuation protocols but this does not represent a significant impediment to the use of these sites for residential purposes. The Natural Environment Elements policies and programs, which seek to educate the public about public safety hazards, will mitigate this potential impact. All of the proposed housing sties are within the urbanized area of the City and, thus, will not be exposed to potential wildland fire hazards. VII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The 8 sites proposed to be converted to residential or mixeduse redevelopment are already urbanized and covered with impervious surface. No significant impacts on water quality are expected to result from the Housing Element amendment. Further, all new development will be required to comply with the goals, policies and programs of the City’s Natural Environment Element which seek to protect the City’s water quality and protect its riparian habitats. None of the 8 sties proposed to be converted to residential or mixed use development should be exposed to inundation in the event of a 100-year flood. Flooding impacts to any of the sites listed on the Inventory will be limited through implementation of the Flood Hazard policies and programs identified in the Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan and by the application of Palo Alto’s Building Code and other regulations regarding development in potential flood zones. Some sites on the -Inventory could be exposed to dam or levee failure as identified in the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Areas of potential inundation from dam failure have well defined boundaries, but an unclear definition of the level of risk for failure. New development within identified hazard areas (depicted in Appendix F) may be exposed to hydrologic hazards related to dam failure." As identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR, this impact can be reduced to a less than significant level by requiring that all technical evaluation reports pertinent to the stability of man-made levees near reservoir embankments presenting flood hazards should be reviewed, and a status report summarizing the level of risk associated with these structures should be prepared, including any appropriate project-specific mitigation measures that should be implemented. Measures could include reinforcement of existing embankments, or implementation of measures to reduce the quantity of stored water within the subject reservoir. VIII.LAND USE AND PLANNING The 8 sites proposed to be converted to residential or mixed-use development already support urban uses. It should be noted that both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance already allow for residential and mixed uses on existing commercial and industrial sites. However, the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that mixed use development has the potential to create land use impacts through the introduction of conflicting land uses within Palo Alto in portions of the City where homogeneous land use patterns exist. This potential conflict in land uses may also occur when placing housing adjacent to parking lots and commercial centers. Possible land use impacts include the following: Complaints about impacts from industrial or commercial uses that could result in restrictions being placed on existing businesses. Visual intrusion into residences and/or public or private open spaces. Shade and shadowing of residences and/or public or private open spaces. Exposure of future residents to impacts from industrial or commercial uses, such as noise, dust, and odors. Maps depicting all the inventory sites included in Attachment A also describe surrounding land uses. As identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR, these potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level though the application of the policies and programs of the Land Use and Community Design Element (e.g., Policies L-23, L-29, L-31, L-35, L-40, L-48; Programs L-19, L-29, L-31, L-33, L-40, L-48, L-49, L-50), the Housing Element (e.g., Programs H-4, H-5), and the Natural Environment Element (e.g., Policies N-27, N- 29, N-39-43; Programs N-27, N-60). Further, the City of Palo Alto has established procedures for the discretionary review of development throughout the City contained in the Zoning Oidinance and the City’s development review procedures. The also maintains design guidelines for certain areas of the City to ensure that new development is designed to be compatible with neighborhood character. Although some of the 8 sites introduce housing into predominately commercial or industrial areas, none of these areas are very far from existing residential neighborhoods since Palo Alto is a relatively compact and accessible city. These new housing or mixed- use sites will reinforce Palo Alto’s commitment to reduce automobile usage and support transit. This will further tie the community together rather than divide it. All new development and redevelopment that could result from implementing the Housing Element Amendment will occur on already urbanized lands so there will be no impact on wildlife habitat or conflicts with any wildlife habitat or natural community conservation plan. Besides the 8 housing sites on the Housing Sites Inventory proposed for conversion to residential use, higher density residential use, or mixed use, the Housing Element amendment encourages the development of certain areas, such as sites within 2000 feet of a transit station, to develop at the higher end of the density range or encourages density bonuses for the development of more affordable housing. However, these policies do not allow development that is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan or non-compliance with zoning regulations that ensure that new development is consistent with existing neighborhood character. Given existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, zoning regulations and design guidelines, incremental increases in density will not result in additional substantial land use impacts. In addition, each proposed application of the proposed Housing Element amendment policies and programs would only occur after completion of a project-specific CEQA review. IX. NOISE Based on Figure 19, Project 2010 Noise Exposure Contours, contained in the Final EIR for Palo Alto’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, nearly all of the sites on the Housing Sites Inventory including the 8 sites proposed for conversion to housing and mixed use development would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 Lan by the year 2010, which is in excess of the 60 Lan noise level established as acceptable for residential development under Policy N-39 of the Comprehensive Plan. These high noise levels are primarily the result of the location of the housing sites adjacent to or near the major transportation corridor of the City. The traffic carried by these transportation corridors is the major source of noise in Palo Alto. The sites on the Housing Sites Inventory were located next to these corridors to help support public transit and reduce reliance on the automobile, key goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, these sites were deemed to be the likeliest candidates for redevelopment that could support higher density and result in more affordable housing, a key goal of the Housing Element amendment. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan recognized that existing and new development adjacent to major noise sources could be exposed to unacceptable noise levels. 8 Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39 recognizes the 60 Ldn level as a guideline which "...cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility." The policy goes on to say where the City determines that providing an outdoor noise level of 60 Lan is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. The policy also requires that the following additional noise reduction provisions be maintained for projects exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 60 Lan: The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criteria shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. As identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR these provisions, in addition to noise Policies N-40-43 and their supporting programs will reduce the potential noise impacts facing the housing sites to a less than significant level. In addition, the City’s development review processes and the Noise Ordinance will ensure that required noise mitigation measures for individual projects receiving project-specific CEQA review will be implemented. Redevelopment of the sites on the Housing Sites Inventory may increase noise levels along the local street system as a result of increased traffic, however, since these sites are already occupied by existing urban development existing ambient noise levels may actually decrease when compared to the level of traffic and other noise generated by existing commercial and industrial uses that would be replaced by housing. Increases in ambient noise level, if any, are likely to be insignificant, perhaps on the order of 1 dB near the largest housing sites. This increase would be insignificant given the projected ambient noise levels in the housing site areas. Construction activities generate noise. Typical construction noise levels are 75 dB to 80 dB measured at a distance of 100 feet. from the construction site during busy construction periods. These noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance. The impact would be short-term and would not create a more substantial impact than that evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan EIR provided that standard construction noise controls are implemented. None of the sites on the proposed Housing Sites Inventory will be exposed to excessive vibration nor will the activities of these sites generate excessive vibration. Also, as indicated above, noise levels may decrease and any likely increase will be at the 1 dB level or lower for some of the larger sites and will not significantly increase the ambient noise level. Other than construction noise, as mentioned above, no substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels will be created. The small Palo Alto Airport Xo does not generate sufficient noise to compete with the noise generated by the roadways of Palo Alto so no site will be exposed to significant noise impacts generated by the airport. POPULATION AND HOUSING The Housing Element Amendment proposes the construction of about 290 more housing units than anticipated in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan as evaluated in the Final EIR for that Plan but is within the High Growth Alternative evaluated by the Final EIR. This slight increase in housing growth represents an increase of about 665 more people than anticipated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan (assuming 2.3 persons per household as identified in the 2000 Census). This represents an increase in the total population of Palo Alto of around 1%, which is considered insignificant. The location ofproposed housing sites in the Housing Element Amendment are slightly different than anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The most significant change is the proposed use of Site 10-02 (Sun Microsystems) which would convert an office/industrial site to housing (200-300 units). This change, as well as the other changes proposed in the Housing Element amendment, is necessary to meet the City’s housing needs and help address the housing shortage (especially affordable housing) that is facing the region. The impacts on population growth and housing associated with the Housing Element amendment is more than the project case but less than the growth in population and housing evaluated for the High Growth Alternative in the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR. The likely impacts to result from the High Growth Alternative included more intensive and extensive growth from housing and commercial growth and more potential land use conflicts associated with a higher degree of mixed uses. The Housing Element amendment, however, does not include the commercial growth anticipated in the High Growth Alternative and actually reduces job growth by about 1,550 jobs. Overall this would improve the City’s existing jobs/housing imbalance with consequent reductions in the adverse impacts associated with that imbalance, such as traffic congestion. However, it would still generate the same level of potential conflict between land uses. Those conflicts will be addressed by the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan discussed earlier. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES The Public Services and Utilities Chapter (Chapter 4.9) of the Final EIR for Palo Alto’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan identified two significant unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of implementation of the Plan. These unavoidable impacts included storm drainage and schools. All other potential public service impacts were less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The Housing Element amendment will have similar impacts to public services as those analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR for the High Growth Alternative including slightly increased impacts on storm drainage and schools but the impacts will not be significantly greater than the impacts identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. In the case of storm drainage, the Comprehensive Plan EIR that development under the Plan would result in increased amounts of impervious surfaces over that which currently 10 exists and, thus, increase surface runoff, potentially increasing the frequency and severity of existing downstream flooding especially when considering cumulative development in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Palo Alto could mitigate its share of this impact but not impacts outside its jurisdiction. The other jurisdictions in combination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the San Marco County Flood Control District could mitigate this impact to a less than significant level by providing adequate storm drainage consistent with applicable policies and ordinances. The Final EIR evaluated this impact as significant and unavoidable since implementation of this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the SCVWD over which the City has no control. This level of impact would be the same as the planned urban environment evaluated in the Final EIR and only slightly worse than the storm drainage situation of the existing environment. The 8 sites proposed for conversion to housing or mixed use in the Housing Element Amendment would not add pervious surface since the sites are on land already urbanized. Further, allowing or encouraging higher densities on some lands as also called for in the Housing Element amendment will not significantly alter this impact since impervious surface coverage limitations would be the same for higher density as lower density projects whether residential or mixed-use. Evaluation of the impact of the Housing Element amendment on schools is within the range of impacts considered in the High Growth Alternative evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR. The Housing Element amendment has the potential to add 290 housing units above the project evaluated in the Final EIR. The Final EIR indicated that the development allowed under the Comprehensive Plan would result in an increased need for school services that would exceed the capacity of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) causing overcrowding and the need to provide more space. Based on 1996 PAUSD projections, the Comprehensive Plain EIR concluded that K-12 enrollments would total 9,804 by year 2010, exceeding the District capacity of 8,744 students by 1,060. The EIR stated that this excess demand would reduce service and exceed occupancy limits of existing facilities and potentially increase health and safety risks for students and teachers and could only be mitigated by the construction of new school facilities. City policies and programs to assist the District in assessing the impacts of new development on the District and the District’s development impact fee provide partial mitigation for this impact but not full mitigation. No other source of funds for construction is available; this is why the impact on schools was determined significant and unavoidable. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the land use changes proposed by the Plan, would not result in any additional school impacts, principally because development would occur within the developed areas of the City, and is generally accounted for in the development and growth assumptions of the PAUSD. The 2001 PAUSD District-wide Enrollment Forecasts projected that the school district enrollment would increase by approximately 100 students over the next four years. It should be noted that the 2001 forecast cites a recent drop in enrollment in the district and projects significantly lower student enrollment increases than previously forecast. The Housing 11 XII. Element amendment is generally consistent with current PAUSD assumptions. Adding 290 new housing units should not significantly impact the services provided by the PAUSD. Assuming conservatively that, on average, 0.34 students are generated by each household in Palo Alto (based on interpolated 1990 and 2000 Census household data and the 1996 enrollment of PAUSD described on page 279 of the Final EIR; the Housing Element Amendment could generate approximately 100 additional students. This represents an increase of approximately 1% over the 10,600 students currently anticipated by the District in 2010. Thih level of student increase would not be significantly worse than that anticipated in the Final EIR of the Comprehensive Plan. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan also identified the following impacts on public services all of which could be reduced to less than significant levels: Increase in the number of fire suppression service and medical emergency calls to the Palo Alto Fire Department. Increase in demand for Police Services. Increase in demand for non-emergency medical services. The additional growth of 290 housing units as the result of fully implementing the Housing Element Amendment would result in a population increase of 665 people or an increase of approximately 1% which does not represent a significant additional demand on the services listed above and is considerably less than the 425 unit increase anticipated in the High Growth Alternative evaluated in the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan. RECREATION The Open Space and Recreation Chapter (Chapter 4.10) of the Final EIR for Palo Alto’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan identified one significant, but avoidable, environmental impact on city parks as a result of implementation of the Plan. All other potential recreation impacts on open space preserves, trails and pathways, and private open space were less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The Housing Element Amendment will have similar impacts to recreation facilities services as those analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR for including slightly increased impacts on city parks but not significantly greater than the impacts identified and evaluated in the Final EIR. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan indicated that Palo Alto was not meeting its guidelines of providing 2 acres of neighborhood parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City currently provides about 64.6 acres of neighborhood parks (including school playgrounds) versus a guideline need of 116 acres. The Final EIR indicated that additional development will increase the demand for neighborhood parks of which the City currently has a slight shortage (when including District and Regional parklands in the evaluation). This impact could be reduced to a less than significant level by the following mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR: 12 "The City shall review development projects to ensure that adequate park facilities are provided, and that the proposed projects would not result in a significant increase in the existing shortage of park facilities. The City could implement either public or private financing mechanisms such as a Park Impact Fee Ordinance for obtaining additional parklands and/or for rehabilitating existing parks in a way that expands their usefulness. Such review is particularly applicable in the Green Meadow neighborhood More importantly, the City has recently adopted a park impact fee that applies to all new residential development except for 100% affordable housing projects. This new impact fee will help reduce the gap in parklands needed by the City and should fully mitigate any impact from the additional housing development envisioned by the Housing Element amendment. XIII. The addition of 290 households through implementation of the Housing Element amendment would generate 665 new residents and require around 2 acres of additional neighborhood parks to serve these residents. This represents an increase 1.3% over the existing need of about 116 acres, which is an insignificant increase. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Chapter (Chapter 4.3) of the Final EIR for Palo Alto’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan identified several significant unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of implementation of the Plan’s policies and programs. These unavoidable impacts included the following: Loss of automobile travel lanes by accommodating bicycle travel could reduce opportunities to relieve traffic congestion or increase traffic congestion in some areas. Choosing not to create additional roadway capacity. Foregoing intersection improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle safety. Significant decreases in Level of Service at the following intersections (LOS D is the minimum level of acceptable traffic level of service for Palo Alto intersections): o Middlefield/San Antonio (LOS D to LOS F). o E1 Camino Real/Page Mill (LOS D to LOS F). c~E1 Camino Real/Arastradero/Charleston (LOS D to LOS E). c~E1 Camino Real/San Antonio (LOS D to LOS E). c~Alma/Charleston (LOS D to LOS F). c~Embarcadero/East Bayshore (LOS E). Traffic volumes on some local residential streets may increase significantly due to future congestion on adjacent collector and arterial streets. Several non-residential arterial streets and expressways are projected to have significant and unavoidable congestion impacts at several major intersections. Increased traffic would exceed one percent of existing capacity of Route 101, which currently maintains LOS F conditions. Increased traffic would result in overall adverse impact on bus service and bicyclists. 13 The" amount and location of new residential growth proposed within the Housing Sites Inventory contained in the Housing Element amendment is very similar to the "project" development scenario envisioned in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, described on pages 30-34 of the Final EIR for the Plan. The main exception is Housing Site 10-02, Sun Microsystems, which was expected to remain office/industrial in both the project and High Growth Alternative scenarios of the Comprehensive Plan. The site currently is primarily occupied by a large office building (260,000 square feet in size) that could accommodate approximately 1,040 employees. By replacing this office/industrial use with 200 housing units, the City may improve traffic congestion in the immediate area and the Middlefield/San Antonio intersection by a "reverse commute". The residential development would generate around 1,200 trips over the course of a day; whereas, the office industrial use would generate around 3,000 trips per day primarily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Since Site 10-02 is in a nearly fully developed industrial area, the current traffic pattern for the office/industrial use is for a large volume of traffic to enter the area during the morning peak commute period and for an equally large volume of traffic to leave the area during the afternoon peak commute period. The proposed change to residential use would help reverse this pattern and reduce congestion and, by bringing housing closer to jobs, actually reduce traffic by allowing people to walk to work at nearby jobs. It appears that this limited change in the growth pattern envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan could reduce traffic congestion level of service impacts. Further, the Housing Element amendment proposes traffic mitigation measures in some of its Housing Programs to mitigate potential traffic impacts. Program H-4 would allow increases in residential densities and allow mixed-use development only on those sites where it is determined that such development wili be consistent with the City’s traffic level of service policies. Program H-5 allows for development at the high end of the allowed density range for residential or mixed-use development on sites near transit stations where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities and will not significantly worsen existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections. The impact on Route 101 and the major intersections listed above governed by the County’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP), would not be significantly modified by the Housing Element amendment, with the exception of the Sun Microsystems site (10- 02), and improve peak hour traffic congestion and level of service as described above. The Housing Element amendment will not: Induce any changes in air traffic patterns since now housing site is in proximity to the Palo Alto Airport approach zone. Increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Result in inadequate emergency access, although changes in emergency evacuation plans may be required to account for the new residents on site 10-02 and other commercial and industrial areas. 14 XIVo Result in inadequate parking capacity since any changes in parking standards would be thoroughly studied and evaluated as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process prior to taking action to reduce parking requirements. This process would include review of the potential consequences of reducing parking for particular types of projects. Parking reductions would primarily be considered for transit-oriented development or possibly other housing developments that can demonstrate that their need for parking is less than the required parking standard called for by the Zoning Ordinance. Such action would not result directly from the Housing Element amendment itself. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. In fact, the Housing Element amendment seeks to encourage transit use and other modes of transportation by locating housing closer to both transit facilities and jobs. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Public Services and Utilities Chapter (Chapter 4.9) of the Final EIR for Palo Alto’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan identified no significant unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of implementation of the Plan. All potential public service impacts were less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The Housing Element amendment will not significantly increase impacts to public services from those analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified the following impacts on utilities and service systems, all of which could be reduced to a less than significant impact: Water demand would increase by 1.5 million gallons per day. Collection and treatment of approximately 1.6 million gallons of wastewater per day. Increase in natural gas and electricity use (all of which can be accommodated by Palo Alto’s Utility Department). Increase in solid waste generation, which can be mitigated by requiring construction and operation recycling plans for all significant projects in Palo Alto as called for on pages 297-298 of the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan. The 290 additional housing units that may result by implementing the Housing Element amendment represent a population increase of around 1% and represents the level of increased impact that might result from implementation of the Housing Element amendment and the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This difference in level of impact is not significant. The new housing growth proposed in the Housing Element amendment is also less than the 425 housing unit differential between the "project" and High Growth Alternative scenarios evaluated in the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the proposed housing sites were planned for non-residential uses in the existing Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, were evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan EIR to provide utility and service system needs to meet non-residential demand. 15 RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE 1998-2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAP BY ADOPTING THE 1999-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto adopted the 1998-2002 comprehensive general plan in 1998, including the 1998-2003 Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Article 10.6 of the Government Code mandates that the City update its Housing Element periodically to better address the housing needs of the community and region, including revised "regional housing needs allocation" numbers adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments defining the City’s "fair share" of new housing production; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public outreach program on the 1999-2006 Housing Element, (the ~Project"), conducting three community forums in February, Augusz, and December of 2001, as well as making use of both an ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee and Focus Group; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard public comment and reviewed and considered the proposed Housing Element at its meetings of October 2, 2001 and June 26, 2002; and recommended approval of it; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard public comment and reviewed and considered the Housing Element on October 9,--2001, February 4, 2002, February 19, 2002, April i, 2002, and November 12, 2002; and WHEREAS, a draft Housing Element, promoting the developmenz and maintenance of a diverse housing stock, including the City’s fair share of new housing production, while mitigating any adverse impacts that might arise from new development, was submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development on March 4, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development responded in a letter dated May 3, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City has responded to each and every comment from the Department of Housing and Community Development as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and made a part of it; and 021107 syn 0091166 WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report was reviewed and considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission, which -recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend its Comprehensive Plan by adopting a new Housing Element that is consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan itself and conforms to state law and is certified as such by the Department of Housing and Community Development. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Background. Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, follows: The City Council of the City of determines, and declares as A. The City of Palo Alto ("City") proposes to adopt the 1999-2006 Housing Element (including the Housing Element Technical Document). B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR, which was approved by the Council on July 20, 1998, and the Addendum, are on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Addendum and record of proceedings, including but not limited to testimony received by the Council during each of its public hearings on the Project and responses by staff during those public hearings. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Addendum was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings, on the proposed-Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering the 1999-2006 Housing Element. The City Council hereby finds that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City.as lead agency. SECTION 3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Reaffirmed. The City Council hereby reconfirms and readopts every finding of fact and declaration in Resolution No. 021107 syn 0091166 2 7780 attached to this resolution as Exhibit B and a made a part of ft including, but not limited to, identification of significant impacts which can be mitigated to a less than significant level, identification of significant impacts that cannot be fully mitfgated, alternative analysis, statement of overriding considerations, and identification of impacts found not to be sign±ficant. SECTION 4. Additional Findings. and determines that: The City Council finds A. Implementation of the Housing Element could result in 290 more new housing units and 1,550 fewer new jobs than were anticipated in the 1992-2010 Comprehensive Plan. B. Implementation of the Housing Element, with application of previously identified and adopted mitigation measures, will not have significant adverse impact with regard to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, "noise generation or exposure, police, fire, and emergency and non-emergency medical services, or utilities and service systems. Some site specific mitigation measures will be formulated on a case by case basis as required under existing city regulations and practices. Possible complaints regarding exposure to odors that could result from sites 8-11 and 10-02 can be addressed by enforcement of existing laws. C. The Final EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts on storm drains when considered cumulatively with the deve!opment of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park~Palo Alto can only address the impact of its own development.The eight sites proposed for conversion to housing or mixed use would not add impervious surface. Allowing or encouraging higher densities on some lands will not. significantiy alter this impact, since impervious coverage limitations would be the same for higher density as lower density project. The implementation of new source reduction requirements required under the City’s federal and regional discharge permits may lead to net reduction in runoff in some cases. D. In 1996, the Final EIR identified a future shortage of school capacity. Since that time, the enrollment projections have¯ been revised and additional capacity has been added. Most recent~ district enrollment forecasts show fewer students than previous estimates. Implementation of the Housing Element could lead to an additional i00 students in the Palo Alto Unified School District, approximately one percent of projected enrollment and within the planning parameters of the District. 021107 syn 0091166 3 E. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan stated that Palo Alto was not meeting its guidelines of providing 2 acres of neighborhood parkland for every 1,000~ residents. The addition of 290 households through implementation of the Housing Element would add approximately 665 new residents and require approximately 2 acres of additional neighborhood parks. This represents an increase of 1.3% in the ~existing need of 116 acres and is an insignificant increase. Moreover, the Final EIR identified a mitigation measure, the adoption of a park impact fees. This impact fee has now been adopted and applies to all market rate housing and some affordable housing. The City Council finds and determines that the marginal increase in park shortage arising from the exemption of affordable housing units is insignificant, and if it were not, the value to the community of including affordable housing justifies the exemption. F. The amount and location of new residential growth proposed in the Housing Element does not differ significantly from the existing Comprehensive Plan, except for Housing Site 10-02, the Sun Microsystems site. The conversion of that site from office/industrial to Community/center residential is likely to reduce traffic congestion. SECTION 5. Adoption. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of both Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by adoption of the 1999-2006 Housing Element set forth in Exhibit C, attached to this resolution and made a part of it. The City Council hereby amends the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by adopting the aforesaid 1999-2006 Housing Element. SECTION 6. Substantial Evidence. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and Addendum and in the record of proceedings on the Project. SECTION 7. No Recirculation Required. The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR, the Addendum, and record of proceedings. 021107 syn 0091166 SECTION 8. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective on the 31st day after its adoption. This delayed effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date shall be re3ected as untimely. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 021107 syn 0091166 EXHIBIT A STATE COMMENTS ON THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT RELATED TO HOUSING NEEDS, RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS Overpayment Analysis HCD stated that the Housing Element should include more information on the degree households overpaid for housing (i.e., devoted more than 30% of household income for housing).Substantial information on this subject has been added on pages 27-28 of the Housing Element Technical Document.This information documents overpayment data based on the 1990 Census; 2000 Census information is not yet available on this subject. Housing Site Inventory HCD stated that the analysis of the City’s proposed Housing Site Inventory should be expanded, to better demonstrate the likelihood of these sites being developed within the timeframe of this Housing Element. Staff has revised Appendix E of the draft Housing Element Technical Document to include a data sheet on each Housing Inventory Site which identifies the following topics: existing land use; the status of the site and its improvements; the availability of access, infrastructure and services; redevelopment and reuse potential; and potential dwelling unit yield and mix of housing types. Land Use Controls HCD asked that a more comprehensive description and analysis of the City’s residential standards and their potential impact on the development and cost of housing should be provided in order to evaluate governmenta! constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing. A matrix of the City’s key residential development standards, and describing how those standards allow for reasonable housing development without significantly impacting the cost of housing in Palo Alto has been added at pages 61-63 of the Housing Element 021106 syn 0091168 Technical Document. The text was also revised to point out the Housing Programs the City has added to reduce governmental constraints on the production of housing. Design Review HCD asked for more information on the City’s design review process and the availability of objective design guidelines, a more detailed analysis of fees and exactions as they affect the cost of residential development, and a more detailed discussion regarding constraints on housing ~for persons with disabilities. A description of the City’s design processes, including the preliminary review of applications, and design guidelines has been added on pages 65-66 of the Technical Document. This description indicates h~w these procedures and guidelines can actually reduce housing costs by reducing delays in project processing. Fees A detailed analysis of the City’s fees, including recently adopted fees for parks, community centers and libraries, is provided on pages 66-68 of the Technical Document. This analysis shows that the City’s fees add no more than 2% to 2.6% to the cost of a typical home in Palo Alto, which is insignificant when compared to land, labor and construction costs. However, the City does recognize that these fees can create problems for development of affordable housing; therefore, the Housing Element includes policies and programs to exempt affordable housing from certain fees. Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities A new subsection addressing the issue of housing constraints for persons with disabilities~ is provided on page 63 of the Technical Document. This section indicates that the City currently enforces all applicable laws, including the Americans~ with Disabilities Act (ADA), to provide adequate housing for persons with disabilities and is unaware of any constraints related to the production of this type of housing through its zoning ordinance or other regulations. This subsection also identifies the Housing 021106 syn 0091168 Programs the City will implement to ensure that there is no housing discrimination for persons with disabilities. State Comments on Chapter 4 related to Housing Programs Action Plan HCD indicated that certain of the Housing Programs contained in the draft Housing Element should be reworded to demonstrate the City’s commitment to carrying out these programs. The housing programs were revised to address HCD’s concerns by: providing more specificity on how a policy will work, including clarifying its intent, or indicating the timeframe in which a program is expected to be implemented. Examples of Housing Programs changed include programs H-2, H-3, H-5, H-19, H-21, H-42 and H-46. In some cases, such as Housing Policy 19, new programs were added to demonstrate the City’s commitment to supporting and implementing its housing policies. In addition new programs were proposed to reinforce existing housing policies or programs to further demonstrate the City’s commitment to the production of affordable housing. Examples include Housing Programs: H-32a - provide preferential or priority processing for affordable housing applications. H-46a - continue support for the Santa Clara County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate program promoting low- and moderate-income homeownership. H-49a - ensure that development regulations provide for development of shared housing or other innovative housing types. H-50a - ensure that development regulations provide for development of housing that provides services to households with special needs. Housing Site Inventory HCD reiterated its concern that more detailed analysis was needed of the viability and suitability of the sites identified in the Housing Site Inventory. That issue has been addressed in the draft Housing Element Technical Document as described in the previous section addressing the State’s comments on housing needs, resources and constraints. Additionally, HCD wanted information on how 021106 syn 0091168 3 the City would encourage and facilitate the development of emergency homeless shelters and transitional housing. To address this, Housing Program H-51a has been added, which ~calls for the creation of location and development criteria for both emergency shelters and transitional housing to expedite the processing of applications for these types of housing. Governmental Constraints HCD indicated that the issue of potential governmental constraints needed more thorough analysis; particularly in regards to persons with disabilities and that a program to address potential governmental constraints to the provision of housing for disabled persons should be added. Housing Programs H-57a and H-57b have been added that continue the City’s efforts ~to identify and eliminate potentially discriminatory regulations hampering the production of housing for the disabled and continue the City’s efforts generally to end housing discrimination. Housing Program H-57a also calls for the creation of development procedures to better facilitate reasonable accommodation requests for housing for persons with special needs. New Housing Program 50a seeks to remove obstacles to the creation of housing providing services to special needs households. Density Bonus Requirements HCD expressed concern that the wording of Housing Program H-36 indicated that density bonuses for moderate, income households, would be allowed without addressing the needs of lower-income or senior households first as required by State law. Staff revised Housing Programs H-35 (which ,addresses density bonuses) and H-36 clarifying that the City’s density bonus programs will comply with State law. Affordable Housing Stock Conservation HCD raised concerns related to the physical condition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and the City’s efforts to preserve this unique source of affordable housing. HCD suggested that a program was necessary to conserve this source of housing. To address this issue,t Housing Program H-39 has been modified to indicate that the City will, to 106 syn 0091168 4 the extent feasible, seek appropriate funding for the preservation of the affordable housing provided by the Buena Vista Mobile Home .Park. Fair Housing Programs HCD asked the City to expand the discussion of the City’s role in combating housing discrimination and the dissemination of fair housing information to those that may be affected by housing discrimination. Housing Program H- 57b has been added, reiterating the City’s ongoing commitment to eliminate housing discrimination and clarifying the fact that t~e City provides funding and support to the Mid:Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing in its .efforts to disseminate information .regarding fair housing. 021106 syn 0091168 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO.7780 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ]kDEQUACY OF THE 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINAL ENVI RONZ~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPTING THE 1998-2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAP WHEREAS, Section 65300, et seq., of the California Government Code and the Palo Alto Municipal Code authorize the City to prepare long-range~ comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto adopted a comprehensive general plan in 1980, consisting of a general plan text and maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the e~{isting comprehensive plan~ as amended, must be revised to address the range and breadth of issuesr technological, environmental, ~economic~ and demographic changes that have affected Palo Alto since the 1980 plan was adopted; and : WHEREAS, subsequent analyses prepared by both the Planning and Community Development Department and its consultants, in consultation with the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, demonstrated that the CityVs comprehensive plan required many other technica! and policy modifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that further development approvals under the existing comprehensive plan constitute a threat to the health, safety~ and welfare of the residents by failing to secure adequate facilitiesr envirormmental quality, and fiscal. s~curity desirable to the citizens of Palo Alto; and WHEREAS~ the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft comprehensive plan’ and the accompanying environmental impact report° The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION io Background°The City CouHcil of the City of ¯ Palo Alto ("City Council") finds~ determines~ and declares as follows ~. Ao The city of Palo Alto i’City’V) proposes to adopt the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to replace the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan. The 1998-2010 plan consists of a Land Use and Community Design Element, a Transportation Element~ a Housing a Housing Element, a Natural Environment Elementr a Community Services and Facilities Element, a Business and Economic Element, a Land Use and Circulation Map, and a Governance Chapter and Implementation Chapter° B.. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State ,CEQA Guidelines Section 15139, the Final EIR consists of the following documents.and records: "Palo Alto 1.998- 2010 Comprehensive Plan Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report, December 1996"; "Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Reportr September 1997", and the planning and other City recordsv minutesv and files constituting the record Of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Actr Public Resources Code Section 21000, et Seqo (’!CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines~ California Code of Regulations,. Title14, Section 15000~ et.seqo The Final EIR is on file in the’ office of the. Director of.Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City recordsf minutes and files constitutingthe record of proceedings~ is incorporated herein by this reference° Co The initial Notice of Preparation was distributed on Hay 8~ 1996. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between January 2~ 1997 and February 20~ 1997. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on February 19 and 20r 1997; and Planning Commission review on March 4~5, and 13, 1997. Do The City Council~ in conjunctionwith this resolution, is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6~ which program is designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or Substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR~ and described in detail in the Ffhal EIR which is incorporated herein by this reference° Eo The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings~ including but not limited to. testimony received by the Council during the September 23~ 29~ and 30~ 1997~ public hearings on the Project andresponses by staff during those public hearings. The City council then reviewed the Plan and FEIR at five subsequent meetings before referring the Plan and FEIR back to the.Planning Commission with revisions. SECTION 2o Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in. the Final EIR, .staff reportsg oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and al! other matters deemed mate.rial and relevant before considering the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Update for approval. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency° SECTION 3. Significant impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds .that the Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the Project in regard to Land Use and Public Policy; Transportation, Circulation and Parking; Noise; Air Quality; Hydrology; Public Services, and. Utilities; Open Space and Recreation~ Vegetation and Wildlife; and Cultural Resources° The City Council finds -that’r in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3’, al! feasible changes or alterations which avoid or substan.tial!y lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below~ .have been incorporated into the Project° This follows Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (i) which allows for finding.s staling that .for each significant effect "changes or alterations have been required inr or’ incorporated into,, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment°" Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized, below is more fully described in the Final EIRo Ao Land Use and Public Policy Impact LU-I concerns the potential incompatibilities between.land uses that can occur within mixed use development° Mixed use deve!opment is encouraged in Policy L-9o This potential impact will be mitigated to less than significant levels by adopting and applying performance standards for use in reviewing mixed use development as described in Mitigation Measure LU-I. These standards will also be incorporated into the requirements of. any new zoning districts that are added to the zoning ordinance for the purpose of regulating development Under the Proposed new mixed use land use desigationso Suchstandards willbe incorporated into the zoning ordinance to apply to any mixed use development that which could be allowed in existing zoning districts° ~ Impact LU-2 concerns the potential for !and use incompatibilities between housing and i) parking lots~ and 2) commercial centers as encouraged in Policy LU-2o This potential impact will be reduced .to less than significant levels through the implementation of the Architectural Review process and the incorporation of design ~eatures described in Mitigation LU-2 (ioeo~ features relating to noise buffering~ pedestrian safety~ view protection~ and control of odors and fumes) within specific projects° These.design measures will be required as mitigation in the CEQA review of those mixed use projects° Impact LU-3 concerns the potential environmental impacts of ~the various options to provide a pedestrian/bicycle connection across 3 9g0716 ape 0052027 E1 Cam±no Real between the Ventura and Barton Park neighborhoods. These impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels by restricting the options to an at-grade crossing, a~cording to the criteria described in Mitigation Measure LU-3. B. Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Impact CIRC-5 concerns the anticipated decrease in. leve! of service at the Middlefi~!d Road/Oregon Expressway intersection from LOS E to LOS F. This impact will be reduced to less~:than significant levels through construction of the road improvements as described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-5o These improvements(which include the provision of an exclusive left turn lane and dual through lanes on the Middlefield Road approaches to the intersection, changing the signal operation to eight-phase, and the provision of a second left turn lane in the westbound. Oregon Expressway approach) will be funded by the City’s Traffic Impact Feet if appropr~iate, by a revised traffic, impact fee} and/or by other City funds. Impact CIRC-7 concerns the anticipated decrease in level of service at the E! Camino Real/Embarcadero Road intersection from LOS D to LOS Fo This impact will be reduced to a less than significant level through construction of the improvements described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-7, which include the construction of a left-turn lane on the southbound E1 Camfno Real approach and the restriping of one existing westbound lane on Embarcadero Road to prov:[de a shared through/left movemento .These improvements willbe partially funded .by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation as a mitigation for impacts caused by their new campus on Urban Lane~ at such time as the left lane movements from southbound E1 Camino .Real onto Embarcadero Road reach.300vehicles in the PM peak hour° If this threshold is not reached, the City will complete the improvement and PAHF will pay for 47 percent of its cost° The City’s portion of the improvement cost w±ll be funded by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee~ if appropriate, by a.revised traffic impact fee~ and/0r by other City funds° Impact CiRC-II concerns the anticipated decrease in level of service at the intersection of Foothill Expressway/Arastadero Road from LOS to LOS Fo This impact wil! be reduced to .less than significant levels through construction of the improvements along Arastadero Road described in Mitigation Measure CIRCrlIr which requires the City to construct an additiona! lane on the westbound Arastadero Road approach to Miranda Avenue~ a right turn lane to Miranda Avenue~ and two through lanes and two exclusive, left turn lanes at Foothill Expressway° These improvements will also be coordinated with a potential City project to provide bicycle lanes in both directions on Arastadero Road between Miranda Avenue and Gunn High School° These improvements wil! be funded by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee~ if appropriate~ by a r~vised traffic impact fee, and/or by other City funds. Impact CIRC’II9 concerns the increased parking demand in excess of the parking supply in the Downtown and California Avenue commercial areas. This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the parking cap, parking deficit monitoring, parking provision and/or residential parkfng permit programs described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-19. Impact CIR~-20 concerns potential, traffic safety impacts at the Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road, E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road, and Alma Street/ Charleston Road intersections° ’This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through continuation of. the City’s program to monitor and identify high accident intersections and to institute safety programs at these intersections as described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-20o Impact ClRC-21 concerns increases in safety problems on neighborhood streets due to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods already experiencing these problems° This impact will be reduced to a less than significant level through continued implementation of the CityVs Traffic Safety Program which addresses enforcement~ street maintenance, and traffic improvements projects as described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-21. .. C. Noise Impact NOISE-2 concerns the potential for exposure of new and existing development next to unacceptable noise sources such as major roadways. These impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of Mi£igation Measure NOISE-2. This measure requires the adoption of and implementation of new poiicies relating to the review of proposed projects with respect to quantitative noise guidelines and the use of standard thresholds of significance for CEQA noise evaluations° These new policies¯ have been added to the Natura! Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan as Policies N-39~ N-41~ and N-42o Do Air 0uality Impact AIR-1 concerns potential land use conflicts created when locating new laKd uses near sources of local odor and toxic emissions° This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation He,sure AIR-1 that requires t.he adoption of a policy to require adequate buffers~ mechanical ventilation sgstems~ or other measure that would prevent odors or toxic emissions from caus&ng human health impacts° Such a policy has been added to the Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan as Policy N-29o Eo Hydrolog~ Impact HYDRO-2 concerns the potential risk to new development in areas subject to flooding due to dam failure. These impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 which requires review of ongoing technical evaluations of dam safety and cooperation with relevant entities to implement the project-specific mitigation measures included in those technical studies. F. Public Services and Utilities Impact PUBSERV-6 concerns the increased generation of solid waste by development facilitated by the Comprehensive Plan Update° This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure PUBSERV. 6~A which requires that all major construction projects prepare construction recycling plans, and through implementation of Mitigation Measure PUBSERV 6-B that requires all major development projects prepare operational recycling .plans° These requirements will be included in the standard .conditions of approva! for al! projects subject .to Architectural Review. .Impact PUBSERV-7 concerns the increased demands on fire suppression and emergency services° This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementaiion of Miti,gation Measure PUBSERV-7 that requires the City either adopt an impact fee or provide other funding to offset these increasesd servime demands° The City will provide additional funds from the General fund to support necessary increases in fire suppression and emergency services° ’ Impact PUBSERV-8 concerns the increased demands on police services° This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of Mitigation Measure PUBSERV-8 which requires that the City.either adopt an impact fee or provide other funding to offset these increased service demands° The Ci.ty will provide additional funds from the Genera! Fund to support necessary increases in police services. Go Open Space and Recreation Impact 0S,9 concerns the increased demand for neighborhood parks.° This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of Mitigation Measure OS-! that requires the City review deve!opment projects to ensure that adequate park facilities are proyided and that proposed projects would not result in a significant increase in the existing shortage of park facilities° Financing for additional park lands will be provided through the implementation of public or private, financing mechanisms. Ho Vegetation and Wildlife Impact BIO-I concerns the loss of non-native grasslands contiguous to San Francisquito Creek due to the anticipated construction of 980716 ape 0052027 the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects. This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of grassland protection mitigations described in d@tail in the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects Final Environmental Impact Report and as required by Mitigation Measure OS-Io Implementation of such mitigations are also a condition of approval of the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. I. Cultural Resources Impact CULT-I concerns the potential for disruption to undiscovered cultural resource sites in the City during the construction of new development. This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels by .implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-I that requires an archeological sensitivity map be included in the Comprehensive Plan for use in determining the specific methods of identifying and protecting cultural resources during construction. Such a map has been added’to the Comprehensive Plan as Figure L-8. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts That Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the FinaA EI.R identifies significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to Transportation, Circulation and Parking; Hydrology; and Publ.ic Services and Utilities. The City Council finds %hat, in ~esponse to each such significant effects identified in this Section 4, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been required inr or incorporated into~ the Project that lessen to the extent feasible~ the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, these effects cannot be totally avoided or reduced to levels of insignificance if the Project is implemented. Accordingly.r the impacts summarized below remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project. A. Transportation~ Circulation and Parking Impact CIRC-I concerns the potential for increased congestion that would occur by using available right-of-way to create outside travel lanes with adequate width for shared’use bY motorists and bicyclist when constructing or modifying roadways~ rather than using the right of way for additional automobile travel lanes° No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than significant level because~ as a matterof policy~ to encourage alternate modes of transportation~ the City chooses to provide for bicyclists before motorists~ and has determined not to condemn and purchase the private property that may be necessary to accommodate both° Impac[ ClRC-2 concerns the potential for increased congestion that would occur by the allocation of limited right-of-way space for use by bicyclists and pedestrians~ rather than for additional automobile travel lanes° No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than significait level 920716 apc 0052027 because as a matter of policy, to encourage alternative transportation modes, the City chooses to provide for bicylists and pedestrians before motorists, and has determined not to condemn and purchase additional private property which may be necessary to accommodate both. Impact CIRC-3 concerns the potential increases in congestion that would occur by implementing the City policy to avoid creating new roadway segment capacity, f.e., no road .widenings. No feasible mitigation or al’ternative exists to reduce this’impact to a less- than significant level because the impact is an intentional result of the poli.cyo While the City does not desire congestion, it recognizes that constantly increasing roadway .capacity will not reduce congestion over the long term. ~ Impact CIRC-4 concerns the potential degradation in operation of intersections that could occur through implementation of the City policy to forgo intersection improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less than significant level because the impact is an intentional result of the policy. While the City does not desire traffic congestion~ it chooses to try to reduce congestion through encouraging alternative transportation modes° The City prefers this approach over constantly providing additional roadway capacity that wil! not reduce congestion over the lon~ ~ermo Impact ClRC-6 concerns the.decrease in level of service Which would occur at the intersection of Middlefield Road/San Antonio Road~ While participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan is considered to offset this impact according zo the Congestion Management Agency standard, no feasible mitigation is available to offset this impac< according to the City’s standard of sianificanceo Three improvement projects have been identified that would reduce the severity of the impacts to the operation of the intersection° However~ these mitigations are not considered fea}ible because the amount of improvement in intersection operation would be very small compared to l)th@ expense of utility re!ocation work that would be required to construct the improvements~ and 2]the expense and dificulty in acquirlng additional right-of:way from adjacent property owners~ some of which have substantial improvements and structures° Impact ClRC-8 concerns the decrease in level of service that would occur at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road° This impacz would be reduced through implementation of the improvements described in Mitigation. Measure CIRC-8o These improvements include the construction of a right-turn lane on the southbound and northbound E1 Camino Real approaches~ provision of an increased turning radius oh the southeast corner of the intersection~ and construction of a right-turn lane and a lengthened left turn lane on the westbound Page Mill Road approach° 980716 apo 0052027 The turn lanes on the E1 Camino Real approaches would require the ~acquisition of approximately 12 feet of private property on the side where the lane would be constructed. Even with these improvements the operation of the intersection.~will decrease in level of service from LOS D to LOS E. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impac< to a less,than signifiCant level because improvements beyond those described above would require .even more private right of way. The City is unwilling as a matte~ of policy, to condem and purchase this additional right- of-way for roadway improvements due to the expense and dific~ity in acquiring such right-of-way compared to the limited improvement in level of service that would be provided. Impact CIRC-9 concerns the decrease in level of service that would occur at the E1 Camino Real/Arastadero Road/Charleston Road .intersection. While there are several improvements that could be made to this intersectionr they would requir, e the acquisition of ¯ additional right-of-way from adjacent property ownersr and none would result in sufficient improvement in intersection operation to justify the difficulty and~. expense of completing these improvements. ~ In addi’tionr the potential improvements to the intersection would create difficulty for bicycles and pedestrians traveling through the intersection. For these reasons, the City concludes that no’ feasible mitigation or alternative exists t© reduce this impact to a less-than-signifcant level° Impact CIRC-10 concerns the decrease in level of service that would occur at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road° While there are several improvements that could be made to this intersection~ they would require the aquisition of additional right-of-way, and none would result in sufficient improvement in intersection operation to justify the dificu!ty and expense of completing these ¯ improvements. In addition,~ the potential improvements to the intersection would create difficulty for bicycles and pedestrians traveling through the intersection° For these reasons~ the City concludes that no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-signifcant level° Impact CIRC-12 concerns the decrease in level of service that would occur at the Alma/Charleston intersection° While there are several improvement projects which could be done at this intersection~ they would all require the acquisition, of add±tional right-of-wayo None of these projects would res@it in sufficient improvement in intersection operation to. justify the dificulty and expense of constructing these projects° In addition~ th’e potential improvements to the intersection would creat6 difficulty for bicycles and pedestrians traveling through the intersection° For these reasons~ the City finds that no. feasible mitigation or alternative exists, to reduce this impact to a less-than signifcant level. 980716 ape 0Q52027 9 Impact CIRC-13 concerns the decrease in level of service that would ~occur at the Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road intersection. While there are several improvement~ projects which could .be completed at this intersection, none womld result in sufficient improvement, in intersection operation to justify the dificulty and expense of completing these projects. In addition, the potential improvements to the intersectio~ would likely be offset by added northbound PM peak hour commute period traffic seeking an alternative to congested Highway i01. For these reasons, the City finds that no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact CIRC-14 concerns the increased traffic volumes on local streets due to congestion on arterials and collectors. The severity of this impact would be reduced by.the implementation of the traffic calming program described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-14 which would increase safety on those streets and may serve as a deterent to drivers seeking a faster "cut through" route° Howeverf traffic calming measures are primarily effective in reducing traffic speeds~ and do not always reduce traffic volumes° Therefore~ the City finds that no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than signifcant level. Impact CIRC-15 concern~ the increased traffic volumes on the fol!owing road segments: OregonExpressway east of Alma Street~ E1 Camino Real between Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue~ E1 Camino Real sou[h of Charleston Road~ San Antonio Road west of Middlefield Road~ and Foothill Expressway south of Arastadero Road° The creation of additional c~pacity on these roadways would require the acquisition of private property from a large number of property owners to provide additional right-of-wayo In addition to the expense and effort involved in such a task~ the City~ as a matter of policy~ chooses not to condemn and purchase property for roadway improvements.° To this end~ proposed Comprehensive Plan Policy T-26 discourages the City from adding roadway capacity° Because the City chooses not to provide the additional capacity~ no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less- than:significant level° Impact CIRC-16 concerns the increase intraffiC on Highway i01 which currently operates at LOS Fo Most of the increase on Highway I01 would result from. regional cummulative growtho Solutions to such regional problems are complicated by the number~ variety and of type of jurisdictions involved. In the case of Highway i01~ these agencies include Caltrans~ Santa Clara County~ San Mateo County~ and all the cities along the route° While some measures~ such as metered onramps~ could help reduce the problem~ noneof the potential congestion solutions considered by the Santa Clara C’ounty County Congestion Management ~gency for inclusion in the Santa Clara County Deficiency Plan would improve LOS on the freeway to an acceptable level° Simple freeway widening is considered to be infeasible based on environmental .constraints ahd the expense and difficulty in obtaining the necessary right-of-way. Therefore, City participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan would not fully mitigate the LOS F conditions. Because the freeway is a part of the regional circulation system, localized improvements (e.g., isolated widenings within Palo Alto) would not improve overall congestion problems on the freeway, but rather are more likely to merely re!ocate congestion to another segment of the route. S~nce neither local or regional solutions age available to solve the freeway congestion problem, the City finds that no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce, these impacts to a less-than- significant level. Impact CIRC-17 concerns the overall interference to transit service that would be caused by congestion anticipated at intersections and road segments identified, in Impacts CIRC-5 through 15. Impact CIRC-17 also concerns the specific increased demand on the Dumbarton Bridge bus service which is operating near capacity at peak periods. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CIRC-17, which incorporates the mitigation measures identified for Impacts CIRC-5~ 6~7~8,9~ii~14, and 15; plus the CityVs continued participation in the Dumbarton Bridge consortium; and the City’s support of future rail service in the Dumbarton corridor, will combine to reduce the overall impacts to transit and the .specific problem in the Dumbarton corridor° However, because impacts after mitigation are expected to remain signifcant at six of the nine impacted intersections throughout the Cityr the interference with transit service in the City will remain significant. In addition, because the City of Palo Alto does not have direct. contro! over transit service in the Dumbarton corrid6rr it is unkown to what extent the impacts to service in the corridor will or can be reduced through expansion of existing bus service and/or the addition of rail service. Fbr these reasons~ impacts associated.with interference of.transit service will be significant and unavoidable. Impact ClRC-18 concerns the overall degradation of level of service to bicyclis%s .created by increased congestion in the City at several intersections° Because traffic impacts at six of the nine significantly impacted intersections would remain significant even after mitigation~ the delays to bicycles would also remain significant° Therefore the City finds that there is no feasible mitigation or alternative to reduce the impact to bicycle trave! to less-than-significant levelso Bo Hydroloqy Impact HYDRO-I concerns the potential for increased runoff in the San Francisquito~ Hatadero~ Barron~ and Adobe Creek watersheds due to increased impervious surfaces resulting from cumulative development° This impact could be reduced through implementation of.Mitigation Measure Hydro-i which calls for the provision of adequate storm drainage systems in new development in coordination with the Santa Clara Valley WaterDistrict and the San Mateo County Flood Contro! District. However., .because not all of the potential developmen~ causing the increases in runoff is Within the City.’s jurisdiction,the impact is considered to be signifcant and unavoidable.No feasible mitigation or alternative has been identified at this time to reduce this impact¯ to a less-than- significant level. C. Public Services and Utilities Impact PUBSERV-3 concerns the potential for increased runoff in the San Francisquito, Matadero, Barron~ and Adobe Creek watersheds due to increased impervious surfaces resulting from cummulative development. This impact could be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure PUBSERV-3~ which calls for the provision of adequate storm drainage systems in new development in coordination with the Santa Clara ValleZ Water District and the San Mateo County Flood Control District. However~ because not all of the potentia! development causing the increases in runoff are within the City’s jurisdiction~ the impact is considered to be signifcant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation or .alternative has been identified at this time to reduce this impact to a less-than signifcant level° Impagt PUBSERV-10 concerns the anticipated increase~ in school enrollment and the potentiaI for overcrowding in the schools due to the limitations of the School Impact Fee and the inability of revenues generated by the fee to fully cover the cost of providing additional classrooms. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-signifcant level. SECTION 5o The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the:Project, or to its location~ that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project~ and that the City .Council has evaluated the ComParative merits of the. alternatives (summarized below ~ and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project° ~ Ao No Development Alternative This alternative would not ~make any changes to the exlsting Comprehensive Plan. Growth and development in the City would continue to be guided by the existing policies° Development within specified change areas in the City would be expected to occur under this alternative as presented in Table 40 of the Draft EIRo This alternative is not desirable for the City because it would not further the CityVs desire to achieve the basic themes and visions of the Comprehensive Plan implemented by proposed new policies and programs. These themes include building~ community and 980716 apo 0052027 12 neighborhood, protecting community character, reducing reliance on the automobile, increasing the housing supply, protecting and repairing natural features, balancing residential and commercial interests, commitment to community participation and regional leadership° In addition, the existing Comprehensive. Plan document is over ten years old and is in need of updating to reflect current City Values and existing environmental, economic, and social conditions. Low Development Alternative This alternative would result in less development intensity at key sites within identified change areas throughout the City as described in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, section B.Io This reduced deve!opment intensity would result in reduced.environmental impacts in several impacts categories. However, this alternative would not be desirable to the City because it would generate approximately 800 fewer residential units than the proposed project and, therefore, would not be as successful as the project in achieving one of the key themes and visions of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update~ namelyr increasing the supply of housing.. Co High Development Alternative This alternative would result in greater development intensity at key sites within identified change areas throughout the City as described in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5r section Colo This alternative would be beneficial to the City in that it would create more residential units than the proposed project~ and would allow the construction of substantially more commercial development at selected locations~ thereby adding benefits ~to the local economy. However~ this alternative is not desirable to theCity because it would create increased impacts relating to land use compatibility conflicts; increased adverse impacts to operation of .intersections~ increased traffic on residential and non-residentia! street segments~ delays for transit~ pedestrians~ and bicycles~ greater demands for parking~ and increased traffiC safety impacts; increased noise along major roadways; increased development exposed to. seismic and geologic risks; increased drainage runoff due increased impervious surfaces; increased demands on publicservices and facilities; increased demand for neighborhood park acreage; greater impacts to vegetation and wildlife; greater probability of impact to undiscovered cultural resources; and greater visua! fmpacts resulting from new development° The combination of the increased environmenta! impacts associated’ with. this alternative are considered by the City to be in excess of its benefits~ SECTION 6° Statement of Overriding Considerations° The City Council finds that ~navoidable environmental impacts of the Project, described in Section 4 of this Reso!ution~ are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project~ even after 980716 ap~ 0052027 giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings on the Project: A. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will strengthen the community and neighborhoods through specific Policies and programs intended to provide more locations for local interaction at identified commercial and/or .public "centers," protect neighborhoods from Commercial .encroachment, and encourage participation in community and government activities. B. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will protect community character through specific polices and programs that will facilitate the preservation of historic buildings, require the development of new buildings with a scale and texture consistent with the existing community~ balance economic growth with preserving residential neighborhoods~ preserve and improve .the urban forest, and require high quality architecture and adhereKce to urban design principles in new development.. ~ C. .Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update will reduce the reliance on the automobile by encouraging the development of more housing near transit~ reducing the emphasis on traffic-improvements in favor .~of pedestrian and bicycle improvements~ choosing limitations on continuous roadway system capacity increases~ and providing a lan~ use pattern less dependent on the automobile° Do Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update is anticipated to al!ow for the. construction of up to 2,449. new dwelling units in the City~ and associated Below Market Rate (BMR)units and in-lieu fees to further the City’s assisted housing needs. Studies performed .by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)~ summarized in the Housing Element Technical Document~ project a continuing need for construction of new housing to enable the City to satisfy its fair share of regional housing demands° ABAG-studies project a specific need for construction of i~,244 new housing units in the City by the year 2002~ including 783 units for below-moderate income residents The project will help meet the ABAG goals for above-moderate units~ and the BMR units and in-lieu fees will help meet the City’s housing obligations under State law for providing units for low and moderate income households. Eo Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update will implement severa! new policies and programs to further prot.ect and repair natural features of the City~ particularly riparian corridors along the CityVs several creeks~ and the preservation and improvement of CityVs urban forest. 980716 ap~ 005202’7 F[ Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will balance the interests of the residential and commercial communities within the City. This balance wi~l be achieved through several pol±cies and programs intended to en.courage continued economic growth in the City by encouraging businesses that do not detract from residential neighborhoods, and by encouraging businesses that contribute to the community by virtue of .the need for a specific service, physical improvements to a particular Site, or increased tax revenue to the City. G. Implementation of the Comprehesive Plan update will facilitate increased public participation through several policies and programs intended to provide increased~distribution of information from City Hall and decision making bodies, increased awareness of neighborhood and community groups, increased awareness of government processes, improved government processes~ and.increased emphasis onpublic service. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update wi~l also ~faciiitate continuation of the City’s~desire to provide regional leadership on a variety of issues through the implementation of several policies and .programs illustrating the City’s committment to parLicipation in discussions and programsof regional importance. SECTION 7. " Impacts Found Not T@Be Significant. The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies nor contains any substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project. with respect to any of the environmental impacts dismissed through the scoping process (as described in Chapter if Section Do of the Draft Environmental Impact Report)° SECTION 8o The City has revised the Comprehensive Plan following~ City Council review of the Public Review Draft~ public testimony, on the Public Review Draft, the Draft and Final Environmenta! Impact reports~ and the recommended changes to the Public Review Draft by the Planning Commission° These revisions to the Public Review Draft of the Comprehensive Plan~ which are listed in CMR: 484:97 and the minutes of the December 2~ 1997 City council Meeting~ would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts different from or greater than those identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report° SECTION 9.. Substantial evidence.supporting each and every. finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR an~ in the record of proceedings on the Projscto SECTION i0o The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section. 21092ol and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088°5° This finding is based .upon all the information presented in the Final~EIR and record of proceedings° 980’:/16 ape 0052027 SECTION iio The City Council finds .’that the public interest, health,, safety and welfare of both Palo Alto and,the surr.ounding region require amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the attached 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map. The City Council hereby amends the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by adopting the attached 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map as shown~ on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference° INTRODUCED AND PASSED: July .20~ 1998 AYES:EAKINS, KNISS, MOSSAR, 0JAKIAN, ROSENBAUM, SCHNEIDER, WHEELER NOES: ABSENT : FAZZIN0~ HUBER ABSTENTIONS : ATTEST/ S~YiAtto rney PROVED: ~terim Director of Planning and Community Environment EXHIBIT C 1999-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT