HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3920
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3920)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Housing Element Update
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the 2007-2014 Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan and Approving a Negative Declaration
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Regional Housing Mandate
Committee recommend a City Council MOTION to approve a Resolution (Attachment A)
adopting the revised Housing Element 2007-14 of the Comprehensive Plan and approving a
Negative Declaration.
Executive Summary
California State Housing Element law requires each city and county to update its housing
element every five years to ensure that all localities provide adequate development sites for
sufficient new housing to be built to meet their fair share of the regional housing need. Housing
element law is the State’s primary strategy to increase housing supply, choice and affordability.
The housing element identifies the existing and projected housing needs of all economic
segments of the community and promotes a variety of housing types. The housing element also
defines the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve its housing
goals and objectives developed to address its housing needs. Cities and counties without
compliant housing elements may be faced with legal challenges pursuant to housing element
law and/or fair housing law.
On July 9, 2012, the City Council authorized staff to submit the Draft 2007-2014 Housing
Element to HCD for review. On October 18, 2012, HCD issued a letter indicating the items that
needed to be addressed in order to comply with State Housing Element law and qualify for
certification. City staff has been working with HCD staff to address the issues, and provided HCD
with a Response to Comments on January 29, 2013. An iterative process of Housing Element
review and revision continued with HCD through March 26, 2013. On March 29, 2013, HCD
issued a letter indicating that HCD finds that the Revised Draft Housing Element will comply
with State Housing Element law when it is adopted by the City Council and submitted to HCD
City of Palo Alto Page 2
for certification (Attachment B). The draft has been reviewed and recommended by the
Planning and Transportation Commission and the Council’s Regional Housing Mandate
Committee.
Since the March 29, 2013 response from HCD, some additional revisions have been proposed.
Three programs are proposed to be removed (including the rezoning of the 567-595 Maybell
Avenue site) and some additional sites are to be added to the Housing Inventory Sites list. On
June 5, 2013, staff submitted a letter to HCD with the proposed revisions to determine if they
would meet HCD compliance. Staff is in ongoing discussions with HCD about the revisions in
order to meet HCD compliance. The letter is included as Attachment L.
Background
The City of Palo Alto is required to update its Housing Element per State Housing Element Law.
The State deadline to complete the update process, which concludes with the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certification, was June 30, 2009,
but cities may continue to request review and certification through the end of the planning
period.
California State Housing Element law requires each city and county to update its housing
element every five years to ensure that all localities provide adequate development sites for
sufficient new housing to be built to meet their fair share of the regional housing need. As part
of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process overseen by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), the City of Palo Alto was assigned a quantified goal of 2,860 units,
which represents the City’s “fair share” of projected housing need for the 2007-2014 planning
period, distributed among the following income groups: very low (690 units), low (543 units),
moderate (641 units) and above moderate (986 units) income categories.
Housing Element law is the State’s primary strategy to increase housing supply, choice and
affordability. The housing element identifies the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community, including the homeless and persons with disabilities,
and promotes a variety of housing types, including multifamily rental units, transitional and
other types of supportive housing. The housing element also defines the policies and programs
that the community will implement to achieve its housing goals and objectives developed to
address its housing needs.
It is important to note that Housing Element law only requires the City to provide residential
zoning opportunities to accommodate its RHNA allocation. It does not require the City to
approve or construct such housing. Cities and counties without compliant housing elements
may be faced with legal challenges pursuant to housing element law and/or fair housing law. If
the City fails to identify or make available adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA assignment,
the City may be required to carry those units over into the next planning cycle, thus increasing
the number of sites required to be identified in the upcoming cycle. In addition, many State
housing, transportation and infrastructure funding programs available to local governments
City of Palo Alto Page 3
require a certified housing element as one of the eligibility criteria. The State’s sustainable
communities law (known as SB 375) to reduce greenhouse gases contains further incentives for
cities to submit compliant housing elements by conditioning key transportation grants to
compliant elements and by extending the housing cycle for cities with certified elements.
On July 9, 2012, the City Council authorized staff to submit the Draft 2007-2014 Housing
Element to HCD for review, and the document was submitted to HCD on August 21, 2012.
Based on Council direction, the Draft Housing Element included the Housing Inventory Sites
(HIS) list to identify sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA (identification of 2,860 units on
potential housing sites) and policies and programs to encourage developers in the production
of housing. The sites selected are concentrated in the Downtown, the California Avenue area,
and the El Camino Real corridor. The Housing Element emphasizes providing incentives for
housing development using existing zoning rather than up-zoning single family and low density
residential parcels or converting commercial or retail uses to residential use.
On October 18, 2012, HCD issued a letter indicating the items that needed to be addressed in
order to comply with State Housing Element law and qualify for certification. City staff has been
working with HCD staff to address the issues, and provided HCD with a Response to Comments
on January 29, 2013. An iterative process of Housing Element review and revision continued
with HCD through with a letter submitted on March 26, 2013 with final revisions to the HIS
inventory that included a small surplus of 37 units. On March 29, 2013, HCD issued a letter
indicating that HCD finds that the Revised Draft Housing Element will comply with State
Housing Element law when it is adopted by the City Council and submitted to HCD for
certification.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and recommended that the City Council
approve the revised Housing Element by a vote of 6-0 (Tanaka absent) at their April 10, 2013
meeting. There were questions about the proposed goals, policies and programs, but most of
the comments centered on how the 2007-2014 Housing Element would affect the review and
approval process for the 2015-2022 Housing Element, which is due to the State by December
2014. There was also discussion about the City’s RHNA number for this cycle and for the next
RHNA cycle. The final portion of the hearing was focused on the environmental document. The
April 10, 2013 Meeting minutes have been included as Attachment K.
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Review and 567 Maybell Avenue
On May 9, 2013, the Regional Housing Mandate Committee reviewed the revised Housing
Element. Staff presented the revised Housing Element with some proposed changes. The
changes include removal of Program 2.2.6 which revised the General Manufacturing zone
district allow residential uses and to retitle Table 2-58 to “List of Projects/In Process or Issued
Building Permit as of December 2012”. Program 2.2.6 is proposed for removal since the two
GM parcels in the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) are in the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development (PTOD) Overlay District, which allows for residential uses up to a density of 40
City of Palo Alto Page 4
units per acre. In addition, a speaker pointed out that Program 3.5.1, which proposed a
discussion with the Hotel de Zink to establish a permanent emergency shelter, should be
removed and staff concurred. So that program will also be removed.
During the public comment period, a number of residents were in attendance to speak to
Program 2.2.8, which addresses the rezoning of 567-595 Maybell Ave. Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC) submitted a Planned Community (PC) rezone application for 567 Maybell
Ave. to develop 15 single family homes and 60 affordable senior rental units. Staff included the
potential affordable housing project in the Housing Element as Program 2.2.8. The public was
concerned that the approval of the Housing Element with the inclusion of Program 2.2.8 would
be implicitly approving the rezone prior to the Council’s consideration of the rezone
application. The RHMC, as part of its motion, strongly emphasized that their recommendation
for the City Council to approve the Housing Element does not indicate support for approval of
the Maybell Avenue project and it should not have any bearing on the Planning and
Transportation Commission deliberations of the PC rezone request. The P&TC heard the 567
Maybell Planned Community rezone application on May 22, 2013 and recommended approval
to the Council. The RHMC recommended that the City Council approve the revised Housing
Element, with changes, by a vote of 3-0 (Holman absent). The Committee also directed staff to
evaluate the potential to identify an additional 30 units (the difference between the proposed
project and the existing zoning) in the event that the Maybell project is not approved. Staff
noted that, if the project is not approved and the City’s Housing Element has been certified, the
City would need to report back to HCD next year and likely provide a modification to account
for the incremental units.
Proposed Revisions
In order not to rely on the commitment to rezoning 567 Maybell Avenue to satisfy the review of
the Housing Element, Program 2.2.8 has been removed from the proposed Goals, Policies and
Programs (Attachment F). Therefore, the 60 very low and low income units and the 15 above
moderate units proposed by the Maybell Avenue rezone have been removed from Table 2-58
and the site has been added to the Housing Inventory Sites list at its existing density of 34 units,
a difference of 41 units. If the property does receive zoning approval, staff will report the
additional units as part of its Annual Housing Element Progress Report to HCD. However, this
created a deficit of 4 units in the HIS. The HIS had a surplus of 37 units but now with the
removal of 41 units, it created the 4 unit deficit. To account for the deficit, an additional 17 sites
on San Antonio Avenue have been identified for the HIS. Using the realistic yield of the 20 units
per acre, the 17 sites would accommodate 210 units. While the additional yield is much higher
than the needed 41 units, staff expects that the larger surplus of units will be looked upon
favorably by HCD, which was concerned with the City’s small surplus of units.
While there are some other sites that could be considered elsewhere throughout the City, the
sites were chosen for the following reasons:
1. The sites are zoned Service Commercial (CS) which allows for residential use by right as
part of a mixed used development.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
2. Maximum density in CS zoning is 30 units per acre, which meets the HCD’s default
density of 20 units per acre.
3. Using the City’s A/V (Assessed Improvements/Assessed Land Value) requirement of 1.5,
12 of the 17 sites have an A/V of 1.5 or less, thus making them good candidates for
redevelopment.
Staff submitted a letter on June 5, 2013 formally revising the draft Housing Elements with the
removed programs and adding the alternative sites. The June 5, 2013 letter is included as
Attachment K. Staff is continuing its dialogue with HCD about the suitability of the 17 sites and
whether the sites meet HCD requirements for compliance.
Public Process
Extensive public outreach was conducted in the preparation of the Housing Element. A
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed with representatives from the Palo Alto Unified
School District, neighborhood groups, both affordable and market rate housing developers, and
interested residents serving on the TAG. In addition, multiple meetings were held to educate
the public about the Housing Element and the Regional Housing Mandate Committee
conducted public hearings.
Discussion
HCD Review of Draft Housing Element
On August 21, 2012, the Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review and
determination if it complies with State Housing Element Law. On October 18, 2012, HCD issued
a letter indicating the items that needed to be addressed in order to comply with State Housing
Element law and qualify for certification (refer to Attachment E from HCD dated October 18,
2012). Over the course of the last six months, staff has been working with HCD staff to address
the issues, and provided HCD with a Response to Comments on January 29, 2013. City staff and
HCD continued to review and revise the Housing Element through March 26, 2013 (refer to
Attachment C, Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element dated March
26, 2013). This response includes the proposed revisions to the Housing Element that address
the concerns raised by HCD. The Revised Draft Housing Element is available to the public at:
http://www.paloaltocompplan2020.org/. (The Revised Draft Housing Element was distributed
in the May 20, 2013 Council packet. Please note that the document does not include the
revisions as proposed in the June 5, 2013 letter to HCD. See Attachment M for the June 5, 2013
proposed revisions).
On March 29, 2013, HCD issued a letter indicating that HCD finds that the Revised Draft Housing
Element will comply with State Housing Element law when it is adopted by the City Council and
submitted to HCD for certification based on the submitted responses from staff.
Following is a summary of the issues raised by HCD and changes made to the Housing Element
to address the comments, as outlined in more detail in the Response to HCD Comments
City of Palo Alto Page 6
document. A summary of the significant Housing Element revisions has been included as
Attachment M.
Progress in Meeting RHNA and Affordability of Units: HCD has asked for more information on
how the affordability of the units that are approved or under construction was determined.
Text was added to page 71 of the Housing Element describing that all of the affordable units
will be deed restricted units, either through the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program or
created with financial assistance from the City.
Previous Unaccommodated Need: In the last Housing Element cycle, there was one site
identified to accommodate housing that was not rezoned prior to the current cycle. Per State
law, this unaccommodated need must be addressed in the current cycle, above what is
required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. On Page 162 of the Draft Housing Element
has been amended to indicate that the unaccommodated 15 units from the previous cycle can
be accommodated on a site located at 3877 El Camino Real, which with current zoning can
provide the required 15 units.
Realistic Capacity, Suitability of Non-vacant Sites, and Small Sites (less than one-half acre): HCD
had expressed concern that since many of the sites selected for potential residential
development on the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) table are mixed use sites or commercial sites
allowing residential uses, the sites may not yield as many residential units as indicated on the
table. Page 78 of the Housing Element was revised to include a description of mixed use
projects that have occurred in the last few years that achieved the densities shown in the HIS
table. A description is also included of the commercially zoned sites on the HIS table as being
along our major transit corridors, which are ideally suited for mixed-use development as
proposed. It should be noted that on these parcels, the realistic capacity listed in the HIS table
is lower than the maximum density allowed (typically realistic capacity is listed at 20 units per
acre, where the zoning would allow 30 to 40 units per acre).
In addition, a description of the sites has been added to the Housing Element indicating that
many of the commercial sites in these corridors are typically low-intensity, one-story and two
story buildings, surrounded by surface parking, constructed in the late 1960’s and 1970’s with
relatively little development or improvements in the past decade. To address the issue of
smaller sites, text was added to Page 84 of the housing element indicating that mixed use and
residential projects have occurred on small parcels, and a map was provided that shows areas
where there are opportunities for lot consolidation. The following program was added to
encourage development of small lots:
H2.2.7 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage
development on and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development review streamlining,
reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density
when consolidated lots are over one-half acre.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
HCD staff was still concerned that some of the sites might not achieve the densities outlined in
the HIS table, or that a commercial site on the list might be developed with a non-residential
use. HCD staff has requested that the following program be added to the Housing Element:
H2.2.9 PROGRAM To maintain adequate sites are available throughout the planning period to
accommodate the City’s RHNA, on a project basis, pursuant to Government Code Section
65863, the City will monitor available residential capacity and evaluate development
applications on Housing Inventory Sites in mixed use zoning districts. Should an approval of
development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to
accommodate the remaining need for lower-income households, the City will identify and zone
sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall.
Clarify Affordability of projects proposed by the Mayfield Agreement: A description of the
development proposed by the Mayfield Agreement with Stanford University was added to the
Housing Element at the end of Page 82 to clarify the number of units proposed and the units
that are designated as affordable per the agreement.
Hotel Condominiums: HCD has asked for additional analysis to determine that the proposal in
the Housing Element for hotel condominiums as a part of a hotel project would meet the
census definition of a housing unit. Upon further analysis of the proposal, staff determined that
these units would not meet the Census definition of a housing unit, and this proposal was
removed from the Housing Element. This program may be revisited in the next (2014-2022)
housing element cycle to see if modifications can be made to qualify such units.
Emergency Shelters: HCD has indicated that in order to meet the requirements of State law, a
zone or zones must be identified where emergency shelters would be permitted without a
conditional use permit of other discretionary action. It is required that the element specifically
identifies the zone or zones and demonstrates sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelters within the community. The Housing Element has been revised to include
the following program which would allow emergency shelters in the ROLM(E) (Research, Office
and Limited Manufacturing - Embarcadero) zone district. The zoning code amendment would
include performance standards for the emergency shelters to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding area. Additional discussion about the ROLM(E) zone district was added to Page
157 of the housing element. It should be noted that this provision does not require that an
emergency shelter be built, but only requires that the zoning is in place to accommodate the
use.
H3.5.2 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by right with
appropriate performance standards to accommodate the City’s unmet need for unhoused
residents within an overlay of the ROLM(E) zone district located east of Highway 101.
Land Use Controls, Local Processing and Permit Procedures, and Inclusionary Housing: HCD
requested more information about the City’s ordinances and procedures related to permits and
City of Palo Alto Page 8
processing, as well as the Inclusionary Housing program, specifically an analysis of how these
procedures might be considered a constraint to housing development. The Housing Element
has been revised to include a better description of the development process and the
inclusionary housing program. In addition, the following program has been added to evaluate
the Below Market Rate (BMR) program:
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Evaluate the provisions of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program to
determine if additional incentives are needed to encourage development of housing given
current market conditions.
Reasonable Accommodation: State law requires that provisions be available accommodate
housing to make it suitable for persons with disabilities. Generally, this would allow persons
with disabilities to add a ramp, handrail, lift or elevator to a residence. This can be an issue
when installation of these improvements on an existing residence would not meet
development standards such as setback and lot coverage. The following program has been
added to the Housing Element that would establish a process where individuals with disabilities
can make requests for reasonable accommodation to allow installation of the necessary
improvements.
H4.1.6 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable
accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be necessary to ensure
reasonable access to housing. The purpose of this program is to provide a process for
individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief
from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures
of the City.
Developmentally Disabled: State law requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of
the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. This analysis has been
added to the Revised Housing Element. In addition, the following program was added that
requires that the City work with the San Andreas Regional Center on outreach regarding
housing resources available to persons with developmental disabilities:
H4.2.2 PROGRAM Work with the San Andreas Regional Center to implement an outreach
program that informs families in Palo Alto about housing and services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. The program could include the development of an informational
brochure, including information on services on the City’s website, and providing housing-
related training for individuals/families through workshops.
Analysis of Existing Assisted Housing Developments At-risk of Conversion: HCD requested
additional analysis regarding the preservation of at-risk affordable housing units to include
units that may be at-risk of conversion to market rate units for a period of ten years from the
start of the planning cycle (2009-2019). A discussion has been added in Chapter 2, and the only
affordable housing development determined to be at-risk of converting to market rate is the
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Terman Apartments. A description of the City’s efforts to work with the owners of this property
is now included in the Housing Element.
Programs - Timelines and Implementation: HCD has requested that the programs outlined in
the Housing Element be revised to include quantified objectives and timelines indicating when
the programs would be implemented. In addition, HCD has asked for amendments to some of
these programs to describe specific actions or describe the City’s role in implementation. All of
the policies have been revised to include objectives and timelines, and clarification was added
where requested (refer to Attachment F, Palo Alto Revised Draft Housing Element, 5.2 Housing
Goals Policies and Programs).
Identify Adequate Sites, Rezoning Program: HCD has required additional information in order
to determine that the City had met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements for all
income levels. Revisions have been made to the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) table
(Attachment G) to identify those sites which qualify to meet the lower income housing need. It
was determined that a rezoning program is not required to accommodate the City’s lower
income housing need, the needs for the low and very low income units can be accommodated
on sites that are already zoned to allow densities of 20 units per acre or greater.
While reviewing the HIS table as well as the Table 2-58, List of Housing Unit Production by
Income Categories, it was determined that the lists needed to be updated both to include new
projects which have been submitted and to address changes to projects that have occurred
since the Draft Housing Element was published. Two projects were removed from that list
because the revised projects submitted no longer include housing. The two projects removed
from the entitled projects list were 355 Alma Avenue (14 units) and 200 San Antonio Road (35
units). With the June 5, 2013 revision, the 567 Maybell Avenue site is proposed to be removed
from the List of Housing Unit Production and is being placed back in the HIS with its existing
zoning capacity of 34 units.
As a result of these changes, Table 2-57 was also revised to reflect the actual number of units
either built/permitted or entitled/in process. This left a higher unmet need to be
accommodated by the HIS table than was previously anticipated. In order to accommodate this
shortage, the site at 340 Portage Avenue (Fry’s Site) was added to the HIS table. Although the
maximum capacity that could be accommodated on this 12.47 acre site would be 374 units, the
realistic capacity listed on the HIS table is only 75 units. While the site is now zoned RM-30, one
of the alternatives for the California Avenue Area Concept Plan now under consideration
anticipates mixed use development on this site. Even a predominantly retail use of the site
could still accommodate a 75-unit project on about 3 of the 12.5 acres. With this proposed
change to the HIS table and the inclusion of the units from the 17 San Antonio Avenue sites, the
total number of units that can be accommodated by housing inventory sites is 1,902, where the
unmet need is for 1,714 units.
A program has been added to the Housing Element to provide for the rezoning of the CN zones
City of Palo Alto Page 10
to increase the allowable density to be consistent with the realistic capacity as outlined in the
HIS Table:
2.2.5 PROGRAM Revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the density of up to 20 units per acre
on CN-zoned parcels included in the Housing Inventory Sites.
Mixed Use Development: Because the City is relying on underutilized sites and the potential for
mixed use development to accommodate the housing needs of lower income households, HCD
has required that there be programs to promote redevelopment of these sites, such as
incentives for lot consolidation, financial assistance, or regulatory concessions. To meet this
requirement, the following program has been added to the Housing Element:
H2.1.11 PROGRAM Promote redevelopment of underutilized sites and lot consolidation by
providing information about potential housing sites on the City’s website, including the Housing
Inventory Sites and information about financial resources available through City housing
programs.
Programs to Meet the Needs of Extremely Low-, Very-Low- and Moderate-Income Households:
HCD has indicated that although the element includes actions to assist in the development of
housing for very-low and low-income households, it is required to include programs that
specifically assist in the development of a variety of housing types to address the needs of
extremely low income (ELI) households, such as prioritizing some funding for this type of
development, or providing financial incentives or regulatory concessions to address the needs
of this income group. Staff responded that the Housing Element already includes a program to
amend the zoning code to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in commercial and high
density residential zoning districts, noting that these units are generally seen to be affordable
to ELI household. In addition, the following two programs were added to address this
requirement:
H3.1.15 PROGRAM When using its Housing Development funds for residential projects, the City
shall give a strong preference to those developments which serve extremely low-income (ELI)
households.
H3.1.16 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who
provide extremely-low income (ELI) housing units, above and beyond what is required by the
Below Market Rate (BMR) program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units,
reduced landscaping requirements and reduced fees.
Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate: HCD has requested that the Program in
the Housing Element that addresses affordable housing units at-risk of conversion to market
rate housing be revised to include specific actions. Following is the revised Program H3.1.5, and
an added program to address the concerns raised by HCD:
City of Palo Alto Page 11
H3.1.5 PROGRAM Preserve affordable housing stock by monitoring compliance, providing
tenant education, seeking other sources of funds for affordable housing developments at risk of
market rate conversions. The City will continue to renew existing funding sources supporting
rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
H3.1.17 PROGRAM Any affordable development deemed a high risk at market rate conversion,
within two years of the expiration of the affordability requirements, the City will contact the
owner and explore the possibility of extending the affordability of the development.
Quantified Objectives: HCD has requested that add a table that outlines the number of housing
units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year
time period. This table has been added to the Housing Element.
Public Comments Submitted During the HCD Review
Two letters were submitted via email regarding the Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element. On
September 10, 2012, an email from Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, Senior Staff Attorney for Public
Advocates, Inc. (Attachment H) was sent to State HCD and referred to City staff for review. On
September 24, 2012, staff received a letter from Melissa A. Morris, Senior Attorney for Public
Interest Law Firm (Attachment I). Staff also discussed the issues raised in the letters with Sam
Tepperman-Gelfant and Melissa Morris via conference call on two occasions. A summary of the
issues raised and how they were addressed follows.
Lower Income Housing Needs and Previous Unaccommodated Need: Public Advocates has
asked for more clarity in determining how the housing needs for the lower income populations
were being met as outlined in the HIS table, and expressed concern that it appeared that there
was unaccommodated need from the previous housing element cycle because not all sites were
rezoned as required. As noted in the response to HCD comments, the HIS table was modified
to clearly identify those properties that meet the requirement to qualify to satisfy the RHNA
requirements for low and very-low income households. Sites with an allowed density of twenty
units per acre or more qualify by default to meet this need. Sites have been identified to
accommodate 1,056 low and very-low income units, and the City is required to accommodate
982 low and very low income units.
Also noted in the response to HCD comments is an explanation of how the unaccommodated
need from the last housing element cycle has been met in this cycle. There was one parcel
identified in the last cycle to be rezoned to accommodate 15 units. Staff has identified a site on
the HIS table which provides a replacement for these units, over and above what is required by
the RHNA for this cycle.
Mayfield Agreement: Public Advocates has noted that the inventory includes 250 units which
are a part of the Mayfield Agreement with Stanford University, expressed concern that the
units would not all be constructed before the end of the planning period (2014), and
questioned how many of the units would be market rate versus affordable units. On Page 83,
City of Palo Alto Page 12
text has been added to the housing element to clarify the terms of the agreement and to
indicate that 70 of the units are required to be affordable. The agreement stipulates that an
application for the affordable units be submitted by December 2013, and the remaining units
be proposed no later than December 2020. However, the sites are now available for
development, and nothing precludes an application being submitted prior to the deadline.
Therefore, it is appropriate to leave these units on the HIS Table.
Reliance on Small Sites (less than one-half acre) and sites with existing uses: Both Public
Advocates and Public Interest Law Firm have expressed concern that many of the sites on the
inventory are less than one-half acre in size, and thought these small sites would not be
suitable for lower income housing. In addition, concern was expressed that many of these sites
are now developed and wanted information to be added to the HIS Table describing the
potential for redevelopment on sites with existing uses. The Housing Element has been
amended to provide a description of projects that have been built on sites of less than one-half
acre, and programs have been added to encourage lot consolidation as well as offer incentives
for development on smaller sites. In addition, information has been added to the HIS Table, as
well as in the description of the existing commercial areas identified to explain why these sites
are suitable. In many cases, the sites identified with existing commercial uses are now
developed with older, single story buildings. There have been successful developments built on
similar parcels within these areas, and it is expected that this trend will continue.
Hotel Condominiums: Public Advocates also has expressed concern with including hotel
condominiums as potential housing sites, indicating that developers of hotel projects have not
proposed these types of units. As discussed above, it has been determined that hotel
condominiums do not meet the Census definition of housing units, and these sites have been
removed from the HIS table.
Secondary Dwelling Units: Public Advocates has commented on the assumption that 15 second
units would be added during the planning period, indicating that second units recently built
were affordable to moderate income, and any added units should not be assumed to be
affordable to lower income households. Public Interest Law Firm was also concerned with the
parking requirement for second units, given that second units were a potential source for
affordable units. Upon further study, it was determined that secondary dwelling units in Palo
Alto generally fall in the moderate income level, and it is now assumed that any new units
would be at this income level, and second units are not being counted towards the lower
income RHNA requirement.
Programs: Public Interest Law Firm has expressed concern that the Housing Element’s
programs did not have enough detail to determine if the programs will be effective, asking that
quantified objectives and timeframes be added, as well as an indication of which department is
responsible for implementation. The list of programs in the Housing Element has been
modified to include timeframes, quantified objectives and responsible agencies (refer to
Attachment E).
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Affordability of Units Permitted, Entitled or Constructed: Public Interest Law Firm asked for
more information about the units included on Table 2-57 to clarify the level of affordability of
the units being counted toward the low and very-low income RHNA obligation. The Housing
Element has been amended and Tables 2-57 and 2-58 have been revised to show which units
are affordable and to indicate that these are deed restricted units either provided through the
City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program, or created with financial assistance from the City.
Constraints to the Development of Housing for People with Disabilities: Public Advocates asked
for a more comprehensive analysis of constraints to development of housing for people with
disabilities, and asked that a reasonable accommodation policy be added to facilitate
development of housing for people with disabilities. As noted above in the response to HCD
comments, a discussion of the needs for disabled persons, as well as a reasonable
accommodation policy have been added to the Draft Housing Element.
Next Steps
Once the 2007-2014 Housing Element is adopted by the City Council, a copy will be forwarded
to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for certification. This
will bring Palo Alto’s Housing Element into compliance with State Housing Element Law.
Environmental Review
An initial study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the Draft 2007-2014 Housing
Element. The Negative Declaration is included as Attachment J. Based on the findings of the
Initial Study, the Negative Declaration did not identify any potential significant impacts as the
bulk of the City’s RHNA can be accommodated without significant zone changes. Most of the
sites identified for housing are already zoned for that use and are located in infill areas. The
Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the Negative Declaration and recommended
the Council approve it. The review period ended on May 15, 2013, prior to consideration by the
City Council. No comments have been received.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Adopting 2007-2014 Housing Element (PDF)
Attachment B: HCD Letter dated March 29, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment C: City Response to HCD Comments Dated March 26, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment D: Revised Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element Previously Distributed on
May 22, 2013 (Not attached) (DOCX)
Attachment E: HCD Response Letter dated October 18, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment F: Revised Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs (revised June 5,
2013) (PDF)
Attachment G: Housing Element Sites Inventory (XLSX)
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Attachment H: Email Received from Public Advocates dated September 10, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment I: Letter Received from Public Interest Law dated September 24, 2012
(PDF)
Attaqchment J: Initial Study/Negative Declaration (PDF)
Attachment K: Minutes of April 10, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission
Meeting (PDF)
Attachment L: Revision Letter to HCD dated June 5, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment M: Summary of Revisions to the Draft Housing Element (DOCX)
Not Yet Approved
1
130506 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Housing Element 2007‐14
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Revised Draft
Housing Element 2007‐2014 of the Comprehensive Plan and Approving a
Negative Declaration
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto is required to update its Housing Element per State
Housing Element law every five years to ensure adequate development sites for
sufficient new housing be built to meet the fair share of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).
B. Palo Alto was assigned a quantified goal of 2,860 units, which represents
the City’s “fair share” of projected housing need for the 2007‐2014 planning period.
C. The Housing Element identifies the existing and projected housing needs
for all economic segments of the community, including the homeless and persons with
disabilities.
D. The Housing Element defines the policies and programs that the
community will implement to achieve its housing goals and objectives developed to
address its housing needs.
E. On July 9, 2012, the City Council authorized staff to submit the Draft
2007‐2014 Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for review.
F. The draft Housing Element included the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list
to identify sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA and policies and programs to
encourage developers in the production of housing.
G. On October 18, 2012, the HCD indicated the items that needed to be
addressed in order to comply with State Housing Element law and quality for
certification.
H. On March 29, 2013, the HCD issued a finding that the Revised Draft
Housing Element 2007‐2014 will comply with State Housing Element Law when adopted
by the Council.
I. On April 10, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission
conducted a hearing on the 2007‐2014 Housing Element and recommended that the
City Council adopt the Element.
Not Yet Approved
2
130506 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Housing Element 2007‐14
J. The Council desires to adopt the Revised Housing Element 2007‐2014 of
the Comprehensive Plan to comply with State Housing Element law.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007‐2014, revised March 29,
2013, is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This
Element supersedes the December 2, 2002 Housing Element.
SECTION 2. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for this project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
_________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
STATE OF CAl IFORNIA ~BIISINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOIISING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street, Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252~2053
(916) 323-31771 FAX (916) 327-2643
WWIN.hcd.ca.gov
March 29, 2013
Mr. Curtis Williams
Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Williams:
EDMlJND G BROWN ,IR
RE: City of Palo Alto's 4th Cycle (2009-2014) Draft Housing Element Update
Thank you for submitting the City of Palo Alto's revised draft housing element update
received for review on February 2, 2013, along with additional revisions received on
March 6, 14, 15, and 26, 2013. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65585(b),
the Department is reporting the results of its review. Telephone conversations with
Mr. Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator, and Ms. Maureen Brooks, the City's Consultant,
facilitated the review. In addition, the Department considered comments from Public
Advocates pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c).
The revised draft element meets the statutory requirements described in the
Department's October 18, 2012 review. This finding was based on, among other
things, successful implementation of Programs H2.1.1 0, H2.2.2, H2.2.7 and H2.2.9,
to encourage mixed use development on sites within the inventory, facilitate lot
consolidation, and monitor the development of sites in the inventory. The City must
monitor and report on the results of these and other programs through the annual
progress report, required pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. The revised
element will comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government
Code) when these revisions are adopted and submitted to the Department, pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(g).
The Department appreciates the hard work and dedication of Mr. Wong and Ms. Brooks,
in preparation of the housing element and looks forward to receiving Palo Alto's adopted
housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance,
please contact Melinda Coy, of our staff, at (916) 445-5307.
Sincerely,
,/ ~/,t!~
Glen A. Campora
Assistant Deputy Director
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element ATTACHMENT C
March 26, 2013
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development:
Palo Alto has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 2,860 housing units, of which 1,233
are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on non-vacant and
mixed use sites along transit corridors. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and
strategies to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element needs to include complete analyses:
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (page 66) that 168 units affordable to
very low-income households and 21 units affordable to low-income households have been built
or are under construction or approved, but provides no information documenting how
affordability of the units was determined. As you know, the City’s RHNA may be reduced by the
number of new units built since January 1, 2007; however, the element must describe the City’s
methodology for assigning these units to the various income groups based on the actual sales
price or rent level of the units and demonstrate their availability in the planning period.
Response: The following text has been added to Page 66 of the housing element to describe the
affordability of the units built including revised Table 2-57 and Table 2-58:
A Planned Community (PC) rezone application was submitted for 595 Maybell Avenue to
develop 60 units of extremely low to low income senior affordable rental housing and 15 market
rate units by right, for a total of 75 units. Program 2.2.8 has been added to the Housing Element
to emphasize the City’s need for affordable senior housing. Table 2-57 and Table 2-58 have
been updated to include the Maybell Avenue application since the application review is in
process. Conversely, the Maybell site was originally included in the City’s Housing Inventory
Sites (HIS) list as a potential development site. However, since the 60 affordable units have
been included in Table 2-57 and Table 2-58, it has been removed from the HIS list. The revised
Tables 2-57 and 2-58 are included as Exhibit A of this letter. Therefore, the City now has 251
low or very low income units in process, entitled or built.
All 251 very-low and low-income units will be/are deed restricted units. Of the 251 affordable
units, 34 very low and low income rental units were created through the City’s Below Market
Rate program. Those units are restricted to low income households as established by the State
for Santa Clara County for a period of 59 years. The remaining 217 affordable units were
created with financial assistance from the City and deed restricted to low, very low and
extremely low income households. The City has loaned out over $22 million for the creation of
these units. Those units carry a minimum 55-year affordability term, consistent with tax credit
financing requirements. However, City documents include options to extend the affordability
period.
If the 251 entitled/ built low and very low income units are subtracted from the City’s need of
1,233 units, the City’s remaining need for very low and low income households is 982 housing
units. State law establishes a density of 20 units per acre as the minimum density necessary to
make affordable housing economically feasible in Palo Alto. The City must show that it can
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 2 -
accommodate the remaining 982 low and very low income units on sites that have a density of
20 units per acre or higher. In the City’s Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list, all parcels with an
existing zoning density of 20 units per acre or higher have been highlighted. The total number of
units provided by the highlighted parcels is 1,056. While the City does have proposed programs
that will revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase densities to be consistent with Housing Element
law, the City can meet its low and very low needs with existing zoning.
Previous Unaccommodated Need: While the element now includes an analysis to identify the
unaccommodated need based on the total unmet need from the previous planning period, it does
not identify the unaccommodated need by income group. Pursuant to Chapter 614, Statutes of
2005 (AB 1233), as the City of Palo Alto failed to implement Program H-14 to rezone sites in the
prior planning period, the City must zone or rezone sites to accommodate any unaccommodated
need within the first year of the 2009-2014 planning period. The element must include an
analysis by income group to determine if there is a remaining unaccommodated need that must
be accommodated in the current planning period.
Response: The following text has been added to Page 151 of the housing element to describe
how the City is fulfilling the AB 1233 requirements:
Of the City parcels that were proposed to be rezoned in Program H-14, the City rezoned all but
one parcel as specified in the City’s 1999-2006 Housing Element. The total estimated yield of
the one unzoned parcel is 15 units. Therefore, the City’s unmet need is 15 units.
In the Draft Housing Element in Appendix 5.3, (1999-2006 Accomplishments Matrix), the
City originally reported for Program H14, that it had three unzoned parcels, rather than one.
The yield of the two additional parcels originally reported to be unzoned for housing was
estimated to be 20 units. Based on further research, the City has determined that the two
previously reported unzoned parcels were in fact rezoned. The City will update Appendix 5.3
to reflect this. The explanation of the zoning history of the two parcels is set forth below.
At the time of Housing Element adoption in 2002, the City was in the process of adopting the
South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan, Phase 2 (SOFA2) in which two of the parcels
are located. The parcels were rezoned from Commercial Downtown-C (community) or CD-S
(service), which allowed for mixed use development, to the SOFA 2 land use designation of
Residential Transition-50 (RT-50) when SOFA 2 was adopted in December 2003. The RT-50
zone also allows for mixed-use residential developments. The difference between CD and RT-
50 zoning is that CD density is measured by units per acre while RT-50 determines residential
density by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In addition, if it is a proposed residential rental
development, the RT-50 zone provides a higher FAR to achieve a more dense development.
However, because the City did not rezone the one parcel within the planning period, the City
must meet the site suitability requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 [AB2348].
To fulfill the requirements of AB 2348, the City has selected 3877 El Camino Real as the
designated site to accommodate the 15 “carry over” units. This .75 acre site is a mix of
Service Commercial (CS) and RM-30 zoning. Approximately 30% of the site (.22 acres), the
area fronting El Camino Real, is covered by the CS zone district. CS zoning allows for mixed
use development with a maximum density of 30 units. Using the City’s realistic capacity of 20
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 3 -
units per acre, the CS portion could have a capacity of 4 units. The remaining .53 acres of the
parcel is zoned RM-30, which at 20 units per acre, could provide 11 residential units. The site
is adjacent to a .28 acre, vacant RM-30 parcel (405 Curtner Avenue) that is currently being
used as a parking lot. 405 Curtner Avenue is also on the City HIS list which could provide
for the potential of a lot merger to achieve a greater yield of housing.
Below is a table showing the AB 2348 requirements with an explanation of how the site at
3877 El Camino Real meets each requirement:
AB 2348 Requirement 3877 El Camino Real
1. Must meet the 100 percent shortfall The City’s shortfall is 15 units. This site
accommodates the entire shortfall of 15 units.
2. The zoning allows owner-occupied and
rental multifamily residential uses “by
right”
Both the RM-30 and CS zoning allows for
residential uses by right. The codes do not
differentiate by tenure.
3. The site provides development that
permits at least 16 units per site based
on minimum density
Based on the realistic capacity estimate of 20
units per acre, the site can accommodate 15
units. However, as described in page 75 of
the draft Housing Element, the realistic
capacity is much more conservative than the
densities achieved in built or approved
developments. The average density of those
developments is almost 28 units per acre.
Therefore, this site could easily accommodate
an additional unit to meet the 16 unit per site
requirement.
4. Suburban and metropolitan
jurisdictions must provide sites that
allow at least 20 dwelling units per acre.
Both the RM-30 and CS zoning have a
maximum zoning density of 30 units per acre.
However, a realistic capacity of 20 units per
acre is used to estimate the potential yield for
this site.
5. At least 50 percent of the low and very
low-income need be accommodated on
sites designated exclusively residential
uses
Seventy percent of the site is zoned RM-30
thus providing more than half of the
unaccommodated need in exclusive
residential zoning with a density of greater
than 20 units per acre.
Realistic Capacity: For mixed-use or commercial sites allowing residential uses, the residential
capacity estimate should account for potential development of non-residential uses and could
consider any performance standards mandating a specified portion of a mixed-use site as non-
residential (e.g., first floor, front space as commercial). The element could also describe any
existing or proposed regulatory incentives and standards to facilitate housing development in the
mixed-use or commercial zones and on the identified non-vacant sites.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 4 -
Response: The following paragraph will be added on Page 76 of the Housing Element
following the discussion the Housing Inventory Sites – Mixed Use Development in Existing
Commercial Zoning Districts:
Many of the City’s commercially zoned parcels which allow residential uses have specific
requirements, mainly that the project include a ground floor retail component. There have
been many successful mixed use projects developed in the City’s commercial areas which have
included ground floor retail and residential units. Following is a list of recently completed
projects on smaller sites which yielded projects with residential components at densities
ranging from 16 to 28 units per acre:
• 420 Cambridge Avenue, 4 units on 6,012 square foot parcel (28 units/acre)
• 2180 El Camino Real, 4 units on 22,365 square foot parcel (16 units/acre)
• 102 University Avenue, 3 units on 7920 square foot parcel (16 units/acre)
• 2051 El Camino Real, 2 units on 4800 square foot parcel (18 units/acre)
The commercially zoned parcels selected in the City Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list were
based on parcels within the City’s transit corridors of El Camino Real, University Avenue and
California Avenue. However, there are number of other mixed use sites throughout the City
that would be equally suitable candidates for mixed use redevelopment. There have been
numerous mixed use projects on similar sites that have occurred throughout the City. Based
on development trends and to account for the potential for some non-residential uses (as a
part of a mixed use development), the realistic capacity used in the HIS list is estimated at 66
per cent of the maximum capacity.
Many of the identified sites are commercial uses along the El Camino Real and California
Avenue corridors are typically low-intensity, one-story and two story buildings, surrounded by
surface parking, constructed in the late 1960’s and 1970’s with relatively little development or
improvements in the past decade. These corridors have seen less development than other
areas of the City, such as the University Avenue corridor. However, since many of the sites
have not been improved and with the City real estate market returning to pre-2008 levels, the
identified sites seem more appropriate for redevelopment opportunities. In addition, the
California Avenue corridor has been designated by the City Council as a Priority Development
Area, through ABAG’s FOCUS program, to provide incentives and attract greater investment
in the California Avenue corridor.
Note also these projects largely occurred in a down market and we can expect this trend to
continue with signs of a significant uptick in the local real estate market.
In addition, as incentive to facilitate mixed use developments, the City has proposed Program H
2.2.2 which will expedite permit processing if the development meets certain requirements. It
is also anticipated that there will be greater use of the density bonus ordinance, which will allow
for projects at greater density that take advantage of the incentives which allow for relaxation of
parking standards.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 5 -
In addition, the following program is being added to monitor the Housing Inventory Sites. If
nonresidential development occurs on a mixed use zoned Housing Inventory Site, the program
would require that a replacement site be identified.
H2.2.9 PROGRAM To maintain adequate sites are available throughout the planning period
to accommodate the City’s RHNA, on a project basis, pursuant to
Government Code Section 65863, the City will monitor available
residential capacity and evaluate development applications on Housing
Inventory Sites in mixed use zoning districts. Should an approval of
development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential
capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower-income
households, the City will identify and zone sufficient sites to
accommodate the shortfall.
Five-Year Objective: Maintain Residential Capacity of sites suitable for lower income
households.
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites:
a. While the element describes market trends, and potential for redevelopment for the
corridor areas identified in the sites inventory, it provides minimal descriptions of
existing uses of identified sites. The element should describe the existing uses of non-
vacant sites sufficiently to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment during the
planning period and evaluate the extent to which existing uses impede additional
residential development. For example, the element lists several indicators used to
determine if a site was suitable for residential or mixed-use development including if a
property was “underdeveloped” pursuant to a windshield survey (page 74). The element
could describe the factors the city used in determining if a property was underutilized. In
addition, the inventory could generally describe whether the use is operating, marginal
or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed
interest in redevelopment.
Response: The City used a number of criteria to evaluate suitability of a non-vacant site. On
Page 74 of the draft Housing Element, the evaluating criteria will be revised to include:
• Improvement on sites at least 20 years old
• Site of 10,000 sq. ft. or more with a yield of 5 units or more
• Site with an A/V of less than 1.5, or with A/V ratios of greater than 1.5 that were
determined to have an artificially low assessed land value (parcels under the
same ownership for more than 10 years), with the assessed land value is far
below current market land values. The improvements on these parcels are much
older and are candidates for redevelopment.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 6 -
• Windshield survey of underdeveloped residential or commercial sites consisting
of 1 or 2 story structures. Underdeveloped commercial sites were defined as
Class B office space structures or older buildings with wood construction. The
above criteria were chosen based on the types of sites that had been redeveloped
with mixed use or residential projects within the past several years.
In the Housing Inventory Sites list, greater detail has been added to each of the listed properties
including the specific commercial use and owner of the site. All of the commercial sites
identified on the inventory are now operating and there are no marginal or discontinued uses.
However, due to the vibrancy of the Palo Alto housing and mixed use market, this has not been a
disincentive to reuse of sites for residential or mixed use development. As noted in the response
to the comment on realistic capacity, there are many examples of mixed use development
occurring on smaller sites similar to those listed in the inventory.
b. Several sites in the inventory are part of the Mayfield Agreement with the University of
Stanford. Part of this agreement is to provide a portion of the sites for housing
affordable to lower-income and the remaining to market rate housing over a 20 year
period. Pursuant to conversations with staff, proposed development plans have been
submitted for these sites including a Bridge Housing proposal for the lower-income
portion. The element should include a description these plans including the proposed
affordability and timeframes in order to determine the portion of the housing need for
lower-income households these sites can accommodate within the planning period.
Response: The following text has been added to the Housing Element following the last
paragraph on page 81 to describe the details of the Mayfield Agreement:
The City’s executed Mayfield Agreement requires the construction of 250 dwelling units on
identified housing sites described in the Agreement. Of the 250 units to be developed, 70 units
are required to be affordable rental units to very-low and low income households. The
Agreement with Stanford University requires that the University submit a building permit
application for 185 units by the end of December 2013 with a specific requirement that an
application for Architectural Review be submitted by December 2013 for the 70 affordable units.
The agreement stipulates that the remaining units be proposed no later than December 2020.
However, nothing precludes the University from submitting applications prior to that deadline.
The Agreement establishes the absolute deadline, and the sites are now available for
development. Therefore, at a minimum, the 70 affordable units will begin the permit approval
process by 2014.
c. In addition, most of the sites in the inventory are small (less than 0.5 acres). If the small
sites are necessary to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for lower-income
households, the element must include analyses that demonstrates these sites can
realistically accommodate new residential development, particularly new multifamily
rental development and housing affordable to lower income households. While it may be
possible to build housing on small parcels, the nature and conditions necessary to
construct the units often render the provision of affordable housing infeasible. For
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 7 -
example, assisted housing developments utilizing State and federal financial resources
typically include 50-80 units. The analysis could describe existing and/or proposed
policies or incentives the City will offer to facilitate small lot development, including lot
consolidation, and include an evaluation of the financial feasibility of development for
lower-income households on smaller sites, given necessary economies of scale.
Response: The following text will be added to the Housing Element on Page 82, regarding
commercially zoned sites that can accommodate mixed use development:
Because the City of Palo Alto is primarily built out, the available sites for new development are
limited. Over the past five years, there have been three projects on sites less than one acre that
accommodated 128 units at densities ranging from 50 to 83 units per acre. These projects
included a total of 85 units affordable to low income households.
The City has a good history of mixed use residential developments. Of the 49 residential land
use approvals since 2006, 19 of the approvals were approved as mixed use projects. Of the 19
mixed use projects, 11 of the projects were done on parcels of less than half an acre.
Residential densities on the 11 projects ranged from 2 units per acre up to 28 units per acre.
There was some affordable housing created on the smaller sites. One affordable rental unit
was approved as part of a three residential unit development on a .18 acre parcel. And while
actual affordable units would not be provided on these smaller mixed use lots, with the City
proposing to lower its BMR threshold to three residential units, it anticipates capturing
additional housing fees from these smaller developments. These fees would be used to finance
future affordable housing developments.
In order to encourage more dense housing yields, the City is proposing a number of lot
consolidation programs. The advantages of lot consolidation include a potential higher yield
of units. Typically, based on the City’s density calculations, the maximum density of a smaller
lot always contain a “fractional” unit. By encouraging lot consolidation, these smaller lots
would be able to add together the fractional units to create a whole unit. Also, with the
removal of a setback requirement, it allows for greater site design flexibility, including
parking, which would also yield more units.
The City chose smaller parcels, generally less than .25 acres, as potential candidates for lot
consolidation. As mentioned , the City has had a number of mixed use development on
parcels less than .5 acres, however consolidating these smaller parcels provide a greater
feasibility of a higher yield mixed use development. Although smaller parcels were chosen for
lot consolidation, it does not preclude larger lots from consolidating. As shown in the City’s
HIS maps, there are a number of adjacent sites of varying sizes throughout the City. Those
sites also present good lot consolidation opportunities.
In addition, in order to encourage development at higher densities on the smaller parcels
identified in the inventory, the following programs have been revised and/or added to the list of
Goals, Policies and Programs beginning on Page 152 of the Housing Element (text in Bold
Italics indicates revisions:
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 8 -
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing Element
adoption for small properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to
encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive would
eliminate Site and Design Review if the project meets the following
criteria:
• The project has 9 residential units or fewer
• A residential density of 20 units per acre or higher
• Maximum unit size of 900 square feet
Five year objective: Streamline processing for identified small Housing Inventory Sites.
Funding Source: City Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Adopt program within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.2.7 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage
development on and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development
review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units,
setback modifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots are
over one-half acre.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for lot consolidation to increase availability of
suitable sites for affordable housing.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of adoption of Housing Element
Second Units: While the element anticipates 15 new second units will be built in the planning
period based on development trends, it must also include an analysis of the anticipated
affordability of the second units to demonstrate the appropriateness of this strategy to
accommodate the housing needs of low- and moderate-income households. The element should
also describe whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for the units in the
community, and the resources or incentives available for their development.
Response: The following text has been added to Page 98, following the first paragraph
describing Second Units/Cottages:
In a review of online rental rates for cottages, attached and detached residential second units
in Palo Alto, their rental rates are in the range of moderate income rents as determined by the
Tax Credit Allocation Commission (TCAC). Therefore, the anticipated 15 second units will be
listed as moderate income.
The R-1 District regulations include provisions for second dwelling units by right on properties
which meet certain lot size criteria and subject to a list of development standards. The
requirements include a minimum parcel size, a maximum living area, a requirement for a
covered parking space, and a maximum height of one story. As noted above, Planning staff
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 9 -
reviews the project through the building permit process, and if the criteria are met, a building
permit is issued.
The City has a substantial need for rental housing, and these units provide for an additional type
of housing which is attractive to seniors and for multi-generational accommodations. They also
offer a way to increase housing stock without using additional land or infrastructure.
Hotel Condominiums: The element appears to utilize the potential for new hotels to develop 25
percent of their units for condominium us pursuant to the City’s Service Commercial (CS)
Ordinance. While the element states 113 residential units could be provided for residential use
based on the approval of three hotels, no information is provided on whether these hotels are
actually creating the condominium units as part of the hotel development and whether the
housing provided by these hotels meet the census definition of a unit. Should the City rely on
these units to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower-income, the element must
include analysis to demonstrate affordability. The analysis should account for all applicable
costs such as taxes and insurance and any condominium fees.
Response: After a review the requirements for Hotel Condominiums to count towards the City’s
RHNA requirements, it appears that the City’s Hotel Condominium ordinance does not meet the
census definition of a unit. Therefore, the City will revise Table 3-9 (page 101) and remove the
113 Hotel Condominiums units from the RHNA numbers. In addition, the paragraph describing
Hotel Condominiums on Page 96 has been removed from the Housing Element document.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
Emergency Shelters: The element proposes to establish year-round shelters in churches to
address the housing need for the homeless population (Program H.3.5.1). However, Chapter
633, Statutes of 2007 (SB 2), requires the identification of a zone(s) where emergency shelters
are permitted without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action with sufficient
capacity to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. The element must specifically identify
the zone(s) or potential zones and demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelters. The element should also describe the characteristics and suitability of the
zone(s) for emergency shelters.
Response: The Housing Element has been revised to include the following paragraph on Page
146 describing the zone where emergency shelters will be allowed by right, and to include a
Program H3.5.2 which would require that the zoning code be amended to allow emergency
shelters by right in this zone within one year of Housing Element adoption (see below). The
Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing-Embarcadero (ROLM)(E) zone district was
selected to accommodate the homeless shelter. The ROLM(E) zone district is the appropriate
district for the emergency shelter for the following reasons:
1. Based on the City’s unmet need of 107 beds, staff calculates that approximately a half
acre will be necessary for the shelter. The ROLM(E) district has a greater number of
parcels of more than .5 acre to be better able to site the shelter on one parcel. It also has
larger parcels that would be appropriate for consolidation to create a .5 acre parcel.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 10 -
2. The per square footage costs of industrial or light manufacturing uses is much less than
residentially or commercially zoned parcels making the emergency shelter more cost
efficient. In addition, there are existing buildings in this area which are of an appropriate
size to be converted to an emergency shelter.
3. Although not in the downtown area, accessibility to the downtown is available through
the City’s free Palo Alto Shuttle. This free crosstown shuttle service begins at the Palo
Alto CalTrain station, passes through the downtown area with the final destination in the
Embarcadero area. The shuttle operates in the morning through the early evening
throughout the work week.
Added to Page 146, Emergency and Transitional Housing, paragraph two:
The City of Palo Alto has identified the portion of the Research, Office and Limited
Manufacturing-Embarcadero (ROLM)(E) zone district east of Highway 101 as having
potential sites to accommodate emergency shelters. This area is a light industrial zone, which
contains such uses as office use, research facilities and light manufacturing. It is also
accessible by transit, and there are retail support services located nearby. The identified area
can accommodate a shelter large enough to have capacity for the City’s unmet homeless need.
The City has an unmet need of 107 beds. This could translate into a shelter of 107 beds, or the
need could be accommodated in two or more shelters of smaller size. Depending on the size of
the site required, and other amenities provided in a homeless shelter, an adequately sized
facility could be accommodated in this zone. Based on the need for 107 beds, it has been
determined that a one-half acre site could accommodate the need for a shelter, or two shelters
could be accommodated on smaller sites. There are several sites in this area which are one
half acre or more. In addition, there are opportunities for site consolidation. The ROLM(E)
district is also appropriate because the square footage costs of industrial or light
manufacturing property is much less than residentially or commercial zoned parcels, making
the emergency shelter use in this area more cost efficient. Also, there are existing buildings in
this area which are of an appropriate size to be converted to an emergency shelter.
Accessibility to the downtown from this area is available through the City’s free Palo Alto
shuttle, which operates in the morning through the early evening throughout the work week.
H3.5.2 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by right with
appropriate performance standards to accommodate the City’s unmet
need for unhoused residents within an overlay of the ROLM(E) zone
district located east of Highway 101.
Five-Year Objective: Provide appropriately zoned sites for emergency shelters.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
2. Government Constraints:
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 11 -
Land-Use Controls: The element states the City adopted form-based codes in 2006 (page 123).
The element should include a description of the requirements of the code including the following:
• The relationship between General Plan land-use designations and the code;
• Performance and processing standards; and
• Development standards regulating housing including a description of how the code
controls form, bulk, building types, performance standards (e.g., ground floor
commercial, 30 percent commercial, etc.), uses, density, and any related design criteria.
Response: The City’s adopted form-based codes requirements are more similar to contextual
based than form based. This means that in addition to the typical list of uses found in traditional
zoning regulations, context based design criteria are included for multi-family, commercial,
mixed use and pedestrian/transit oriented development.
The following text has been added to the Housing Element on Page 123 to further explain the
context based standards as they apply to residential development.
In multi-family and mixed use zones, the development standards are presented in table format
to clearly identify the setback, height, and floor area ratio requirements. In addition, the
multi-family and mixed use design criteria offer a framework to guide development that is
compatible with adjacent development.
These guidelines provide clear direction to developers to help streamline the development
review process. The guidelines are illustrated to offer examples of how parking can be
integrated in to site design, appropriate locations for open space, as well as recommendations
for sustainable building design.
When these standards were adopted in 2007, the intent was to bring the zoning regulations
into compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element indicates architectural review is
required as part of the approval procedure for residential development (page 142). The element
should include a description and analysis of the design criteria review guidelines and process,
including identifying requirements and approval procedures and analyzing the impact of the
guidelines and process on housing costs and approval certainty.
Response: In addition to the discussion on Page 142 of the Housing Element, the following
discussion has been added to this section:
Architectural review is an important and necessary procedure to insure that new development
is consistent and compatible with the existing surrounding developments. All new
construction projects of 5000 square feet or more, and all multi-family projects with 3 or more
units are required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). A preliminary
meeting with Planning staff is recommended to help streamline the process by identifying any
potential issues up front.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 12 -
The design criteria found in the updated zoning code also provides clear guidelines for
residential and mixed use projects. Generally, standards are related to measurable criteria
such as setback, height and floor area. Once an application is submitted, it is routed to other
City departments to obtain a comprehensive review of all code requirements. Once an
application is deemed complete, it is scheduled for ARB review, and a recommendation is
made. The municipal code findings for Architectural Review include that the design should
be consistent with applicable elements of the comprehensive plan, consistent with the
immediate environment, promote harmonious transitions in scale and character between
different land uses, and that the design incorporates energy efficient elements. The final
decision is made by the Planning and Community Environment Director, and this decision
may be appealed to the City Council. The timeline for this process can range from 3 to 6
months.
In order to expedite processing of applications, the Council recently approved a process
revision that establishes that the Architectural Review Board has a maximum of three
meetings to approve or deny an application. Because guidelines have been established for this
process, there is a fair degree of certainty in the review process.
In addition, the draft Housing Element proposes Program 2.2.2 (page 157) to provide an
incentive to streamline the development review process by avoiding Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council review in the application process if certain requirements are met.
Inclusionary Housing: While the Element generally describes the inclusionary housing
ordinance framework (Page 111 and 124), it does not include an evaluation of those
requirements for their potential impact on the cost and supply of housing. For example, the
element should analyze the types of options and incentives the City offers to provide flexibility
and facilitate compliance with the inclusionary requirements. Analyzing the inclusionary
provisions is particularly important given current market conditions and the cumulative impact
of local regulations. The element could include a program to evaluate the inclusionary
ordinance within the next year based on current market conditions and engage the development
community to facilitate this analysis.
Response: The following paragraph was added to Page 24 of the Housing Element, under the
discussion of Below Market Rate Housing Program:
Given the high land costs and availability of land suitable for residential development within
Santa Clara County and adjacent San Mateo County, most communities in the area have
adopted inclusionary housing programs in order to provide affordable housing options. Palo
Alto has had a Below Market Rate housing program since 1973. Although this could be seen
as a constraint to housing development, from 2000 to 2008, Palo Alto produced an average of
100 units per year, and permits were issued for a total of 921 housing units between 2007 and
2011. The fact that most jurisdictions in the area have similar inclusionary housing
programs, and that housing, including the required BMR units, continues to be produced, the
City’s BMR program does not hinder housing production.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 13 -
In order to evaluate the program’s impact on housing production, Program H3.1.14 has been
added to evaluate the provisions of the BMR program to determine if additional incentives are
needed to encourage development of housing given current market conditions.
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Evaluate the provisions of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program to
determine if additional incentives are needed to encourage development
of housing given current market conditions.
Five-Year Objective: Engage in discussions with the development community and determine if
additional incentives are needed to improve the BMR Program.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Evaluate the Program within one year of Housing Element adoption
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities: While the City has adopted a reasonable
accommodation ordinance in respect to the Below Market Rate Program, the ordinance does not
apply citywide. The element must include a detailed analysis of zoning and development
standards including the City’s reasonable accommodation procedure for the development of
housing for persons with disabilities to identify any constraints, and if necessary include
programs to address this need. To address this requirement, the element could include a
program to apply the current reasonable accommodation procedure beyond the BMR program.
Response: The following discussion regarding zoning regulations which may be a constraint to
persons with disabilities has been added to Page 147, under the discussion of Reasonable
Accommodations Requests:
Zoning regulations may be a constraint to development or conversion of housing to make it
suitable for persons with disabilities. Physical improvements needed to accommodate a
person’s disability may consist of ramps, handrails elevators, lifts, or other physical
improvements. Particularly when retrofitting existing housing, it may not be possible to build
these improvements within the setbacks, lot coverage and other standards required in a
specific zoning district. The City is proposing to amend the zoning code to provide a
procedure which would allow a request for modification to these rules, standards and
practices for siting, development and use of housing-related facilities to eliminate regulatory
barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice.
In addition, Program H.4.1.6 has been added to the Goals, Policies and Programs:
H4.1.6 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide individuals with disabilities
reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures
that may be necessary to ensure reasonable access to housing. The
purpose of this program is to provide a process for individuals with
disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to
relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies,
practices and/or procedures of the City.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 14 -
Five-Year Objective: Allow for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in
interpreting land use regulations.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend the Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element adoption
3. Special Housing Needs:
Developmentally Disabled Population: Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010 (SB 812), amended State
housing element law to require an analysis of the special housing needs of persons with
developmental disabilities. The term developmental disability refers to a severe and chronic
disability attributable to a mental or physical impairment, such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or
autism, which begins before individuals reach adulthood (Welfare and Institutions Code, Section
4512). The analysis should include the following:
• a quantification of the total number of persons with developmental disabilities;
• a description of the types of developmental disabilities;
• a description of the housing need, including a description of the potential housing
problems; and
• a discussion of resources, policies and programs including existing housing and services,
for persons with developmental disabilities.
Response: The Housing Element has been revised to include the following paragraph on Page
31 describing the developmentally disabled population and their housing needs, and to include a
Program H4.2.1 which would require that Palo Alto Work with the San Andreas Regional Center
to implement an outreach program that informs families in Palo Alto about housing and services
available for persons with developmental disabilities (see below).
Added to Page 31, following the discussion on persons with disabilities:
Developmentally Disabled: The Developmentally Disabled are a separate population identified
by the State of California, with differing housing needs from others with disabilities. The
Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act ensures that “patterns and conditions of everyday
life which are as close as possible to the norms and patterns of the mainstream of society” are
available to these individuals. Furthermore, the Olmstead v. L.C and E.W. United States
Supreme Court case required an “Integration Mandate” that “States are required to place
persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than institutions…when
determined to be appropriate.” Despites these laws, people with developmental disabilities are
finding it increasingly difficult to find affordable, accessible, and appropriate housing that is
inclusive in the local community.
A developmental disability is defined by the State as “a lifelong disability caused by a mental
and/or physical impairment manifested prior to the age of 18 and are expected to be lifelong.”
The conditions included under this definition include:
• Mental Retardation,
• Epilepsy,
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 15 -
• Autism, and/or
• Cerebral Palsy, and
• “Other Conditions needing services similar to a person with mental retardation.”
Source: Background Report, 2008, Developmental Disabilities Board Area 5
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community based
services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families
through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two
community-based facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in
the State of California that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental
disabilities and serves the Santa Clara County area. According to the San Andreas Regional
Center, there are 219 persons with developmental disabilities living in Palo Alto in 2012.
There is some overlap between the developmentally disabled population and the mentally and
physically disabled populations (approximately 10 and 15 percent, respectively).
Individuals with developmental disabilities are often independent and can live in their own
apartments or homes with little support. Others who have more severe disabilities may require
24 hour assistance in homes that can accommodate their needs as individuals. The housing
need for the individuals in Palo Alto with developmental disabilities translates to about 70
units. This number is derived based on the age of the population. As the younger individuals
approach adulthood, they will need independent or assisted living; and similarly, as the adults
age, they too will need assisted living.
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a developmental
disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary
housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing and SB 962
homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and
transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of
considerations that are important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free
design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing
laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents.
Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with
disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
The most severely disabled persons may require an institutional environment where medical
attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmentally disabilities exist before
adulthood, supportive housing for the developmentally disabled should focus on the transition
from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an
adult.
In order to assist in the housing needs for persons with Developmental Disabilities, the City of
Palo Alto will implement programs to coordinate housing activities and outreach with the
Regional Center and to facilitate additional housing opportunities in Palo Alto for persons
with disabilities, especially persons with developmental disabilities.
Add Program H4.2.2:
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 16 -
H4.2.2 PROGRAM Work with the San Andreas Regional Center to implement an outreach
program that informs families in Palo Alto about housing and services
available for persons with developmental disabilities. The program
could include the development of an informational brochure, including
information on services on the City’s website, and providing housing-
related training for individuals/families through workshops.
Five-year objective: Provide information regarding housing to families of persons with
developmental disabilities.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsibility: Planning and Community Environment
Time frame: Develop outreach program within two years of adoption of the Housing Element.
4. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low-
income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts,
mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Sections 65583(a)(8) through
65583(a)(9)(D)).
While the element includes an identification and analysis of units at risk between 2004-2014, the
element must identify and analyze units at-risk during ten years following the beginning of the
planning period (2009-2019). If units are found to be at-risk, the element must estimate the total
cost of replacing and preserving these units and include a list of entities with the capacity to
acquire multifamily developments at-risk. For a listing of units at-risk in Palo Alto, contact the
California Housing Partnership Corporation http://www.chpc.net/.
Response: The Housing Element has been revised as follows to expand on the discussion of the
preservation of at-risk housing. The section discussing at-risk housing begins on Page 62 of the
Housing Element.
Many of the City’s affordable housing agreements are in place through 2019. However, some
affordable housing developments are dependent on Section 8 vouchers to assist in the project
cash flow. While difficult to predict the direction of federal funding for the Section 8 program
and affordable housing funding in general, the City will continue to advocate for maintaining or
increasing funding for affordable housing. Of the City’s affordable housing developments, only
one development, the Terman Apartments, was found to be a high risk of reverting to market rate
housing. The Terman Apartments were financed using the Section 8 221(d)(3) mortgage
insurance program. The development has been at risk for some time and the City has
approached the owner a number of times about the possibility of purchasing the unit. However,
the owner has not been receptive to selling the development. The City will work with the owner
and other non-profit affordable housing developers in preserving this project which serves
moderate income households.
In 2008, the City and Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Inc. (PAHC), a non-profit housing
developer, approached the owner of the Terman Apartments about the possibility of selling the
units to PAHC but the owner was not willing. In addition to PAHC, the City has worked with a
number of affordable housing developers in the City including Eden Housing and Bridge
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 17 -
Housing Corporation, both established affordable housing developers in the Bay Area. Based on
recent development proformas of affordable housing projects in the City, the total estimated cost
of replacing 92 total units, with land acquisition and developments costs, at the Terman
Apartments would be approximately $45 million.
C: Housing Programs
1. Programs – Timelines and Implementation:
To address the program requirements of Government Code Section 65583 (c) (1-6), and to
facilitate implementation, all programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific
role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where
appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs with clear,
quantifiable objectives will assist the City in evaluating the effectiveness of program actions and
appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies as required in the review and revise section of
State housing element law for future updates. Programs to be revised include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Programs H1.1.2, H1.1.3, H2.1.1, H2.1.9, H3.3.1, H3.4.4, and H4.2.1: Describe the specific
actions and timeframes the City will take to implement these programs. Where applicable,
estimate the number of units or households that will be assisted within the planning period.
Program H2.1.4: Describe the incentives the City will provide to encourage the development of
smaller housing units.
Programs H3.3.6, H3.3.7, H4.1.1, and H4.1.2: Describe the City’s specific role in
implementation of these programs.
Response: All of the programs have been revised to include five-year objectives, funding
sources, responsible agencies and time frames. Where appropriate, the five-year objective
includes quantifiable objectives, including an estimate of the number of units or households to be
assisted within the planning period.
Attached is a revised list of programs which replace the programs beginning on Page 150
through Page 161 of the Draft Housing Element. It includes the additional programs added as a
result of HCD comments above. Revised and new policies are indicated in bold italic type.
Comments on Specific Programs: Listed below are clarifications regarding the specific
programs mentioned above:
Program H1.1.2 (Second Unit Amnesty) – now includes a time frame that creation of the
amnesty program would be implemented within one year of adoption of the housing element.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 18 -
Program H1.1.2 (Incentives to retain rental cottages) – Clarifies the types of incentives to be
considered and indicates that the program will be implemented within one year of Housing
Element adoption.
Program H2.1.1 (Amend zoning code to allow high density residential in mixed use projects
near rail & limited exceptions to height limit) – includes timeframe that zoning code
amendments will be considered within one year of Housing Element adoption.
Program H2.1.9 (Transfer of Development Rights program) – establishes time frame that
program will be considered within two years of Housing Element adoption.
Program H3.3.1 (Expedite processing for affordable housing projects) – indicates program will
continue to be implemented upon adoption of the Housing Element and will be ongoing.
Program H3.4.4 (Work with affordable housing developers to acquire, rehabilitate and convert
existing multi-family development) – added an objective that the City will identify potential sites
and provide this information to developers within one year of Housing Element adoption.
Program H4.2.1 (Evaluate zoning code to facilitate construction of housing for special needs
households) – Added a time frame that the zoning code will be evaluated within one year of
Housing Element adoption.
Program H2.1.4 (Encourage the development of smaller housing units) – Program has been
amended to indicate the types of incentives which would be provided for creating smaller, more
affordable housing units.
Describe the City’s specific role in the implementation of the following programs:
Program H3.3.6 (Participate in the Santa Clara County Homeless Collaborative) – A five-year
objective was added that indicates that City staff will continue to participate as members of the
Collaborative’s CDBG and HOME Program Coordinators Group.
Program H3.3.7 (Participate with support agencies addressing homelessness) – a five-year
objective was added which indicates that City staff will continue to participate in the
prioritization of funding for County-wide programs.
Program H4.1.1 (Work with agencies to ensure fair housing laws are enforced) – a five-year
objective was added that indicates that City staff will continue to coordinate with state and
federal agencies to support programs to eliminate housing discrimination.
Program H4.1.2 (Support groups that provide fair housing services) – a five-year objective was
added which clarifies that the city provides financial support through CDBG finding to the Mid-
Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing and Project Sentinel.
2. Identify Adequate Sites
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 19 -
As noted in Finding A1, the element does not include a complete site analysis and therefore, the
adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites
inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of
sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should
be revised as follows:
Rezoning Program: Please be aware should the element rely on sites which are expected to be
rezoned in the CN zoning district to accommodate the lower-income housing need (Page 71), it
must include a program to rezone sites in accordance with Government Code Sections
65583(a)(3) and 65583.2(h) for 100 percent of the remaining lower-income housing need. The
sites must be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right during the
planning period and include minimum density and development standards that permit at least 16
units per site at a density of at least 20 units per acre. Also, at least 50 percent of the remaining
need must be planned on sites that exclusively allow residential uses.
Response: The City does not require rezoning additional sites to meet its lower income housing
need. After subtracting the 251 lower income units approved or built during the 2007-2014 cycle
from the City’s low and very low requirement of 1,233 units, the City has an unmet need of 982
low and very low income units. In order to accommodate the very low and low income needs,
State law requires the City to identify sites that have a density of 20 units per acre or higher, as
per the density assigned to the City per State law. In the City’s Housing Inventory Sites (HIS)
list, all parcels with a density of 20 units per acre or more have been highlighted. The total
number provided by the highlighted parcels is 1,056 housing units. Therefore the City can
accommodate its unmet low and very low income housing need for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle
by right. While the City does have proposed programs that will revise the Zoning Ordinance to
allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre for certain zoning districts, the City can meet its low and
very low needs with existing zoning.
In addition, an application has been submitted to rezone the site to Planned Community (PC) to
allow 60 units of extremely low to low income senior affordable rental housing and 15 market
rate units by right, for a total of 75 units for 595 Maybell Avenue. There are now four units on
the site, so the net yield will be 71 units. This site, with the proposed rezoning will meet the
criteria for accommodating the identified unaccommodated need: the zoning will allow multiple
family residential uses by right, the site is large enough to accommodate more than 16 units, and
the density will be about 30 units per acre. Although the City does not plan to use this property
to meet its unaccommodated need requirements, the rezoning will provide additional affordable
housing to help the City meet its RHNA numbers.
The following Program 2.2.8 has been added to the Housing Element to provide for the rezoning
of this site to accommodate this proposal within one year of Housing Element adoption.
H2.2.8 PROGRAM Rezone property at 595 Maybell Avenue from the RM-15 and R-2 zone
districts to the PC zone district to allow for development of 60 units of
extremely low to low income senior affordable rental housing units and
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 20 -
15 market rate units.
Five-Year Objective: Provide an opportunity for development of 60 units affordable to
extremely low and low income senior residents and 15 market rate units.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
Two other programs have been added to the Housing Element to provide for the rezoning of the
CN and GM zones to be consistent with the realistic capacity as outlined in the City Housing
Inventory Sites list. The rezones will occur within a one year of Housing Element adoption.
2.2.5 PROGRAM Revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the density of up to 20 units
per acre on CN-zoned parcels included in the Housing Inventory Sites.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for affordable units on CN zoned Housing
Inventory Sites.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend zoning code within one year of Housing Element adoption.
2.2.6 PROGRAM Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for residential uses with the
density of up to 30 units per acre on GM parcels included in the
Housing Inventory Sites.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for affordable units on GM zoned Housing
Inventory Sites.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Small Sites/Lot Consolidation: The element relies on the potential of small sites to be
consolidated to accommodate the City’s share of the RHNA, particularly for lower-income
households. As a result, the element must include specific programs to facilitate lot
consolidation and development of housing on small sites.
Response: Program H2.2.7 has been added to amend the zoning code to create zoning
incentives to encourage lot consolidation (see above). The program will be implemented within
one year of Housing Element adoption.
Mixed Use Development: As the City is relying on underutilized sites and the potential for
mixed use development to accommodate its RHNA for lower-income households, the element
must include specific program actions to promote redevelopment of underutilized sites and lot
consolidation including financial assistance, regulatory concessions or incentives to encourage
and facilitate additional or more intense residential development on non-vacant and
underutilized sites. Examples of incentive include: 1) organizing special marketing events
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 21 -
geared toward the development community; 2) posting the sites inventory on the local
government’s webpage; 3) identifying and targeting specific financial resources; and reducing
appropriate development standards.
Response: In addition to Program H2.1.10 noted above, which establishes zoning incentives for
lot consolidation on identified Housing Inventory Sites, the following program has been added:
H2.1.11 PROGRAM Promote redevelopment of underutilized sites and lot consolidation by
providing information about potential housing sites on the City’s
website, including the Housing Inventory Sites and information about
financial resources available through City housing programs.
Five-Year Objective: Provide information to developers about potential housing sites and
opportunities for lot consolidation.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Post information on website within one year of Housing Element adoption
3. Programs to Meet the Needs of Extremely Low-, Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-
Income Households
While the element includes some actions proposed to assist in the development of housing for
very-low and low-income households, it must include programs that specifically assist in the
development of a variety of housing types to address the needs of extremely low-income (ELI)
households. To address this requirement, the element could revise programs to prioritize some
funding for the development of housing affordable to ELI households, and/or offer financial
incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as
multifamily, single-room occupancy units, and supportive housing, which address some of the
needs of this income group.
Response: Program H3.1.7 (Page 156 of the Housing Element, proposes to amend the Zoning
Code to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in commercial and high density residential
zoning districts. These units are generally seen to be affordable to ELI households. In addition,
in order to further address the housing needs of ELI households, the following two programs
have been added to the Housing Element:
H3.1.15 PROGRAM When using its Housing Development funds for residential projects, the
City shall give a strong preference to those developments which serve
extremely low-income (ELI) households.
Five-Year Objective: Provide funding opportunities for development of housing for Extremely
Low Income (ELI) households.
Funding Source: City Housing funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 22 -
H3.1.16 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers
who provide extremely-low income (ELI) housing units, above and
beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate (BMR) program,
such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced
landscaping requirements and reduced fees.
Five-Year Objective: Provide incentives for development of housing for Extremely Low
Income (ELI) households.
Funding Source: City Housing funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
4. Removal of Governmental Constraints:
As noted in Finding A2, the element requires a complete analysis of potential government
constraints. Depending on the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add
programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
Response: As noted above in the response to comment A2 above regarding analysis of
government constraints, additional analysis has been provided for the following topics: Land
Use Controls, Local Processing and Permit Procedures, Inclusionary Housing and Constraints on
Persons with disabilities. As a result of this additional analysis for the City’s inclusionary
housing program, Program H3.1.14 was added to the Housing Element, which would require an
evaluation of the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program to determine if additional
incentives are needed to encourage development of housing. In addition, as a result of the
additional analysis regarding the Developmentally Disabled population, Program H4.2.2 has
been added to implement an outreach program, working with the San Andreas Regional Center.
5. Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market-Rate:
The element identifies housing units at-risk of converting to market-rate. Therefore, program
H3.1.5 should be revised to include specific and proactive actions. For example, the program
should ensure compliance with noticing requirements and include a tenant education component
and consider pursuing funding on at least an annual basis. The program should also commit the
City to contacting non-profits immediately to develop a preservation strategy by a date certain to
be ready to act quickly when notice of conversion is received.
Response: Program H3.1.5 has been revised to contain pro-active and specific actions preserve
affordable housing at-risk of converting to market rate (see below). In addition, please see
discussion about Terman Apartments on Page 13 and 14 of this letter.
3.1.5 Preserve affordable housing stock by monitoring compliance, providing tenant education
seeking other sources of funds for affording housing developments at risk of market rate
conversions. The City will continue to renew existing funding sources supporting
rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
Response to HCD comments on Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
March 26, 2013
- 23 -
In addition, the following program has been added as Program 3.1.17
H3.1.17 PROGRAM Any affordable development deemed a high risk at market rate conversion,
within two years of the expiration of the affordability requirements, the
City will contact the owner and explore the possibility of extending the
affordability of the development.
Five-Year Objective: To protect those affordable developments deemed a high risk to
converting to market rate.
Funding Source: City Housing funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
D. Quantified Objectives:
Include quantified objectives estimating the number of housing units by income category that can
be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period. This requirement
could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one illustrated below:
Income New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low- 45 100
Very Low- 65 175
Low- 20 75
Moderate- 10 600 92
Above Moderate- 650 2400
TOTAL 790 3350 92
Response: The City will add a Quantified Objectives table in Chapter 3 following Table 2-57
demonstrating the estimated numbers of housing units that will constructed, rehabilitated and
conserved.
The following text will accompany the table:
As required by Section 65583 of the California Government Code, the goals, policies and
actions identified in this document seek to meet quantified housing objectives. Table 2-57
summarizes these findings, which result in a total estimated construction of 790 new housing
units. The estimates for Rehabilitation and Conservation were based on City Planning and
Building Department permit data.
ATTACHMENT D
Revised Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element
(Was Previously distributed on May 22, 2013 – Proposed
Revisions to this Draft is contained in Attachment L)
STATE OF CAliFORNIA .BII$INE$$ TRAN$PORTATIO.N AND HOII$ING AGENCy
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street. Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento. CA 94252-2053
(91 6) 323-3177 1 FAX (916) 327-2643
www.hcc\.ca.gov
October 18, 2012
Mr. Curtis Williams
Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Williams:
RE: Review of the City of Palo Alto's Draft Housing Element
EOMI INO G BROWN 18 Governor
Thank you for submitting Palo Altos' draft housing element received for review on August
21, 2012 with revisions received on October 3, 2012. The draft housing element was
submitted for the 4th planning cycle and covers the 2009-2014 planning period. The
Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the
locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A telephone conversation on
September 13, 2012 with you, Messer Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator, Roland Rivera,
Senior Planner, Steven Turner, Planning Manager, and Ms. Cara Silver, Assistant City
Attorney, facilitated the review. In addition, the Department considered comments from
Public Advocates pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c).
The Department acknowledges Palo Alto's success in assisting with the development of
housing affordable to lower-income households. The draft element addresses many
statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State
housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular, the element
must include a sites inventory and analysis of potential governmental constraints . In
addition , the revisions received on October 3, 2012 must be incorporated into the element
as part of the revised element. The enclosed Append ix describes these and other
revisions needed to comply with State housing element law.
We are committed to assist Palo Alto in addressing all statutory requirements of housing
element law. If you have any questions or need additional techn ical assistance, please
contact Melinda Coy, of our staff, at (916) 445-5307 .
:Z:I~
Glen A. Campora
Assistant Deputy Director
Enclosure
APPENDIX
CITY OF PALO ALTO
The following changes would bring Palo Alto's housing element into compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on the Department's website at
www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd. Refer to the Division of Housing Policy Development and the section
pertaining to State Housing Planning. Among other resources, the Housing Element section
contains the Department's latest technical assistance tool Building Blocks for Effective Housing
Elements (Building Blocks) available at www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2lindex.php, the
Government Code addressing State housing element law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the
relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section
65583(a)(3)). The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used
to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section
65583.2).
Palo Alto has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 2,860 housing units, of
which 1,233 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element
relies on non-vacant and mixed use sites along transit corridors. To demonstrate the
adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the
element must include complete analyses:
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (page 66) that 168 units
affordable to very low-income households and 21 units affordable to low-income
households have been built or are under construction or approved, but provides no
information documenting how affordability of the units was determined. As you know,
the City's RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since January 1,
2007; however, the element must describe the City's methodology for assigning
these units to the various income groups based on actual sales price or rent level of
the units and demonstrate their availability in the planning period.
Previous Unaccommodated Need: While the element now includes an analysis to
identify the unaccommodated need based on the total unmet need from the previous
planning period, it does not identify the unaccommodated need by income group.
Pursuant to Chapter 614, Statutes of 2005 (AB 1233), as the City of Palo Alto failed
to implement Program H-14 to rezone sites in the prior planning period, the City must
zone or rezone sites to accommodate any unaccommodated need within the first
year of the 2009-2014 planning period. The element must include an analysis by
income group to determine if there is a remaining unaccommodated need that must
be accommodated in the current planning period. Further information can be found at
http://www.hcd.cs.govlhpdlhrc/plan/he/ab 1233 final dtpdf or in the Building Blocks' website
at http://www.hcd.ca.qov/hpd/housing element2/GS reviewandrevise.php.
-2-
Realistic Capacity: For mixed-use or commercial sites allowing residential uses, the
residential capacity estimate should account for potential development of non
residential uses and could consider any performance standards mandating a
specified portion of a mixed-use site as non-residential (e.g., first floor, front space as
commercial). The element could also describe any existing or proposed regulatory
incentives and standards to facilitate housing development in the mixed-use or
commercial zones and on the identified non-vacant sites. See the Building Blocks'
and sample analysis at http://www.hcd.ca.govlhpd/housing element2/SIA zoning.php#capacity.
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites:
While the element describes market trends, and potential for redevelopment for the
corridor areas identified in the sites inventory, it provides minimal descriptions of
existing uses of identified sites. The element should describe the existing uses of
non-vacant sites sufficiently to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment during
the planning period and evaluate the extent to which existing uses may impede
additional residential development. For example, the element lists several indicators
used to determine if a site was suitable for residential or mixed-use development
including if a property was "underdeveloped" pursuant to a windshield survey (page
74). The element could describe the factors the city used in determining if a property
was underutilized. In addition, the inventory could generally describe whether the
use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could
describe any expressed interest in redevelopment. Refer to the sample analysis on
the Building Blocks' website at
htlp:l/www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/SIA home.php.
Several sites in the inventory are part of the Mayfield Agreement with the University of
Stanford. Part of this agreement is to provide a portion of the sites for housing
affordable to lower-income and the remaining to market rate housing over a 20 year
period. Pursuant to conversations with staff, proposed development plans have been
submitted for these sites including a Bridge Housing proposal for the lower-income
portion. The element should include a description of these plans including the
proposed affordability and timeframes in order to determine the portion of the housing
need for lower-income households these sites can accommodate within the planning
period.
In addition, most of the sites in the inventory are small (less than 0.5 acres). If the
small sites are necessary to accommodate the City's regional housing need for lower
income households, the element must include analyses that demonstrates these sites
can realistically accommodate new residential development, particularly new
multifamily rental development and housing affordable to lower-income households.
While it may be possible to build housing on small parcels, the nature and conditions
necessary to construct the units often render the provision of affordable housing
infeasible. For example, assisted housing developments utilizing State or federal
financial resources typically include 50-80 units. The analysis could describe existing
and/or proposed pOlicies or incentives the City will offer to facilitate small lot
development, including lot consolidation, and include an evaluation of the financial
feasibility of development for lower-income households on smaller sites, given
necessary economies of scale.
-3-
Second Units: While the element anticipates 15 new second units will be built in the
planning period based on development trends, it must also include an analysis of the
anticipated afford ability of second units to demonstrate the appropriateness of this
strategy to accommodate the housing needs of low-and moderate-income
households, The element should also describe whether or not the units are permitted
by right, the need for the units in the community, and the resources or incentives
available for their development.
Hotel Condominiums: The element appears to utilize the potential for new hotels to
develop 25 percent of their units for condominium use pursuant to the City's Service
Commercial (CS) ordinance. While the element states 113 residential units could be
provided for residential use based on the approval of three hotels, no information is
provided on whether these hotels are actually creating the condominium units as part
of the hotel development and whether the housing provided by these hotels meet the
census definition of a unit. Should the City rely on these units to accommodate a
portion of the housing need for lower-income, the element must include analysis to
demonstrate affordability, The analysis should account for all applicable costs such
as taxes and insurance and any condominium fees.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
Emergency Shelters: The element proposes to establish year-round shelters in
churches to address the housing need for the homeless population (Program
H,3,5,1), However, Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007 (SB 2), requires the identification
of a zone(s) where emergency shelters are permitted without a conditional use permit
or other discretionary action with sufficient capacity to accommodate at least one
year-round emergency shelter. The element must specifically identify the zone(s) or
potential zones and demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelters, The element should also describe the characteristics and
suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters. See the Department's SB 2
technical assistance memo at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/sb2 memo050708.pdf
2. Analyze potential and actual govemmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities
as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures, The analysis
shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder
the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with
Section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities,
supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant
to paragraph (7) (Section 65583(a)(5)).
-4-
Land-Use Controls: The element states the City adopted form-based codes in 2006
(page 123). The element should include a description of the requirements of the
code including the following:
• the relationship between General Plan land-use designations and the code;
• performance and processing standards; and
• development standards regulating housing including a description of how the
code controls form, bulk, building types, performance standards (e.g., ground
floor commercial, 30 percent commercial, etc.), uses, density, and any related
design criteria.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures:
The element indicates architectural review is required as part of the approval
procedure for residential development (page 142). The element should include a
description and analysis of the design criteria review guidelines and process,
including identifying requirements and approval procedures and analyzing the impact
of the guidelines and process on housing costs and approval certainty.
Inclusionary Housing: While the element generally describes the inclusionary
housing ordinance framework (Page 111 and 124), it does not include an evaluation
of those requirements for their potential impact on the cost and supply of housing.
For example, the element should analyze the types of options and incentives the City
offers to provide flexibility and facilitate compliance with the inclusionary
requirements. Analyzing the inclusionary provisions is particularly important given
current market conditions and the cumulative impact of local regulations. The
element could include a program to evaluate the inclusionary ordinance within the
next year based on current market conditions and engage the development
community to facilitate this analysis.
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities: While the City has adopted a reasonable
accommodation ordinance in respect to the Below Market Rate Program, the
ordinance does not apply citywide. The element must include a detailed analysis of
zoning and development standards including the City's reasonable accommodation
procedure for the development of housing for persons with disabilities to identify any
constraints, and if necessary include programs to address this need. To address this
requirement, the element could include a program to apply the current reasonable
accommodation procedure beyond the BMR program.
3. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities,
including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female
heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter
(Section 65583(a)(7)).
Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010 (SB 812), amended State housing element law to
require an analysis of the special housing needs of persons with developmental
disabilities. The term developmental disability refers to a severe and chronic disability
attributable to a mental or physical impairment, such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or
autism, which begins before individuals reach adulthood (Welfare and Institutions
Code, Section 4512). The analysis could include the following:
-5-
• a quantification of the total number of persons with developmental disabilities;
• a description of the types of developmental disabilities;
• a description of the housing need, including a description of the potential housing
problems; and
• a discussion of resources, policies and programs including existing housing and
services, for persons with developmental disabilities.
Information for this analysis may be obtained from the area's local regional center for
developmental services at httn;/Iwww.dds.ca.gov/RC/RCLisLcfm. For further assistance
in meeting this requirement see the Departments SB 812 technical assistance memo
at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/NoticeCoverLttrSB812.pdf.
4. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non
low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions (Sections
65583(a)(8) through 65583(a)(9)(D)).
While the element includes an identification and analysis for units at risk between
2004-2014, the element must identify and analyze units at-risk during ten years
following the beginning of the planning period (2009-2019). If units are found to be
at-risk, the element must estimate the total cost of replacing and preserving these
units and include a list of entities with the capacity to acquire multifamily
developments at-risk. For a listing of units at-risk in Palo Alto contact the California
Housing Partnership Corporation http://www.chpc.net/.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs
are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the
planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of
regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and
state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an
identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the
various actions (Section 65583(c)).
To address the program requirements of Government Code Section 65583)( c)( 1-6),
and to facilitate implementation, all programs should include: (1) a description of the
City's specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines;
(3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible
agencies and officials. Programs with clear, quantifiable objectives will assist the City
in evaluating the effectiveness of program actions and appropriateness of goals,
objectives and policies as required in the review and revise section of State housing
element law for future updates. Programs to be revised include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Programs H1.1.2. H1.1.3. H2.1.1. H2.1.9. H3.3.1. H3.4.4. and H4.2.1: Describe
specific actions and timeframes the City will take to implement these programs.
Where applicable, estimate the number of units or households that will be assisted
within the planning period.
Program H2.1.4: Describe the incentives the City will provide to encourage the
development of smaller housing units.
Programs H3.3.6. H3.3.7, H4.1.1, and H4.1.2: Describe the City's specific role in
implementation of these programs.
-6-
2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for a11 income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups
of a11 household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program sha11 provide
for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
residential use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low-and low-income
households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in Finding Ai, the element does not include a complete site analysis and
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the
results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise
programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Please be aware should the element rely on sites which are expected to be rezoned
in the CN zoning district to accommodate the lower-income housing need (Page 71),
it must include a program to rezones sites in accordance with Government Code
Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2(h) for 100 percent of the remaining lower-income
housing need. The sites must be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental
multifamily uses by-right during the planning period and include minimum density and
development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20
units per acre. Also, at least 50 percent of the remaining need must be planned on
sites that exclusively allow residential uses.
Small Sites/Lot Consolidation: The element relies on the potential of small sites to be
consolidated to accommodate the City's share of the RHNA, particularly for lower
income households. As a result, the element must include specific programs to
facilitate lot consolidation and development of housing on small sites.
Mixed-use Development: As the City is relying on underutilized sites and the potential
for mixed-use development to accommodate its RHNA for lower-income households,
the element must include specific program actions to promote redevelopment of
underutilized sites and lot consolidation including financial assistance,
-7-
regulatory concessions or incentives to encourage and facilitate additional or more
intense residential development on non-vacant and underutilized sites. Examples of
incentives include: 1) organizing special marketing events geared towards the
development community; 2) posting the sites inventory on the local government's
webpage; 3) identifying and targeting specific financial resources; and 4) reducing
appropriate development standards.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-and moderate
income households (Section 65583(c)(2)).
While the element includes some actions proposed to assist in the development of
housing for very-low and low-income households, it must include programs that
specifically assist in the development of a variety of housing types to address the
needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households. To address this requirement, the
element could revise programs to prioritize some funding for the development of
housing affordable to ELI households, and/or offer financial incentives or regulatory
concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as multifamily,
single-room occupancy units, and supportive housing, which address some of the
needs of this income group.
4. The housing element shall contain programs which address, and where appropriate
and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted in Finding A2, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may
need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints. Please refer to the following technical assistance resource on the
Building Blocks' website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/PRO mitigate.php.
5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a). The program
for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent
necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other
urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program
may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance
(Section 65583(c)(6)).
The element identifies housing units at-risk of converting to market-rate. Therefore,
program H3.1.5 should be revised to include specific and proactive actions. For
example, the program should ensure compliance with noticing requirements and
include a tenant education component and consider pursuing funding on at least an
annual basis. The program should also commit the City to contacting non-profits
immediately to develop a preservation strategy by a date certain to be ready to
quickly act when notice of conversion is received.
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame (Section 65583(b)(1 & 2)).
-8-
Include quantified objectives estimating the number of housing units by income categorv
that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period. This
requirement could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one illustrated below:
New Conservation!
Income Construction Rehabilitation Preservation
Extremely Low-
Very Low-
Low-
Moderate-
Above Moderate-
TOTAL
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS
H1 GOAL ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE CITY’S
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
H1.1 POLICY Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties using
sustainable and energy conserving approaches.
H1.1.1 PROGRAM Continue the citywide property maintenance, inspection and enforcement program.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to provide services which promote rehabilitation of substandard housing.
Funding Source: City Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, Code Enforcement
Time Frame: Ongoing
H1.1.2 PROGRAM 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 granting of amnesty should be contingent on 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.
Five-Year Objective: Amend the zoning code to create a second unit amnesty program to extend the life of
existing affordable units.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Conduct a study within one year of adoption of Housing Element to determine how many illegal
second units exist and what incentives are needed to encourage legitimizing illegal second units.
H1.1.3 PROGRAM Provide incentives to developers such as reduced fees and flexible development
standards to encourage the preservation of existing rental cottages and duplexes currently
located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas.
Five-Year Objective: Preserve 10 rental cottages and duplexes.
Funding Source: City Housing Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Explore incentives within one year of Housing Element adoption
H1.2 POLICY Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods.
H1.2.1 PROGRAM When there is a loss of rental housing due to subdivision or condominium approvals, the
project shall require 25 percent BMR units.
Five-Year Objective: Provide 10 additional affordable housing units on sites where rental housing will be lost.
Funding Source: NA
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 2 of 19
H1.3 POLICY Encourage community involvement in the maintenance and enhancement of public and
private properties and adjacent rights-of-way in residential neighborhoods.
H1.3.1 PROGRAM Create community volunteer days and park cleanups, plantings, or similar events that
promote neighborhood enhancement and conduct City-sponsored cleanup campaigns for
public and private properties.
Five-Year Objective: Coordinate with the City’s waste and disposal hauler to conduct a cleanup campaign
once a year to promote neighborhood clean-up.
Funding Source: City Housing Funds
Responsible Agency: Public Works Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
H1.4 POLICY Assure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density
development to single family and low density residential districts in order to preserve
neighborhood character.
STRATEGIES FOR NEW HOUSING
H2 GOAL SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING NEAR SCHOOLS, TRANSIT, PARKS,
SHOPPING, EMPLOYMENT AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
H2.1 POLICY Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity,
including mixed use development, near community services, including a range of unit types.
Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable housing to support the City’s fair
share of the regional housing needs.
H2.1.1 PROGRAM Consider amending the zoning code to allow high density residential in mixed use
projects in commercial areas within half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited
exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Inventory Sites within a quarter mile of
fixed rail stations to encourage higher density residential development.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for a diverse range of housing types near fixed rail stations.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Consider zoning code amendments within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.1.2 PROGRAM Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate
urban services and amenities, including, traffic capacity, are available.
Five-Year Objective: Make sure that adequate services are available when considering increased residential
densities.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 3 of 19
H2.1.3 PROGRAM Amend the zoning code to 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.
Five-Year Objective: To provide opportunities for up to10 additional dwelling units on properties zoned RM-
15.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.1.4 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of
smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced
parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible
development standards.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for 75 smaller, more affordable housing units.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.1.5 PROGRAM Use sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability
and access to amenities and to support housing diversity.
Five-Year Objective: Increase connectivity and walkability in new development.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H2.1.6 PROGRAM Encourage density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for
100% affordable housing developments consistent with the Residential Density Bonus
Ordinance.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for 100% affordable housing developments.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H2.1.7 PROGRAM Amend the zoning code to develop a small residential unit overlay district to allow higher
densities in areas designated Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD).
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for smaller residential units.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one-year of Housing Element adoption
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 4 of 19
H2.1.9 PROGRAM Explore developing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to encourage
higher density housing in appropriate locations.
Five-Year Objective: Create opportunities for higher density housing.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Consider program within two years of Housing Element adoption
H2.1.10 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation
of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites, such as development review
streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or
graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for lot consolidation to increase availability of suitable sites for
affordable housing.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.1.11 PROGRAM Promote redevelopment of underutilized sites and lot consolidation by providing
information about potential housing sites on the City’s website, including the Housing
Sites Inventory and information about financial resources available through City
housing programs.
Five-Year Objective: Provide information to developers about potential housing sites and opportunities for lot
consolidation.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Post information on website within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.2 POLICY Continue to support the redevelopment of suitable lands for mixed uses containing housing to
encourage compact, infill development, optimize the use of existing urban services and
support transit use.
H2.2.1 PROGRAM Adopt an ordinance for density bonus concessions to promote more flexible concessions
and incentives to projects that propose smaller units at a higher density, to encourage
development of suitable housing sites currently planned and zoned for non-residential use
with mixed use projects to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s housing
needs.
Five-Year Objective: Increase opportunities for higher density development by providing density bonus
incentives.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 5 of 19
Time Frame: Density Bonus Ordinance is being considered by the Planning Commission in January 2013;
Council to consider adoption in early 2013
H2.2.2 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within a year of Housing Element adoption for small
properties identified as a Housing Inventory Site to encourage housing production on
those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and Design Review if the project meets the
following criteria:
The project has 9 residential units or fewer
A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher
Maximum unit size of 900 sq. ft.
Five-Year Objective: Streamline processing for identified Housing Inventory Sites.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Adopt program within one year of Housing Element adoption
H2.2.3 PROGRAM Work with Stanford University to identify sites suitable for housing that may be located
in the Stanford Research Park and compatible with surrounding uses.
Five-Year Objective: Identify sites suitable for housing to accommodate up additional housing units.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Identify sites within two years of Housing Element adoption
2.2.4 PROGRAM Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that support the
development of housing above and among commercial uses.
Five-Year Objective: Explore additional opportunities to encourage housing in commercial areas.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
2.2.5 PROGRAM Revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the density of up to 20 units per acre on CN-
zoned parcels included in the Housing Inventory Sites.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for affordable units on CN zoned Housing Inventory Sites.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend zoning code within one year of Housing Element adoption.
2.2.6 PROGRAM Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for residential uses with the density of up to 20
units per acre on GM parcels included in the Housing Inventory Sites.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for affordable units on GM zoned Housing Inventory Sites.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend zoning code within one year of Housing Element adoption.
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 6 of 19
2.2.7 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage development on
and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development review streamlining, reduction
in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density when
consolidated lots are over one-half acre.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for lot consolidation to increase availability of suitable sites for
affordable housing.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of adoption of Housing Element
H2.2.8 PROGRAM Rezone property at 595 Maybell Avenue from the RM-15 and R-2 zone districts to the
PC zone district to allow for development of 60 units of extremely low to low income
senior affordable rental housing units and 15 market rate units.
Five-Year Objective: Provide an opportunity for development of 60 units affordable to extremely low and low
income senior residents and 15 market rate units.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
H3 GOAL MEET UNDERSERVED HOUSING NEEDS AND PROVIDE COMMUNITY RESOURCES
TO SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
H3.1 POLICY Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very-low, low, and
moderate income households.
H3.1.1 PROGRAM Amend the City’s BMR ordinance to lower the BMR requirement threshold from projects
of five or more units to three or more units and to modify the BMR rental section to be
consistent with recent court rulings related to inclusionary rental housing.
Five-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for 4 additional BMR units.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend BMR Ordinance within one year of Housing Element adoption.
H3.1.2 PROGRAM Implement the City’s “Below Market Rate” (BMR) Program ordinance to reflect the
City’s policy of requiring:
a) At least 15 percent of all housing units in projects must 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. Projects that cause
the loss of existing rental housing may need to provide a 25 percent component as
detailed in Program H 1.2.1. BMR units must be comparable in quality, size and mix
to the other units in the development.
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 7 of 19
b) 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. The
initial sales prices of the remaining BMR units may be set at higher levels affordable
to households earning between 100 to 120 percent of the County’s median income.
For the projects with a 25 percent BMR component, four-fifths of the BMR units
must be affordable to households in the 80 to 100 percent of median range, and one-
fifth may be in the higher price range of between 100 to 120 percent of the County’s
median income. In all cases, the sales price should be sufficient to cover the
estimated cost to the developer of constructing the BMR unit, including financing, but
excluding land, marketing, off-site improvements, and profit.
c) If the City determines that on-site BMR units are not feasible, off-site units
acceptable to the City, or vacant land determined to be suitable for affordable
housing, construction, may be provided instead. 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.
d) If the City determines that no other alternative is feasible, a cash payment to the City’
Residential Housing Fund, in lieu of providing BMR units or land, may be accepted.
The in-lieu payment for projects subject to the basic 15 percent BMR requirement
shall be 7.5 percent of the greater of the actual sales price or fair market value of each
unit. For projects subject to the 20 percent requirement, the rate is 10 percent; for
projects with a 25 percent requirement, (as described in Program 1.2.1 regarding the
loss of rental housing) the rate is 12.5 percent. The fee on for-sale projects will be
paid upon the sale of each market unit in the project.
e) When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the
City’s Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of
providing an actual BMR unit. The in-lieu fee percentage rate shall be the same as
that otherwise required for the project (7.5 percent, 10 percent, or 12.5 percent). The
fee on for-sale projects will be paid upon the sale of each market unit in the project.
Larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional
unit of one-half (0.50) or larger; an in-lieu fee may be paid, or equivalent alternatives
provided, when the fractional unit is less than one-half.
f) 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
constitute a 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 procedures 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 future BMR ordinance. Notice of the hearing shall be give by
publication but need not be sent to nearby property owners. If the City determines
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 8 of 19
that the application of the BMR requirement as applied to the project would constitute
a taking of property without just compensation, then the BMR agreement for the
project shall be modified, reduced or waived to the extent necessary to prevent such a
taking.
g) Consider allowing smaller BMR units than the market rate units if the developer
provides more than the required BMR amount in the R-1 Zoning district for new
single family residential subdivisions subject to compliance with appropriate
development standards.
h) Revise BMR policy language to clarify the City’s BMR program priorities in
producing affordable housing units including exploring the option of requiring land
dedication as the default option on sites of three or more acres.
i) Evaluate revising the method of calculating the number of required BMR units by
basing the number of BMR units required on the maximum density allowable on the
site instead of the total number of proposed units in the development.
j) Conduct a nexus study to identify the impacts of market rate housing and the need for
affordable housing and develop BMR rental policies based on the results of the study.
Five-Year Objective: Provide 10 affordable units through implementation of the City’s BMR program.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing – implementation of existing program
H3.1.3 PROGRAM Continue implementation of a Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Emergency Fund to
prevent the loss of BMR units and to provide emergency loans for BMR unit owners to
maintain and rehabilitate their units.
Five-Year Objective: Use the BMR Program Emergency Fund to prevent the loss of up to 2 affordable units.
Funding Source: BMR Emergency Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.1.4 PROGRAM Consider expansion of the BMR Program Emergency Fund to provide financial
assistance to help BMR homeowners maintain and rehabilitate older BMR units.
Five-Year Objective: Assist in maintenance and rehabilitation of 4 older BMR units.
Funding Source: BMR Emergency Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Expand Program within two years of Housing Element adoption
H3.1.5 PROGRAM Preserve affordable housing stock by monitoring compliance, providing tenant education,
and seeking other sources of funds for affordable housing developments at risk of market
rate conversions. The City will continue to renew existing funding sources supporting
rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 9 of 19
Five-Year Objective: Prevent conversion of affordable housing to market rate and renew funding sources for
rehabilitation and maintenance of housing stock.
Funding Source City, CDBG funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.1.6 PROGRAM Encourage the use of flexible development standards including floor area ratio limits,
creative architectural solutions and natural resource conservation, in the design of
projects with a substantial BMR component.
Five-Year Objective: Increase opportunities for BMR development through use of flexible development
standards.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.1.7 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in commercial
and high density residential zoning districts subject to development standards that would
encourage the construction of the maximum number of units consistent with the goals of
preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods. Sites that have access to community
services and public transportation for SRO residents are highly desired.
Five-Year Objective: Provide affordable efficiency units on appropriate sites.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend the Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element adoption
H3.1.8 PROGRAM Require developers of employment-generating commercial and industrial developments
to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate-income housing through the provision of
commercial in- lieu fees as prescribed in a nexus impact fee study.
Five-Year Objective: Generate in-lieu fees to contribute toward the creation of low and moderate income
housing.
Funding Source: City Housing Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Continue to update the commercial in-lieu fee on an annual basis.
H3.1.9 PROGRAM Ensure that the Zoning Code permits innovative housing types, such as co-housing, and
provides flexible development standards that will allow such housing to be built provided
the character of the neighborhoods in which they are proposed to be located is
maintained.
Five-Year Objective: Review the Zoning Code and determine appropriate amendments to allow innovative
housing types with flexible development standards.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 10 of 19
Time Frame: Consider changes to the Zoning Code within two years of Housing Element adoption
H3.1.10 PROGRAM Adopt a revised density bonus ordinance that allows up to a maximum zoning increase of
35 percent in density and grants up to three concessions or incentives. The density bonus
ordinance will meet State standards for the provision of housing units for very low- and
lower-income renters, seniors and moderate-income condominium buyers in compliance
with Government Code Section 65915, et seq.
Five-Year Objective: To provide opportunities for increased density as outlined in State law.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Density Bonus Ordinance is being considered by the Planning Commission in January 2013;
Council to consider adoption in early 2013
H3.1.11 PROGRAM Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as providing low- and 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.
Five-Year Objective: Preserve the 120 mobile home units in the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as a low and
moderate income housing resource.
Funding Source: City, State and Federal Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.1.12 PROGRAM Continue enforcing the Condominium Conversion Ordinance.
Five-Year Objective: Maintain the City’s rental housing stock.
Funding Source: N/A
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.1.13 PROGRAM Annually monitor the City’s progress in the construction or conversion of housing for all
income levels including the effectiveness of housing production in mixed use
developments.
Five-Year Objective: Provide information on the effectiveness of City programs.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Provide annual reports
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 11 of 19
H3.1.14 PROGRAM Evaluate the provisions of the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program to determine if
additional incentives are needed to encourage development of housing given current
market conditions.
Five-Year Objective: Engage in discussions with the development community and determine if additional
incentives are needed to improve the BMR Program.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Evaluate the Program within one year of Housing Element adoption
H3.1.15 PROGRAM When using its Housing Development funds for residential projects, the City shall give
a strong preference to those developments which serve extremely low-income (ELI)
households.
Five-Year Objective: Provide funding opportunities for development of housing for Extremely Low Income
(ELI) households.
Funding Source: City Housing Development funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.1.16 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide
extremely-low income (ELI) housing units, above and beyond what is required by the
Below Market Rate (BMR) program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller
units, reduced landscaping requirements and reduced fees.
Five-Year Objective: Provide incentives for development of housing for Extremely Low Income (ELI)
households.
Funding Source: City Housing funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H3.1.17 PROGRAM Any affordable development deemed a high risk at market rate conversion, within two
years of the expiration of the affordability requirements, the City will contact the owner
and explore the possibility of extending the affordability of the development.
Five-Year Objective: To protect those affordable developments deemed a high risk to converting to market
rate.
Funding Source: City Housing funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H3.2 POLICY Reduce the cost of housing by continuing to promote energy efficiency, resource
management, and conservation for new and existing housing.
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 12 of 19
H3.2.1 PROGRAM Continue to assist very low-income households in reducing their utility bills through the
Utilities Residential Rate Assistance Program (RAP).
Five-Year Objective: Provide assistance to with utility bills to 10 low income households.
Funding Source: City Funds
Responsible Agency: Palo Alto Utilities Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.2.2 PROGRAM Use existing agency programs such as Senior Home Repair to provide rehabilitation
assistance to very low- and low-income households.
Five-Year Objective: Provide rehabilitation assistance to 10 very low and low-income households.
Funding Source: CDBG & General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.3 POLICY Support the reduction of governmental and regulatory constraints and advocate for the
production of affordable housing.
H3.3.1 PROGRAM Where appropriate and feasible, require all City departments to expedite processes and
allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of
affordable housing.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to reduce processing time and costs for affordable housing projects.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: All City Departments
Time Frame: Ongoing, continue implementation upon adoption of Housing Element
H3.3.3 PROGRAM Continue to exempt permanently affordable housing units from any infrastructure impact
fees that may be adopted by the City.
Five-Year Objective: Reduce costs for affordable housing projects.
Funding Source: City Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.3.4 PROGRAM Promote legislative changes and funding for programs that subsidize the acquisition,
rehabilitation, and operation of rental housing by housing assistance organizations,
nonprofit developers, and for-profit developers.
Five-Year Objective: Continue as an active member of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California to promote legislative changes and funding for programs relating to housing.
Funding Source: City Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, City Manager
Time Frame: Ongoing
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 13 of 19
H3.3.5 PROGRAM Support the development and preservation of group homes and supported living facilities
for persons with special housing needs by assisting local agencies and nonprofit
organizations in the construction or rehabilitation of new facilities for this population.
Five-Year Objective: Review existing development regulations and amend the Zoning Code to reduce
regulatory obstacles to this type of housing.
Funding Source: City & CDBG Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element adoption.
H3.3.6 PROGRAM Continue to participate in the Santa Clara County Homeless Collaborative as well as
work with adjacent jurisdictions to develop additional shelter opportunities, and
Five-Year Objective: Continue City staff participation as members of the Collaborative’s CDBG and Home
Program Coordinators Group.
Funding Source: City, CDBG & HOME funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.3.7 PROGRAM Continue to participate with and support agencies addressing homelessness.
Five-Year Objective: Continue City staff participation in prioritizing funding for County-wide programs.
Funding Source: City, CDBG & HOME funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.3.8 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to allow transitional and supportive housing by right in all
multifamily zone districts which allow residential uses only subject to those restrictions
that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Five-Year Objective: Provide appropriately zoned sites for transitional and supportive housing.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H3.4 POLICY Pursue funding for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of housing that is
affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households.
H3.4.1 PROGRAM Maintain a high priority for the acquisition of new housing sites near public transit and
services, the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing, and the provision for
housing-related services for affordable housing. 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
Five-Year Objective: Allocate CDBG funding to acquire and rehabilitate housing for very low, low, or
moderate income households.
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 14 of 19
Funding Source: CDBG, State Local Housing Trust Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.4.2 PROGRAM Support and expand local funding sources including the City’s Housing Development
Fund, Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CDBG Program, County of Santa Clara’s
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC) or similar program. Continue to explore
other mechanisms to generate revenues to increase the supply of low- and moderate-
income housing.
Five-Year Objective: Increase the supply of affordable housing stock.
Funding Source: City Housing Development Fund, Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CDBG, Santa Clara
County MCC
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.4.3 PROGRAM Periodically review the housing nexus formula as required under Chapter 16.47 of the
Municipal Code to fully reflect the impact of new jobs on housing demand and cost.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to evaluate the housing nexus formula and adjust the required impact fees to
account for the housing demand from new development.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H3.4.4 PROGRAM The City will work with affordable housing developers to pursue opportunities to acquire,
rehabilitate and convert existing multi-family developments to long term affordable
housing units to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs.
Five-Year Objective: Identify potential sites for acquisition and conversion and provide this information to
developers.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Identify sites within one year of Housing Element adoption.
H3.5 POLICY Support the provision of emergency shelter, transitional housing and ancillary services to
address homelessness.
H3.5.1 PROGRAM Enter into discussions with local churches participating in the City’s year round Hotel de
Zink emergency shelter program to establish a permanent emergency shelter in each
church within a year of Housing Element adoption.
Five-Year Objective: To determine interest from local churches in establishing permanent emergency shelters.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Enter into discussions within two years of Housing Element adoption
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 15 of 19
H3.5.2 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by right with appropriate
performance standards to accommodate the City’s unmet need for unhoused residents
within an overlay of the ROLM zone district located east of Highway 101.
Five-Year Objective: Provide appropriately zoned sites for emergency shelters.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
H3.6 POLICY Support the creation of workforce housing for City and school district employees if feasible.
H3.6.1 PROGRAM Conduct a nexus study to evaluate the creation of workforce housing for City and school
district employees.
Five-Year Objective: Create the opportunity for up to 5 units of workforce housing.
Funding Source: City of Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Conduct study within two years of Housing Element adoption.
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
H4 GOAL PROMOTE AN ENVIRONMENT FREE OF DISCRIMINATION AND THE BARRIERS
THAT PREVENT CHOICE IN HOUSING.
H4.1 POLICY Support programs and agencies that seek to eliminate housing discrimination.
H4.1.1 PROGRAM Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to ensure that fair housing laws are
enforced.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to coordinate with state and federal agencies to support programs to eliminate
housing discrimination.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H4.1.2 PROGRAM Continue to support groups that provide fair housing services, such as Mid-Peninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to provide financial support through CDBG funding for fair housing services
such as Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing and Project Sentinel.
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 16 of 19
H4.1.3 PROGRAM Continue the efforts of the Human Relations Commission to combat discrimination in
rental housing, including mediation of problems between landlords and tenants.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to provide mediation services for rental housing discrimination cases.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Human Relations Commission
Time Frame: Ongoing
H4.1.4 PROGRAM Continue implementation of the City’s ordinances and state law prohibiting
discrimination in renting or leasing housing based on age, parenthood, pregnancy or the
potential or actual presence of a minor child. Develop written procedures describing how
Palo Alto will process and treat reasonable accommodation requests for projects
proposing housing for special needs households.
Five-Year Objective: Implement existing ordinances regarding discrimination and develop reasonable
accommodation procedures.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Implementation – Ongoing; Establish reasonable accommodation procedure within one year of
Housing Element adoption
H4.1.5 PROGRAM 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.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to provide funding and other support for these groups to disseminate fair
housing information in Palo Alto.
Funding Source: City Funds, Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP)
Responsible Agency: Office of Human Services
Time Frame: Ongoing
H4.1.6 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable
accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be necessary to
ensure reasonable access to housing. The purpose of this program is to provide a
process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable
accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws,
rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City.
Five-Year Objective: Allow for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in interpreting land
use regulations.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment
Time Frame: Amend the Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element adoption
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 17 of 19
H4.1.7 PROGRAM Continue to implement the “Action Plan” of the City of Palo Alto’s Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan or its successor documents.
Five-Year Objective: Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational mediation
opportunities as called for in the CDBG Action Plan.
Funding Source: CDBG funds, General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
H4.2 POLICY Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit, and
social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with
disabilities.
H4.2.1 PROGRAM Ensure that the Zoning Code facilitates the construction of housing that provides services
for special needs households and provides flexible development standards for special
service housing that will allow such housing to be built with access to transit and
community services while preserving the character of the neighborhoods in which they
are proposed to be located.
Five-Year Objective: Evaluate the Zoning Code and develop flexible development standards for special
service housing.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Evaluate the Zoning Code within one year of Housing Element adoption
H4.2.2 PROGRAM Work with the San Andreas Regional Center to implement an outreach program that
informs families in Palo Alto about housing and services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. The program could include the development of an
informational brochure, including information on services on the City’s website, and
providing housing-related training for individuals/families through workshops.
Five-year objective: Provide information regarding housing to families of persons with developmental
disabilities.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsibility: Planning and Community Environment
Time frame: Develop outreach program within two years of adoption of the Housing Element.
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 18 of 19
SUSTAINABILITY IN HOUSING
H5 GOAL REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF NEW AND EXISTING HOUSING.
H5.1 POLICY Reduce long term energy cost and improve the efficiency and environmental performance
of new and existing homes.
H5.1.1 PROGRAM Periodically report to the City on the status and progress of implementing the City’s
Green Building Ordinance, intended to improve indoor air quality and assess the
environmental performance and efficiency of homes in the following areas:
- Greenhouse gas emissions
- Energy use
- Water use (indoor and outdoor)
- Material efficiency
- Stormwater runoff
- Alternative transportation
- Site preservation
Five-Year Objective: Prepare reports evaluating the progress of implementing the City’s Green Building
Ordinance.
Funding Source: City funds, Development fees
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
H5.1.2 PROGRAM Continue providing support to staff and public (including architects, owners, developers
and contractors) through training and technical assistance in the areas listed under
Program H5.1.1.
Five-Year Objective: Provide educational information regarding the City’s Green Building Ordinance.
Funding Source: City funds, Development fees
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
H5.1.3 PROGRAM Participate in regional planning efforts to ensure that the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) targets areas that support sustainability by reducing congestion and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Five-Year Objective: Provide a regional framework for sustainability in creating new housing opportunities.
Funding Source: City Funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment
Time Frame: Ongoing
PALO ALTO REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
5.2 HOUSING GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
March 26June 5, 2013
Page 19 of 19
H5.1.4 PROGRAM Review Federal, State, and regional programs encouraging the improvement of
environmental performance and efficiency in construction of buildings and incorporate
appropriate programs into Palo Alto’s policies, programs and outreach efforts.
Five-Year Objective: Continue to update regulations for environmental sustainability.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, Public Works & Utilities
Time Frame: Ongoing
H5.1.5 PROGRAM Enhance and support a proactive public outreach program to encourage Palo Alto
residents to conserve resources and to share ideas about conservation.
Five-Year Objective: Provide up to date information for residents regarding conservation through educational
brochures available at City Hall and posted on the City’s website.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, Public Works & Utilities
Time Frame: Ongoing
H5.1.6 PROGRAM Provide financial subsidies, recognition, or other incentives to new and existing home
owners or developers to achieve performance or efficiency levels beyond minimum
requirements.
Five-Year Objective: Establish a program to recognize home owners and developers who achieve incorporate
sustainable features beyond what is required by the Green Building Ordinance.
Funding Source: City funds
Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment, Building Division
Time Frame: Establish program within two years of Housing Element adoption
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
132-37017 451 Page Mill Rd.CS(D)30 du/ac 4 CN 0.15 2 Vacant SFD
Vacant; Small lot;
Consolidation Opportunity.
An application has been
submitted to merge these lots
and develop an 8-unit
multifamily project, the
project will include 3 units
affordable to low income
residents
0.27
132-37-017 441 Page Mill Rd.CS(D)30 du/ac 4 CN 0.15 2 Vacant SFD
Vacant; Small lot;
Consolidation Opportunity.
An application has been
submitted to merge these lots
and develop an 8-unit
multifamily project, the
project will include 3 units
affordable to low income
residents
0.26
132-37-018 433Page Mill Rd.CS(D)30 du/ac 4 CN 0.15 2 Vacant SFD
Vacant; Small lot;
Consolidation Opportunity.
An application has been
submitted to merge these lots
and develop an 8-unit
multifamily project, the
project will include 3 units
affordable to low income
residents
0.12
132-37-019 423 Page Mill Rd.CS(D)30 du/ac 4 CN 0.15 2 Vacant SFD
Vacant; Small lot;
Consolidation Opportunity.
An application has been
submitted to merge these lots
and develop an 8-unit
multifamily project, the
project will include 3 units
affordable to low income
residents
0.12
Table 3-4 Table of Commercially Zoned Sites Attachment G
2. *CN Parcels to be rezoned to 20 units per acre.
1. Parcels highlighted in orange denotes zoning density greater than 20 units per acre; parcels with proposals for market rate housing are excluded. Parcels highlighted in yellow
are additional parcels proposed in June 5, 2013 HCD letter
Notes:
3. Parcels with an Assessed Value Ratio greater than 1.5 were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value from parcels under the same ownership for more than 10
years; the assessed land value is far below current market land values.
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
132-41-085 3707 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 3 CN 0.18 3 1 Story Personal Service;
Retail
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.99
120-03-021 581 University Av CD-C (P)40 du/ac 10 CC 0.26 5 1 Story Financial Service Existing Commercial Use 0.73
120-03-037 578 University Av CD-C (P)40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 3.45
120-03-067 541 Cowper St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 9 CC 0.23 5 1 Story commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.47
120-15-007 401 Waverley St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Retail; personal
Service
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 1.09
120-15-013 420 Cowper St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 10 CC 0.25 5 2 story office Existing Commercial Use 2.12
120-15-090 595 Bryant St CD-C (GF)(P)/40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 1 Story Retail; Eating
Drinking
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.75
120-26-109 542 High St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 10 CC 0.25 5 ! Story Commerical; Retail
office Existing Commercial Use 1.38
120-26-111 135 Hamilton Av CD-C (P)40 du/ac 8 CC 0.22 5 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent
commercial uses 0
120-33-024 711 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 7 CS 0.24 5 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0
124-29-007 251 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 7 CC 0.26 5 1 Story retail Existing Commercial Use 1.19
124-31-059 2101 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac*5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Retail; Personal
Service; Surface parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.91
124-32-013 470 Cambridge Av CC (2)30 du/ac 7 CC 0.23 5 1 Story Religious Institution:
Surface Parking Existing Non-Residential Use 1.64
124-32-035 334 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 8 CC 0.27 5 2 Story Retail; Eating
Drinking; Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.74
124-33-005 410 Sherman Av CC (2)30 du/ac 7 CC 0.24 5 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 4.17
124-33-061 479 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 7 CC 0.24 5 1 Story commercial;
Financial Service Existing Commercial Use 0.55
132-38-011 3275 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.27 5 1 Story Office; Commercial;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 2.47
132-38-017 460 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 Surface parking Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.04
132-38-018 460 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 Surface parking Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.04
132-38-025 455 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 1 Story Commercial Office Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 4.26
132-38-032 3159 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 7 CS 0.24 5 2 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.06
132-38-047 3260 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.22 5 SFD Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 5.62
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
132-40-062 480 Wilton Av CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.91
132-46-106 4112 El Camino
Wy CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
2.41
137-01-116 2000 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.27 5 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
1.13
137-08-078 3636 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Eating Drinking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.09
137-08-079 3516 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 6 CS 0.23 5 1 Story Personal Service Existing Commercial Use 0.09
137-08-088 3508 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 7 CS 0.24 5 Automotive Service; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.16
137-08-097 3666 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 1 Story Retail: Commercial;
Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.44
137-11-091 3972 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.25 5 Gas Station
Underground Storage Tanks;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.27
137-11-098 3780 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 5 CN 0.24 5 1 Story Retail; Commecial;
Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.13
147-05-090 710 San Antonio CS (AD)30 du/ac 8 CS 0.26 5 Automotive Service Commercial/Residential 0.90
120-15-045 353 University Av CD-C (GF)(P)40 du/ac 12 CC 0.3 6 1 Story Commerical; Retail;
Office Existing Commercial Use 2.95
120-16-020 635 Waverley St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 12 CC 0.31 6 2 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 0.9
120-27-038 658 High St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 12 CC 0.32 6 2 Story Commercial Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.89
120-33-004 67 Encina Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.27 6 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 1.17
124-28-003 2260 Park Bl CC (2)30 du/ac 8 CC 0.29 6 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent
commercial uses 0
124-28-033 250 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 8 CC 0.28 6 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.57
124-29-011 2555 Park Bl CC (2)30 du/ac 8 CC 0.29 6 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 2.46
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
124-30-015 1963 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 6 CN 0.28 6 Gas Station
Underground Storage Tanks;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.04
124-32-034 300 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 8 CC 0.27 6 2 Story Eating Drinking;
Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.73
132-31-071 2747 Park Bl GM 6 LI 0.3 6 Vacant Lot Needs Rezoning to allow
Residential Use 0.51
132-35-045 3705 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 6 CN 0.28 6 1 Story Retail
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.26
132-37-055 3051 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.3 6 1 Story Retail; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.45
132-38-058 320 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.28 6 1 Story Office Commercial;
Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 6.46
132-38-060 280 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.28 6 1 Story Office Commercial;
Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.53
132-38-061 292 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 6 1 Story Office Commercial;
Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.93
132-39-087 455 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 6 1 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 0.56
142-20-055 3160 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 8 CS 0.29 6 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.03
147-05-086 4201 Middlefield CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.32 6 Automotive Service Commercial/Residential 1.09
120-15-015 469 University Av CD-C (GF)(P)40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Commercial; Retail;
Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 1.7
120-15-103 360 University Av CD-C (GF)(P)40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1
120-16-011 630 Cowper St CD-C (P)40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 0.45
120-26-002 130 Lytton Av CD-C (P)40 du/ac 13 CC 0.34 7 2 Level Parking Structure Parking serving adjacent
commercial uses 0.36
124-32-040 414 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 11 CC 0.37 7 2 Story Financial Services;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.49
132-37-033 2905 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 7 2 Story Commercial: Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.17
132-37-052 2951 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.32 7 1 Story Retail; Commecial Existing Commercial Use 0.62
132-37-056 3001 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 9 CS 0.33 7 1 Story Retail; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.08
132-38-048 268 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Office Commercial;
Light Industrial Existing Commercial Use 0.64
132-41-088 3801 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.14
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
132-46-100 4115 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 7 CN 0.35 7 1 Story Eating Drinking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
1.03
132-46-119 4195 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.35 7 1 Story Automotive Services Existing Commercial Use 0.88
132-46-120 4193 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 10 CS 0.36 7 1 Story Medical Office;
Automotive Services Existing Commercial Use 0.56
137-08-081 3630 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 7 CN 0.37 7 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.36
137-11-078 3700 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 7 CN 0.36 7 1 Story Personal Service;
Retail; Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0
137-11-083 3896 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 7 CN 0.32 7 1 Story Retail; Eating
Drinking; Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.56
120-03-030 528 University Av CD-C (GF)(P)40 du/ac 15 CC 0.38 8 1 Story Commercial; Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.46
124-33-066 2585 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 8 CN 0.4 8 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent
commercial uses 0
132-38-027 425 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.4 8 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.31
132-38-045 3200 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 11 CS 0.39 8 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 4.6
132-38-046 3250 Ash St CS 30 du/ac 11 CS 0.38 8 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 1.13
132-40-059 3609 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 8 CN 0.42 8 Gas Station
Underground Storage Tanks;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0
132-41-083 3783 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 8 CN 0.42 8 1 StoryEating Drinking; Retail;
Commercial: Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
1.33
137-01-070 2200 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 8 CN 0.41 8 Gas Station
Underground Storage Tanks;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.11
147-05-092
780 San
Antonio_Oil
Changers
CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.42 8 Automotive Service Commercial/Residential 0.37
148-09-010 4335 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.4 8 2 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 1.21
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
120-34-014 98 Encina Av CC 30 du/ac 13 CC 0.44 9 Surface parking Parking serving adjacent
commercial uses 0.01
124-30-017 1921 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.97
132-38-026 435 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.45 9 1 Story Commercial Office Existing Commercial Use 0.34
132-39-071 429 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.45 9 1 Story Automotive
Services; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.23
132-46-104 4128 El Camino
Wy CN*15 du/ac 9 CN 0.45 9 2 Story Office
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.32
137-01-113 2280 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.06
137-01-125 2257 Yale St CN*15 du/ac 9 CN 0.43 9 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
1.23
147-03-038 800_802 San
Antonio Ave CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.43 9 General Business Office Commercial/Residential 1.64
147-03-039 816_814_San
Antonio Ave CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.44 9 Automotive Service Commercial/Residential 0.18
147-03-040 824 San Antonio
Ave CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.44 9 3 Story Commercial School Commercial/Residential 2.20
147-03-042 792_796B San
Antonio Ave CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.43 9 Personal Service Commercial/Residential 1.96
147-03-043 808_810_San
Antonio Ave CS 30 du/ac 13 CS 0.43 9 Personal Service Commercial/Residential 1.14
167-08-036 4232 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 12 CS 0.43 9 1 Story Daycare School Existing Commercial Use 1.07
124-33-067 2501 El Camino
Real CN*; CC (2)15/30 du/ac 10 CN 0.51 10 1 Story Eating Drinking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Max Res Density is
15 du/ac on portion of lot
0.33
132-39-090 415 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.51 10 1 Story Commercial Existing Commercial Use 3.44
132-41-096 3885 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.47 10 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 3.51
137-01-069 559 College Av CN*15 du/ac 10 CN 0.47 10 2 Story Retail; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
1.81
147-03-064 840 San Antonio
Ave CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.49 10 Automotive Service Commercial/Residential 0.12
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
147-03-065 910 Charleston Rd CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.48 10 Eating and Drinking Commercial/Residential 1.43
167-08-030 4230 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 15 CS 0.52 10 1 Story Automative Service Existing Commercial Use 0.04
167-08-035 4200 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 14 CS 0.48 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0
147-03-041 768_790_796A_Sa
n Antonio Ave CS 30 du/ac 17 CS 0.57 11 Automotive Service Commercial/Residential 0.82
124-29-020 150 Grant Av CC (2)30 du/ac 17 CC 0.59 12 1 Story Commercial; Office Existing Commercial Use 0.23
132-38-062 435 Acacia Av CS 30 du/ac 18 CS 0.62 12 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 7.47
167-08-042 4256 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 17 CS 0.59 12 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.14
120-34-001 841 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.64 13 Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0
132-36-077 2675 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 13 CN 0.63 13 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.59
132-44-022 4115 El Camino
Wy CN*15 du/ac 13 CN 0.64 13 1 Story Commercial: Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.75
137-08-080 3606 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 13 CN 0.65 13 Vacant Lot
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0
147-05-089 748_750_San
Antonio CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.65 13 General Business Service Commercial/Residential 0.63
147-05-091 760 San Antonio
Ave CS 30 du/ac 20 CS 0.65 13 General Office Commercial/Residential 0.49
167-08-037 4222 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 19 CS 0.63 13 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 0.41
132-38-042 3201 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 20 CS 0.68 14 1 Story Retail; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.27
132-43-153 4085 El Camino
Wy CN*15 du/ac 14 CN 0.71 14 1 Story Retail; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0.7
132-38-065 440 Portage Av CS 30 du/ac 22 CS 0.76 15 Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 6.23
132-39-088 3399 El Camino
Real CS; CN*30/15 du/ac 15 CS;CN 0.74 15 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.29
132-44-100 4135 El Camino
Wy CN*15 du/ac 15 CN 0.75 15 2 Story Office; Underground
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
4.06
137-01-129 2390 El Camino
Real CN*15 du/ac 15 CN 0.76 15 2 Story Commercial Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
0
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
142-20-054 3150 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 22 CS 0.75 15 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.3
142-20-013 2450 El Camino
Real CS (AS1)30 du/ac 17 CS 0.57 17 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; per
agreement, application for
market rate units to be
submitted
1.32
142-20-014 2470 El Camino
Real CS (AS1)30 du/ac 17 CS 0.57 17 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; per
agreement, application for
market rate units to be
submitted
0.96
142-20-047 2500 El Camino
Real CS (AS1)30 du/ac 19 CS 0.64 17 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; per
agreement, application for
market rate units to be
submitted
1.19
147-05-102
762 San Antonio
Ave_Hengehold_A
uto
CS (AD)30 du/ac 25 CS 0.85 17 Automotive Dealership Commercial/Residential 2.95
137-08-083 3400 El Camino
Real CS (H); RM-15 30/15 du/ac 19 MF;CS 0.96 19 1 Story Eating Drinking Existing Commercial Use 1.74
142-20-012 507 California Av CS (AS1)30 du/ac 22 CS 0.75 19 1 Story Financial Service;
Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; per
agreement, application for
market rate units to be
submitted
1
147-05-012
762 San Antonio
Ave_BackPortionof
HengeholdAuto
CS (AD)30 du/ac 30 CS 1.00 20 Automotive Dealership Commercial 0.00
132-38-056 430 Lambert Av CS 30 du/ac 30 CS 1.03 21 2 Story Office Commercial Existing Commercial Use 4.49
124-28-045 154 California Av CC (2)(R)(P)30 du/ac 34 CC 1.14 23 2 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 0.29
148-09-014 4291 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 34 CS 1.16 23 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.33
142-20-035 3128 El Camino
Real CS 30 du/ac 35 CS 1.18 24 1 Story Eating Drinking;
Surface parking Existing Commercial Use 0.93
147-05-088 744 San Antonio CS 30 du/ac 38 CS 1.27 25 Automotive Service/General
Business Service Commercial/Residential 7.08
147-05-087 716_720_San
Antonio CS 30 du/ac 41 CS 1.36 27 General Business Service Commercial/Residential 0.44
132-31-042 130 Sheridan Av GM 34 LI 1.13 34 Vacant Lot Needs Rezoning to allow
Residential Use 0
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
142-19-006 1501 California Av RP (AS2)30 du/ac 117 RO 3.93 55 1 to 2 Story Professional
Office; Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; per
agreement, application for
market rate units to be
submitted
16.09
142-19-007 1451 California Av RP (AS2)30 du/ac 135 RO 4.52 55 2 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; per
agreement, application for
market rate units to be
submitted
7.82
142-19-017 1601 California Av RP (AS2)30 du/ac 255 RO 8.51 70 3 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking
Existing Commercial Use;
Mayfield Agreement; 70
affordable units proposed
11.88
Subtotal 2,120 1,387
RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
MAXIMUM
YIELD ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/ASSESSED
ALLOWED
(based on FAR)
(based on avg
of 35 du/ac)OPPORTUNITIES VALUE
RATIO
120-27-073 718 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 2 1 Story; Automotive Service Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.53
120-28-084 918 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.08 2 1 Story; Automotive Service Small lot; consolidation
opportunity 0
120-27-072 721 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.93
120-28-004 160 Homer Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.05
120-28-033 839 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Personal Service;
Surface Parking
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.02
120-28-036 825 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Personal Service;
Surface Parking
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.31
120-28-080 943 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story Professional Office Small lot; consolidation
opportunity 1.04
120-28-081 935 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story Personal Service Small lot; consolidation
opportunity 0.59
120-28-082 929 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 1 Story SFD Small lot; consolidation
opportunity 0.01
LAND USE
DESIGNATION
3. Parcels with an Assessed Value Ratio greater than 1.5 were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value from parcels under the same ownership for more than 10
years; the assessed land value is far below current market land values.
2. *CN Parcels to be rezoned to 20 units per acre.
Table 3-5 Table of SOFA II Housing Sites
1. Parcels highlighted in orange denotes zoning density greater than 20 units per acre; parcels with proposals for market rate housing are excluded.
Notes:
EXISTING USEZONING
DISTRICTSITE ADDRESSAPN REALISTIC
CAPACITYLOT SIZE (ac)
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
120-28-085 926 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 3 SOFA II CAP 0.11 3 2 Story Personal Service;
Office
Small lot; consolidation
opportunity 0.34
120-28-090 931 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 story light manufacturing Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.19
120-28-091 925 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 5 SOFA II CAP 0.14 3 Vacant; Auto Storage Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.01
120-28-093 960 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Automotive Service Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.59
120-30-048 1027 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.79
120-30-049 1019 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.12 3 1 Story Retail; Surface
Parking
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 1.25
120-28-003 815 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 4 SOFA II CAP 0.13 4 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 1.55
120-28-005 160 Homer Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 5 SOFA II CAP 0.14 4 Surface Parking Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.02
120-28-051 190 Channing Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.17 5 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 1.45
120-28-092 940 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.18 5 1 story light manufacturing Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.62
120-28-094 145 Addison Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.17 5 1 Story Professional Office Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.77
120-28-099 829 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 6 SOFA II CAP 0.19 5 1 Story Personal Service;
Office; Surface Parking
Small lot ; consolidation
opportunity 0.89
120-27-048 700 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.55
120-27-049 701 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.22 6 1 Story Personal Service;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.04
120-28-040 849 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office Existing Commercial Use 0.89
120-28-050 901 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 11 SOFA II CAP 0.32 6 Vacant; Auto Storage Existing Commercial Use 0
120-28-095 999 Alma St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.3
120-30-050 100 Addison Av RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Retail; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0
120-28-097 925 Alma St RT-50 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.24 6 1 Story Professional Office Existing Commercial Use 1.2
120-28-038 882 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.25 7
2 Story Personal Service;
Medical Office; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use 8.86
120-28-086 930 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 8 SOFA II CAP 0.25 7 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 2.04
120-28-089 965 High St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 12 SOFA II CAP 0.35 9 1 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.47
120-27-046 700 High St RT-50 25-50 du/ac 12 SOFA II CAP 0.36 9 1 Story Office Existing Commercial Use 1.64
120-27-075 774 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 16 SOFA II CAP 0.48 13 1 Story Retail Existing Commercial Use 1.76
120-28-037 840 Emerson St RT-35 25-50 du/ac 16 SOFA II CAP 0.48 13 Surface Parking Parking serving adjacent
commercial uses 0.03
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
Subtotal 220 171
ZONING_RESIDENTIAL LAND_USE_LOT_REALISTIC ON_SITE_CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSED_
APN SITE_ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE_(ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
132-41-025 397 Curtner Ave.RM-30 30 du/ac 6 MF 0.19 4 2 story duplex Existing Residential 0.73
003-02-021 725 University Av RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.4
003-02-022 489 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.12
120-04-043 704 Webster St RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.22 5 1 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.67
120-16-046 720 Cowper St RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.23 5 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.49
124-27-038 2185 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.21
124-27-039 2149 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 7 MF 0.25 5 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.74
120-03-038 610 University Av RM-40 40 du/ac 8 MF 0.22 5 2 Story Professional Office;
Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.22
003-02-043 575 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 8 MF 0.28 6 2 Story Office; Podium
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.19
132-41-072 405 Curtner Av RM-30 30 du/ac 8 MF 0.28 6 Vacant Lot
Portion of lot serves as a
driveway to adjacent surface
Parking
0
003-02-048 547 Middlefield Rd RM-30 30 du/ac 10 MF 0.36 7 2 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.61
124-28-043 2211 Park Bl RM-30 30 du/ac 10 MF 0.34 7 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.26
003-02-047 720 University Av RM-30 30 du/ac 12 MF 0.41 8 1 Story Office; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 0.37
1. Parcels highlighted in orange denotes zoning density greater than 20 units per acre; parcels with proposals for market rate housing are excluded.
2. *CN Parcels to be rezoned to 20 units per acre.
Table 3-6 Table of Residentially Zoned Sites with Commercial Uses
3. Parcels with an Assessed Value Ratio greater than 1.5 were determined to have an artificially low assessed land value from parcels under the same ownership for more than 10
years; the assessed land value is far below current market land values.
Notes:
ZONING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE LOT REALISTIC ASSESSED_
APN SITE ADDRESS DISTRICT DENSITY MAXIMUM
YIELD DESIGNATION SIZE (ac)CAPACITY EXISTING USE ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/
OPPORTUNITIES VALUE_
ALLOWED RATIO
137-01-121 531 Stanford Av RM-30 30 du/ac 12 MF 0.4 8 2 Story Hotel: Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 4.91
120-16-041 400 Forest Av RM-40 40 du/ac 18 SOFA I CAP 0.45 9 1 Story Medical Office;
Podium Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.6
120-16-042 430 Forest Av RM-40 40 du/ac 20 SOFA I CAP 0.51 10 1 Story Automotive Service Existing Commercial Use 0.91
137-37-004 4102 El Camino
Real RM-30 30 du/ac 19 MF 0.64 13 1 Story Religious Institution Existing Non-Residential Use 0.02
137-24-034 4146 El Camino
Real RM-15 15 du/ac 15 MF 0.77 15 Vacant Lot
Current Maximum
Residential Density is 15
du/ac
132-42-074 3945 El Camino
Real RM-30; CS 30 du/ac 26 MF;CS 0.89 18 1 to 2 Story Professional
Office; Surface Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.35
132-42-073 3901 El Camino
Real RM-30 30 du/ac 33 MF 1.1 22 2 Story Motel; Surface
Parking Existing Commercial Use 1.39
567-595 Maybell
Ave.R-2/RM-15 30 MF 2.46 30 Residential; vacant Residential
132-38-059 340 Portage Ave RM-30 30 du/ac 374 MF 12.47 75 1 Story Commercial/Retail Existing Commercial Use 4.68
000-00-000 1170 Welch Rd RM-40 40 du/ac 84 RO 2.11 71 Vacant Lot
Opportunity for expansion of
adjacent existing multifamily
residential
0
Subtotal 735 344
Total
Number of
Units
1,902
132-41-091 3877 El Camino
Real *RM-30; CS 30 du/ac 22 MF;CS 0.75 15
1 Story Eating Drinking;
Commercial; Surface
Parking
Existing Commercial Use 0.08
Parcel designated to meet the City's previously unaccommodated need from 1999-2006 Housing Element per AB2348
From: Sam Tepperman-Gelfant [mailto:stepperman-gelfant@publicadvocates.org]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:21 PM
To: Paul McDougall; Melinda Coy
Cc: Richard Marcantonio
Subject: Palo Alto Draft Housing Element
Hi Melinda and Paul,
Our review of Palo Alto’s draft Housing Element has left us with a lot of serious questions.
Since the City has asked you for an expedited review, we are sharing some of those with you,
and hope that we can set up a time to discuss these and other concerns by phone.
Table 3-10 tells us that the City has a remaining lower-income (VLI/LI) need of 1,044 units, but
does not include AB 1233 units. The draft notes that its rezoning program in the prior element
(program H-14) was not implemented as to 3 sites on the inventory, and that “As required by
State law, sites that were proposed for rezoning in the previous housing element but were not
rezoned during the planning period will be rezoned.” (Draft, p. 172.) The draft, however, does
not quantify or address the portion of the lower-income RHNA that carries over into this
planning period.
Since the draft does not differentiate VLI and LI site capacity from capacity on sites on which
the remaining moderate and above-moderate income need will be met (another 624 units), it is
impossible to tell which sites will accommodate what portion of the need at what income level.
Table 3-10 goes on to tell us that “total capacity of housing inventory sites at 20 DU/AC” of
1,784 units. In a footnote, the draft then tells us that, actually, most of the Mayfield development
is not at 20 DU/AC, and also that 15 units attributed to APN 137-24-034 and the 15 second units
are not zoned at that density. Actually, that does not begin to tell the full story about these
purported 1,784 units:
• This total includes at least 347 units on at least 35 sites that do not currently allow residential
development at 20 du/acre, and therefore cannot be claimed to accommodate lower-income
housing needs. (There does not even appear to be a rezoning program for these sites – while
a “Program 2.2.2” is referenced in the text on page 81, no such program actually appears in
the Element. In any event, the implied rezoning with respect to these sites would not meet
the requirements of AB 2348 since nearly all of the sites are mixed-use, there do not appear
to be minimum densities proposed, and few, if any, of the sites would accommodate a
minimum project size of 16 units.)
• The inventory includes 250 units in the Mayfield Development. There are a number of
problems with this. First, it seems unlikely that all of these units can be constructed by the
end of the planning period -- the development agreement contemplates a development
proposal for just 185 of these units by the end of 2013, with the remainder to be proposed no
later than 2020. Second, even if all 250 units are constructed by the end of the planning
period, between 180-200 of these units are planned to be market-rate units, and the
affordability level of the remaining 50-70 BMR units is unspecified.
• The inventory includes 113 units of capacity through the inclusion of condominiums in hotel
projects, calculating that number as 25% of the units in 3 hotel projects that have already
been proposed. No evidence is provided, however, that the developers of these projects
actually plan to include condo units, or if so, at what affordability levels.
• The inventory relies very heavily on very small sites – 137 sites are less than ½ acre
(accounting for 850 units, nearly half of the claimed inventory capacity), and an additional 29
sites are between ½ and 1 acre (accounting for 412 units). Of the 507 units supposedly
accommodated on sites larger than 1 acre, 75 would require rezoning and 69 are theoretical
condominium units in hotel projects discussed above.
• The City claims it will permit another 15 second units by the end of the planning period,
despite having produced only 13 second units in the first five years of the planning period.
Moreover, all 13 of those prior second units were affordable at the moderate income level.
(See 2011 Annual Report, p. 3 of 5.) There is no reason to expect that any second units will
count toward the lower-income RHNA share.
Obviously, the City has a lot of work to do before we can say definitively what its true unmet
RHNA (including AB 1233 units) is, and how much can be accommodated on the inventoried
sites. But from what we can see in the draft, it looks like a lot of these sites are not actually
suitable for lower-income units. In fact, it’s not clear that the inventory is even sufficient to meet
the total RHNA at all income levels.
Please let me know if there is a good time for you to check in with you this week about these
issues.
Thanks,
Sam
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant Senior Staff Attorney 131 Steuart Street | Suite 300 | San
Francisco CA 94105 415.431.7430 x324 stepperman-gelfant@publicadvocates.org
Public Advocates Inc. | Making Rights Real | www.publicadvocates.org
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee named
above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this
email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message
or by telephone. Thank you.
*********************************************************
This email and any files attached are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately. This email and the attachments have been electronically scanned for email content
security threats, including but not limited to viruses.
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM
Oficina Legal de Interés Público
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 293-4790 • Fax (408) 293-0106
www.lawfoundation.org
September 24, 2012
SENT VIA E-MAIL ONLY: tim.wong@cityofpaloalto.org.
Tim Wong. Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto, Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: City of Palo Alto Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element
Dear Mr. Wong:
I write to provide comments regarding the City of Palo Alto’s draft housing element1 on
behalf of Public Interest Law Firm (PILF), a project of the Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley. PILF’s mission is to protect the human rights of individuals and groups in the
Silicon Valley area who face barriers to adequate representation in the civil justice
system, using impact litigation and advocacy. One of our advocacy priorities is ensuring
access to affordable housing throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. We
acknowledge the work that the City has done in the preparation of its draft housing
element. However, the draft housing element has a number of serious deficiencies, as
discussed in detail below.
Programs
The draft housing element’s programs section lacks sufficient detail to ensure that that
the programs will be effective in meeting their stated objectives. Many of the programs
fail to set forth any concrete actions; few indicate which agency or agencies of the city
will be responsible for implementing the program; and none has a specific timeline in
which actions must be taken.
According to HCD, each program should set forth:
• Definite time frames for implementation (e.g., by June 2009, ongoing, annually
during the planning period, upon adoption of general plan amendment, etc.).
1 All references to the draft housing element refer to City of Palo Alto Housing Element, available at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30833 [last accessed Sept. 22, 2012].
2
• Identification of agencies and officials responsible for implementation (e.g.,
planning department, redevelopment agency, county community development
department, city building official, housing manager, public housing authority,
etc.).
• Description of the local government’s specific role in program implementation
(e.g. a description of how the City will market the availability of rehabilitation
funds).
• Description of the specific action steps to implement the program.
• Proposed measurable outcomes (e.g., the number of units created, completion of a
study, development of a homeless shelter, initiation of a rezone program,
preservation of at-risk units, annexation of land within a sphere of influence).
• Demonstration of a firm commitment to implement (e.g., the City will apply for
HOME funds by June 2009).
• Identification of specific funding sources, where appropriate (e.g., dollar amounts
of annual funding entitlements or allocations – CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA,
Continuum of Care, redevelopment agency’s low/moderate-income housing
funds, bond proceeds, tax credit allocations, and other federal, State and local
resources).2
In contrast, the draft housing element’s programs tend to be only one or two sentences,
with very little in the way of concrete actions or timelines. In light of the fact that Palo
Alto is finalizing its housing element so near the end of the planning period, it is
imperative that every program includes clear actions and timelines to ensure that
programs are completed in a timely manner.
A particularly stark example of the program section’s inadequacy is the program for
preservation of affordable units, which reads, simply: “Preserve affordable housing stock
and continue to renew existing funding sources supporting rehabilitation and maintenance
activities.”3 State law requires a much higher level of detail in the preservation program:
the program must contain a discussion of funding sources for affordable housing
preservation, and the statute also encourages cities to include strategies for preserving at-
risk developments.4 Given that Palo Alto is at risk of losing 400 affordable units during
the planning period,5 its housing element should include a more robust program regarding
preservation of those units.
Site Inventory
We agree with the concerns regarding the draft housing element’s site inventory raised by
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant of Public Advocates in his earlier correspondence.
Additionally, we note that the City appears to rely on many sites with existing uses to
2 HCD, “Program Overview and Quantified Objectives,” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/PRO_overview.php.
3 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 156.
4 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).
5 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 60-61.
3
meet its housing need.6 However, the draft housing element does not provide
information or analysis regarding these sites’ potential for redevelopment. According to
HCD, “[t]he inventory must consider the impact of existing development when
calculating realistic development capacity.”7 The analysis of sites with existing uses
should include whether existing uses are expected to continue, whether those uses are
compatible with housing development, and the likelihood that housing will be developed
on those sites within the planning period.
Claiming Credit for Already-Permitted Units
The draft housing element seeks to credit 1206 units that have been permitted, entitled,
and/or constructed since the beginning of the planning period toward its RHNA
obligation.8 This total includes 325 units at the very low-, low-, and moderate-income
levels.9 However, to credit already-permitted units toward its lower income RHNA
obligation, the housing element must demonstrate the affordability of those units through
one or more of the following:
• subsidies, financing or other mechanisms that ensure affordability (e.g., MHP,
HOME, or LIHTC financed projects, inclusionary units or RDA requirements);
• actual rents; and
• actual sales prices.10
The City should amend its housing element to include this information about the units it
seeks to credit toward its lower-income housing need. If this information is unavailable
for particular units, those units should be counted toward Palo Alto’s above-moderate-
income housing need. If doing so increases Palo Alto’s unmet RHNA need for lower-
income households, the City may need to amend its programs and site inventory to ensure
that it will be able to meet that need during the planning period.
Governmental Constraints
The draft housing element identifies second units as a potential source of affordable
housing during the planning period. However, the City’s parking requirements for
second units are relatively restrictive: “one covered and one uncovered parking space for
second units greater than 450 square feet.”11 The housing element should analyze
whether these restrictions constrain the development of second units.
6 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 83-88.
7 HCD, “Analysis of Sites and Zoning,” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/SIA_zoning.php.
8 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 66.
9 Ibid.
10 HCD, “Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA),” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/HN_PHN_regional.php.
11 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 124.
4
Along the same lines, the housing element should evaluate whether site and design
review in the D and PF zones constraints the development of housing in those zones.12 It
should also describe any input it received from developers regarding fees, permitting
procedures, land use controls, or other potential constraints.13
Constraints to the Development of Housing for People with Disabilities
The housing element should include a more comprehensive analysis of constraints to the
development of housing for people with disabilities. While the draft housing element
notes that Palo Alto properly allows residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals
by right in all residential districts,14 it does not indicate how larger residential care
facilities are treated. The housing element should discuss larger residential care facilities,
including whether any of the zoning requirements for these facilities constrain their
development.
While the draft housing element indicates that the City grants reasonable
accommodations to facilitate the development of housing for people with disabilities,15 it
does not state whether or not the City has a reasonable accommodation policy or
ordinance. If the City does not have a formal reasonable accommodation policy, we
encourage it to include adoption (and advertisement) of such a policy as a program in its
housing element.
Non-Governmental Constraints
The draft housing element suggests that new housing development in Palo Alto faces
opposition from the community.16 However, it fails to identify community opposition as
a non-governmental constraint to the development of new housing.
12 Draft housing element, supra, at p. 129.
13 See HCD, “Fees and Exactions,” available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/CON_fees.php.
14 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 145-146.
15 Draft housing element, supra, at pp. 146-147.
16 See draft housing element, supra, at p. 121 (“There is community concern that additional new housing
would introduce more new students into the school district and would further impact its facilities which are
already near or at capacity.”)
5
Conclusion
Thank you very much for considering these comments regarding Palo Alto’s draft
housing element. I would be happy to speak with the City regarding the concerns
described above. If you would like to set up a time to talk, please call me at (408) 280-
2429 or email me at melissam@lawfoundation.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Melissa A. Morris
Senior Attorney
cc: Melinda Coy, HCD
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, Public Advocates
· .
City of ·Palo Alto
Housing Element 2007-2014
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007·2014
Initial Study .
CITYOF
A LD
A TO
April 4, 2013
Page 1 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007 -2014
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Tim Wong, Housing Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
650-329-2561
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
N/A
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The 2007-2014 Housing Element is a Planning document that provides guidance for new
housing development throughout the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto is located in the northern
part of Santa Clara County, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. It is bordered by San Mateo
County (Cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto) to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east ,
Stanford University and the Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains to the west, and the City of
Mountain View and Town of Los Altos to the south, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 3 Initial Study
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Within the City of Palo Alto adopted Comprehensive Plan, there are a variety of Residential
and Commercial land use designations that allow residential uses at a variety of densities. The
2007-2014 Housing Element will update the Comprehensive Plan as a required Element as
outlined in State law. It is intended to provide an evaluation of the existing and projected
housing needs of the community, provide an inventory of adequate sites available for
development to meet the City's share· of the regional housing needs, and update the goals and
policies to address the housing needs and remove or reduce constraints to the production and
maintenance of housing.
8. ZONING
There are a variety of residential and commercial zoning districts within the City of Palo Alto
that provide opportunities for development of housing projects at a variety of densities. A
detailed description of the zoning and an inventory of sites available for housing development
are contained in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element.
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 5 Initial Study
The areas selected for potential housing development include the University Avenue
Downtown area, California A venue Transit Neighborhood, EI Camino Real Mixed Use Transit
Corridor, South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, and various sites in Residential Zoning
Districts with existing commercial uses. These sites, a description of the specific zoning
districts, and the site characteristics are described in the Table of Housing Inventory Sites in
Chapter J of the Housing Element.
Since the Housing Element is an update to the Comprehensive Plan, the analysis of
environmental impacts is being done on a broad scale. Many of the programs and policies can
be implemented through the zoning code now in place. Analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the . housing element update will assume development will occur
under the existing zoning code as well as the recommended code revisions, which will likely
occur within the first year of implementation.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The Housing Element update. involves the entire City <?f Palo Alto, a community of
approximately 63,000 residents. Palo Alto is part of the San Francisco Bay Area: region, and is
located within Santa Clara County and borders San Mateo County to the north. The city's
boundaries extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal
mountains on the west, with the City of Menlo Park to the north and the City of Mountain
View to the south. The City encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third
of which is open space.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
The Housing Element is subj ect to review by the California State Department of Housing and
Community Development (RCD).
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except IINo hnpact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 7 Initial Study
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2 X
public view or view corridor?
c) . Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,2 X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1 X
. glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
As shown on the Housing Inventory Sites maps in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element, the potential
development sites are within the fully developed areas of Palo Alto. Several areas. of the City are
specifically identified for development opportunities. These areas include the University Avenue
Downtown area, California Avenue Transit Neighborhood, EI Camino Real Mixed Use Transit
Corridor, South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, and various sites in Residential Zoning
Districts with existing commercial uses. Most of these sites are also located along transportation
corridors, and are near the Caltrain stations. None of the potential project sites are located near a
scenic highway or scenic vista.
The adoption of the Housing Element update will have no impact on aesthetics. Any future housing
development will be required to conlply with the zoning code requirements regulating nlass, bulk and
height of buildings, and therefore would be compatible with the areas in which they would be
developed.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant, adverse visual or aesthetic impacts.
(Less Than Significant Impact) .
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 9 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
N one of the sites identified as potential housing sites are located in a "Prime Farmland" ~ "Unique
Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The sites are not
designated for agricultural uses by the Palo Alto Comprehensive . Plan~ nor are they zoned for
agricultural use or regulated by the Williamson Act. The potential housing sites are not currently used
for agricultural purposes and all are located within a fully developed urban area and have no impacts
on forest or timberland. For these reasons~ a proposed project would not result in a significant impact
on agricultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: A proposed project on identified Housing Inventory Sites would not result in impacts to
agricultural resources. (No Impact)
c. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a) Contlict with or obstruct with implementation 1,4
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the ~: 11 o.
i. Direct and/or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air'pollutants of80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMlO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014
1,4
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Page 11
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
I. ..]I ..... "".I"v ..... "u
Less Than
Significant
Impact
x
x
Initial Study
No
Impact
has been prepared or is required under state air quality planning law. The 2005 Ozone Strategy was
developed in order to bring the area into attainment of federal and State ambient air quality standards
for ozone and particulate matter violations. As noted below, the development of potential housing
sites would not result in a significant increase in emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors
during operation. Because construction activities require permits from the BAAQMD and Palo Alto to
regulate emissions, construction emissions would also not result insignificant emissions of particulate
matter or ozone precursors. Therefore, the proposed proj ect would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the BAAQMD's air quality plans to bring the Air Basin into attainment for
particulate matter and ozone, tesulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Sensitive Receptors: BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor
popUlation groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the· chronically ill) are likely to be located.
These land uses include residences, school-playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes,
convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics.
Long Term Air Quality Impacts: The potential operational air quality impacts of future residential
projects would be associated with motor vehicle trips generated by the proposed development. Since
most of the identified Housing Inventory Sites would be redeveloped, the increase in the number of
vehicle trips is not expected to be significant. Any minor increase in vehicle trips generated would
only marginally increase daily emissions of ozone precursors and PMlO and would be well ~low
BAAQMD established thresholds for consideration of a significant impact. Consequently, the project
would not affect air quality in the region or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plans. Any stationary sources on site would be subject to the BAAQMD
Rules and Regulations. Compliance with BAAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that the
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
Short-Term Air Quality Impacts: Construction-related air quality impacts associated from a
proposed project would be the result of dust creating activities, exhaust emissions of construction
equipment and the use of typical construction materials such as asphalt and other construction
materials that tend to volatilize into the atmosphere. Due to the negligible amount and short duration
of these impacts, all are considered to be less than significant, except the potential impacts from
construction activities generating dust.
Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations and construction vehicles driving
over and wind blowing over exposed earth, generate fugitive particulate matter that will. affect local
and regional air quality. The effects of these dust generating activities will be increased dustfall and
locally elevated levels of PMlO downwind of construction activity. Construction dust also has the
potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties.3 If uncontrolled, dust generated by construction
activities could be a significant impact. Any future project's construction-related activities will be
required to comply with BAAQMD and Palo Alto's regulations, which include implementation of all
feasible dust control measures. Compliance with these regulations will reduce construction impacts to
a level that is less than significant. Therefore, future projects will not conflict with any applicable air
quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any objectionable odors
to the surrounding areas.
3 The word nuisance is used in this Initial Study to mean "annoying, unpleasant or obnoxious" and not in its legal sense.
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 13 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The areas of Palo Alto identified for potential housing development are located within a fully
developed urban setting with very little native plant and animal life. There is no record of any rare,
unique or endangered species of plants or animals in these areas.
There is no farmland in Palo Alto. Because the areas identified as Housing Inventory Sites have
already been disturbed through urban development, no significant changes are anticipated in the
diversity or number of species of plants or animals, or in the deterioration of existing wild life habitat.
The potential development sites are surrounded by office, commercial and residential development
with limited cover and foraging habitat for wildlife.
Any trees present on potential development sites would be evaluated on a case by case baSis. Any
future project on a property which includes any trees that are a species identified as "protected" under
the City' smunicipal code would require review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 8.10
of the municipal code, Tree Preservation and Management Regulations.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: The proposed Housing Element update would not result in any biological impacts.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PQtentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1, 11 X
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2 X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2 X
paleontological resource or site or ~ique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2 X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1, 2, 11 X
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X
of California history or prehistory?
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 15 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,5 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2, 5 X
including liquefaction?
iv} Landslides? 2,5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ·loss 1, 5 X
of topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 1,2,5 X
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1,2, 5 X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1, 5 I X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,5 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
Seismicity: The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United
States. Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking
in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist,
development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed
through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building
codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse
short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
The major cause of damage during an earthquake is ground shaking, with frequency and amplitude of
motion dependent on local geologic conditions. Sites on bedrock tend to have sharp, high frequency
jolts with little amplitude, while sites on deep alluvium receive lower frequency shocks but suffer
movement with high amplitude.
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 17 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco' Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the"region's adverse air quality impacts on' a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead; a project's
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.-If a
project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would
generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially
to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e; or 4.6 MT
C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential,
commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment
that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions
of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to
global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If
a project meets the screening criteria and is ,consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size **
Single-family 56du
Apartment, low-rise 78du
Apartment, mid-rise 87du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park ' 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 19 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances,. or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Construct a school on a property that is subject 1 X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2 X
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a. significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use 1,2 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically 1,2 X
interfere with an a,dopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2,9 X of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fIres, including where wildlands are adj acent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
Background Information: Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of
which are naturally occurring and some of which are man-made. ·Examples of hazardous materials
include pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products, metals (e.g., lead, nlercury, arsenic), asbestos and
. chemical compounds used in manufacturing. Determining if such substances are present on or near
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 21 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
in flooding on-or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,2 X
exceed the capaCity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X
Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,2,6 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 6 X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2,6 .' X of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,2 X
Result in stream bank instability? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
Hydrology and Flooding: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the potential project sites are not located within special flood
hazard areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood. Some sites are located in Zone X, areas
subject to inundation by a 500-year flood. While there are locations within the City that are
susceptible, the identified potential housing sites are not subject to inundation from a seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow.
Water Quality: The federal Clean Water Act and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill
the requirements of this legislation. EPA's regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDE~) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States(e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the
regional level by water quality control boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). .
Proposed projects are required to comply with Provision C.3 of the City's NPDES permit and the
City's local policies and ordinances regarding urban runoff and water quality. In practical tenns, the
C.3 requirements seek to reduce water pollution by both reducing the volume of stormwater runoff and
the amount of pollutants that are contained within the runoff. The methods' used to achieve these
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 23 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: ' Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3 X the general charaCter of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,3 X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,3 X farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
Setting: The potential housing sites are generally located within the University A venue Downtown
area, California Avenue Transit Neighborhood, El Camino Real Mixed Use Transit Corridor, South of
Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, and various sites in Residential Zoning Districts with existing
commercial uses. These sites are currently designated for commercial, mixed use and residential uses.
There are a few sites that will require rezoning to increase the residential density allowed.
General Plan Land Use Designation: The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates certain portions
of the community for residential use and commerciaVresidential mixed use, ,and anticipates new
residential growth within these areas. The existing Housing Element adopted in 2002 proposed the
addition of up to 1,397 housing units to Palo Alto's housing stock. During that construction cycle
(1999 -2006), Palo Alto issued building permits to 'construct a total of 1,713 housing units,
representing 123 per cent of the allocated housing need for the planning period.
The Housing Element update proposes to accommodate 2860 housing units, based on the Association
of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) regional housing needs allocation process for Santa Clara
County. As of December 2012, Palo Alto has issued building permits for 1,207 housing units during
the 2007-2014 planning period. The housing need for the remainder of the planning period is 1,654
housing units, plus an additional 15 units to accommodate the unmet need from the 1996 -2006
Housing Element, for a total need for 1669 housing units. This is well within the growth anticipated
by the Comprehensive Plan. The 2010 Census indicates that there are 28,216 housing units in Palo
Alto. The addition of 1,669 housing units, which would represent an increase of 5.9 percent, is not
considered to be substantial.
Zoning Designation: The potential project sites are zoned for residential, commercial and mixed use
development. The Housing Element update proposes to change the zoning on some sites to increase
densities, and to create incentives for development.
Proposed Zoning Designations: Many of the potential housing sites already have zoning in place to
achieve new residential development. In order to make the remaining areas available for residential
development and to improve the opportunities on existing residential sites, the following action
programs are proposed.
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 25 Initial Study
H3.1.7 PROGRAM
H3.1.9 PROGRAM
H3.1.l0 PROGRAM
H3.1.16 PROGRAM
H3.3.8 PROGRAM
H3.5J PROGRAM
H4.1.6 PROGRAM
Amend the Zoning Code to allow Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in
commercial and high density residential zoning districts subject to development
standards that would encourage the construction of the maximum number of
units consistent with the goals of preserving the character of adjacent
neighborhoods. Sites that have access to community services and public
transportation for SRO residents are highly desired.
Ensure that the Zoning Code permits innovative housing types, such as co
housing, and provides flexible development standards that will allow such
housing to be built provided the character of the neighborhoods in which they
are proposed to be located is maintained.
Adopt a revised density bonus ordinance that allows up to a maximum zoning
increase of 35 percent in density and grants up to three concessions or
incentives. The density bonus ordinance will meet State standards for the
provision of housing units for very low-and lower-income renters, seniors and
moderate-inconle condominium buyers in compliance with Government Code
Section 65915, et seq.
Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who
provide extremely-low income (ELI) housing units, above and beyond what is
required by the Below Market Rate (BMR) program, such as reduced parking
requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping requirements and reduced
fees.
Amend the Zoning Code to allow transitional and supportive housing by right in
all multifamily zone districts which allow residential uses only subject to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same
zone.·
Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by right with appropriate
performance standards to accommodate the City's unmet need for unhoused
residents within an overlay of the ROLM zone district located east of Highway
101. 1
Amend· the Zoning Code to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable
accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be
necessary to ensure reasonable access to housing. The purpose of this program
is to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for
reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning,
or building laws, rules, policies, practices andlor procedures of the City.
Land Use Compatibility: Land use conflicts can arise from two basic causes: l)·a new development
or land use may cause impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity of the project site
or elsewhere; or 2) conditions on or near the project site may have impacts on the persons or
development introduced onto the site by the new project. Both of these circumstances are aspects ·of
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 27 Initial Study
other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or
regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, the adoption of the
Housing Element and subsequent residential development would not result in impacts to mineral
resources.
Mitigation Measures:.None Required.
Conclusion: The proposed adoption of the Housing Element would not result in impacts to known
mineral resources. (No Impact)
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2, 13 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1, 2, 13 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2, 13 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2, 13 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1 . X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 29 Initial Study
·~ oise Impacts from Project Traffic: The potential housing sites are located in areas of existing
commercial, mixed use and residential uses. Traffic increases due to a potential project would need to
. be analyzed at the project level to determine impacts from traffic noise.
Noise Impacts From Construction: The construction of a proposed project would generate noise,
and would temporarily. increase noise levels at adjacent land uses. The significance of noise impacts
during construction depends on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the
timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources
and noise sensitive receptors.
Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during the construction of
·project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Typical hourly average construction generated
noise levels are about 75 dBA to 80 dBA measured at a distance of 100 feet from the source during
busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction generated
noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling. of distance between the source and
receptor.
Construction noise impacts are more significant when construction occurs during noise-sensitive times
of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours near residential uses), the construction occurs
in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts extended periods
of time. Construction activities could result in annoyances to existing uses adjacent to the project site ..
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance
(PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels assoCiated with construction
activity. Short-term temporary construction noise that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result
in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. The proposed Housing Inventory Sites are
located in established residential and mixed use commercial/residential districts near major
transportation corridors, including railroads and El Camino Real; the existing noise conditions are not
quiet and with compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, the temporary construction activities will
not create any new significant noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Conclusion: Because future projects would by required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance,
possible noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant
Impact)
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 31 Initial Study
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Support.ing Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto is a built out community and could only add housing through infill development.
The City is currently adequately served by public services and facilities such as parks and schools.
Implementation of the Housing Element could result in an increase in. the population of Palo Alto by
approximately 4350 persons. An increase in housing development would not adversely impact Police
and Fire response times since Palo Alto is a built out community and new development would be in
existing developed areas. The City. of Palo Alto Police and Fire Departments would review proposed
development on the identified sites prior to project approval.
Potential projects could generate population growth in certain areas, resulting in the increased use of
public park facilities in the City by new residents. There are adequate park and recreation facilities in
Palo Alto to serve the potential increase in residential population.
Potential projects could generate new students reSUlting in an increase in school population or result in
the need for new or modified school facilities. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) collects
school impact fees on new residential and commercial construction within District boundaries. Fees
are used only for construction and reconstruction of school facilities. The City of Palo Alto does not
issue building permits for a project until PAUSD has certified that school impact fees have been paid.
Therefore, any· proposed development would contribute through payment of fees toward future
construction of facilities to address the needs of increased school population.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 33 Initial Study
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Resources Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing 1 X
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in
a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.),
taKing into account all relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
pr a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity that 1 X
impacts traffic circulation and air quality?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5,6 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) 1,5,6 X
intersection to deteriorate below Level of
Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in
the average stopped delay for the, critical
movements.by four seconds or more and
the critical volume/capacity ratio (V /C)
value to increase by 0.01 ormore?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating 1,5,6 X
at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements
by four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,5,6 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007·2014 Page 35 Initial Study
Transportation Impacts: A proposed housing project could generate new trips to a site and in the
area, depending on the previous use of the· site. Traffic impacts would be evaluated at the project
proposal stage.
Illfill housing development could potentially increase ridership of public transit, especially at those
sites located near transit opportunities. Most of the sites are located near the two Caltrain stations
(University and California A venues) or along El Camino Real, a primary transit route.
New projects would be required to install or upgrade pedestrian or bicycle facilities, where
appropriate. These requirements would be evaluated at the project proposal stage.
The potential housing sites are located along or near major transportation corridors. Emergency access
would be provided to each housing site via existing or proposed public right-of-way. Emergency
service providers would evaluate new projects at the project proposal stage.
Mitigation: None Required
Conclusion: Any proposed project would be evaluated for transportation impacts at the time of
submittal. Implementation of the Housing Element would not result in significant transportation
impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of I X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new I X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new I X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to I X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater I X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 37 Initial Study
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have the potential to 1 -13 X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a. fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are 1 -13 X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current 'projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1 -13 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
With the implementation of policies in place and avoidance measures required by the City of Palo Alto
and other agencies as described in the specific sections of this report (refer to Environmental Checklist
. and Discussion of Impacts), on pages 7 through 39 of this Initial Study, the implementation of the
Housing Element would not result in significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Conclusion: Each potential housing project will be evalp.ated with regard to the mandatory findings
of significance. The implementation of the Housing Element is not expected to have impacts that are
cumulatively considerable. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact)
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007·2014 Page 39 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I. find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the X
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the . proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or m.itigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
\s
Date
City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2007-2014 Page 41 Initial Study
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
April 10, 2013 3
DRAFT 4
EXCERPT 5
6
Public Hearing 7
8
Housing Element Update: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding the Draft 9
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element for the 2007-2014 Housing Cycle. 10
11
Chair Martinez: With the Commission’s consent to that we will move forth with Agenda Item 12
Number 1 and that is to review the Draft Housing Amendment, excuse me, Housing Element as 13
approved by the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) and receive 14
our comment and recommendation for approval and incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. 15
Let me start with a couple words. When the Chair of the Planning Transportation Commission 16
asks you to volunteer to serve on a subcommittee pay careful attention. I was asked by former 17
Chair Garber to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee in 2009. We thought it was a 18
slam dunk. Housing Element was our first task to consider. We thought we’d be done in three 19
months and (slapping sound) note for the record the Chair kind of slapping his hands as to clear 20
the dust, but it takes longer than that. 21
22
We’re pleased that we have before us tonight the approved Draft Housing Element and we will 23
begin with a presentation by staff. Let me add, well, I’ll come back to it. I really want to try to 24
give new members of the Commission a chance to talk about the Housing Element and weigh in, 25
provide their comments. We are under limitation however that we have very limited ability to 26
change the Housing Element as it now has been approved. Nevertheless you should have the 27
opportunity to ask questions and comment and perhaps recommendations for next time. So we’ll 28
have a chance to do that. I’m sure there are members of the public that would care to hear those 29
comments as well, so that time will be well served. But let’s begin with the staff report and then 30
we’ll go to open the public hearing. Staff? 31
32
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you. You stole my thunder a little bit. I was about to 33
say similar things to what you just said. In the context of tonight’s conversation the Chair 34
actually provided staff with a number of questions which I think act as a good foundation for 35
tonight’s discussion. I believe there were about 10 questions here that were distributed to the 36
Commission along with initial staff answers here and those are also back for the public on the 37
table in back. And I think they do provide a good framework for discussion tonight. 38
39
The City Attorney could go a little bit more into what are some of the constraints of tonight’s 40
discussion, but I think there’s two overall things that could be answered tonight. Number one, 41
answer some of the questions that the public is asking in general about housing elements. And 42
Number two, to point out policies and programs and things that you like about this housing 43
element that could help as we go in transition to the next Housing Element Cycle, which is just 44
around the corner. So at this point I’ll turn it to Cara. 45
46
Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 47
Attorney. We have discussed the Housing Element several times in the past and as you all know 48
City of Palo Alto Page 2
we are now at the home stretch of approving the 2007 through 2014 Housing Element. There are 1
a couple of legal issues that we’ve discussed in the past, but it does bear repeating. And that is 2
that the significance of having an effective certified Housing Element is very important. If the 3
City does not have a certified Housing Element there is a potential that applicants could sue the 4
City for noncompliance and the remedies for not having a certified Housing Element are 5
extremely stringent. They include a possible moratorium on all development in the City. It 6
includes of course attorney’s fees and there could be other remedies imposed as well that limit 7
the City’s land use authority. So it is extremely important to bring this across the finish line as 8
quickly as possible. 9
10
Second ramification that we’ve talked about in the past about not having a certified Housing 11
Element, and in particular not getting this particular Element certified before the next cycle 12
begins is the potential for a carry over. And that is that any unfulfilled housing units that are not 13
built in this current cycle are in fact by statute carried over to the next cycle and we would have 14
to find additional housing sites for those carryover units as well in the event that we were not to 15
get this Element certified by the end of the cycle. 16
17
So those are the important issues. This Housing Element has been conditionally approved by 18
HCD. They have, we’ve gone through several rounds of negotiations with them. They’re very 19
familiar with all of the programs and policies and they took a special look at the inventory sites 20
and any changes or modifications will be obviously scrutinized by HCD. That does not mean 21
that the City does not have the discretion to make changes at this late stage, but it does 22
jeopardize City’s ability to get it finally certified by HCD. Thank you. And with that, Tim are 23
you going to give an additional presentation? 24
25
Tim Wong, Senior Planner, Affordable Housing: So good evening. I’m Tim Wong, Senior 26
Planner and I have a brief presentation for you. As Aaron and Cara both noted, yeah we’re 27
getting to the end of a very long process. And let’s go ahead, just some basic information about 28
Housing Element. It’s updated or it’s supposed to be updated every five years. We’re a little 29
behind with that. But one of the unique things about the Housing Element is it’s the only State 30
mandated element that requires State approval. 31
32
As part of the Housing Element as Cara was mentioning it must provide, it must identify 33
sufficient sites for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle. And so for the 2007-34
2014 RHNA cycle the City had to find sufficient sites to accommodate 2,860 units. That doesn’t 35
necessarily mean the City has to build, it just means that it has to zone or accommodate for that 36
number during, between 2007 and 2014. And again as Cara mentioned there are some legal 37
implications if the Housing Element is not certified; again, subject to lawsuit and also the 38
potential for carryover for the next cycle. 39
40
Just a quick timeline of where we came from. Last time the Planning and Transportation 41
Commission (PTC) reviewed the draft Housing Element was in April of 2012. The City Council 42
in July 2012 approved it being submitted for HCD review and it was submitted to HCD in 43
August 2012. We received our response letter from HCD about some of their concerns about the 44
draft Housing Element, which I’ll be going into later. And the City responded to the HCD 45
response letter in January 29 of this year and with some back and forth, additional back and 46
forth, the City submitted its final response to HCD on March 26th and on the 29th is when HCD 47
mailed their letter stating that the City with these proposed programs would be in compliance 48
with State Housing Element law and now it’s in front of the PTC for review. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
I would like, there were many, a number of revisions made to the Housing Element based on 2
HCD’s comments. However a majority of the changes were to the Housing Inventory Sites and 3
also with the programs. Many programs were revised and a number of programs were added so 4
this presentation will focus on that. To start with the Housing Inventory Sites, again our 5
allocation was 2,860 units and as of March of 2013 the City has either a process, units in 6
building permit stage or built 1,217 units which meant that the City had to find the sites to 7
accommodate 1,643 sites or units, excuse me. 1,643 units. And based on Council direction 8
given in May of 2010 these sites were primarily focused on California Ave., that corridor, El 9
Camino Real, and University Avenue. And they also gave the direction that there would be no 10
rezoning of commercial sites to residential. No loss of retail sites. 11
12
In addition staff when selecting certain sites looked at lots larger than 10,000 square feet with 13
minimum density of 20 units per acre. And the final product which you have before you is a 14
Housing Inventory Sites list of 1,680 units. So we have a “surplus” of 37 units currently at this 15
time. 16
17
Just to refer to the HCD letter dated October 18th. They had a number of comments. I believe 18
the letter is in your staff report as Attachment C, but you have their response. There were a 19
number of comments, but I’ll only highlight the significant comments that they made. One of 20
their comments was about realistic capacity. HCD had a concern that since many of our 21
identified sites were commercial or mixed use we’re depending for a lot of mixed use to fulfill 22
our RHNA allocation. Therefore they were concerned about the viability of mixed use and also 23
the size of lots seeing how we’re looking at lots down to 10,000 square feet. And so as part of 24
the City’s response we created Program 2.2.7, which we will look into providing incentives for 25
lot consolidation to try to get a greater yield from these smaller lots and also to help incentivize 26
or increase the probability of these mixed use developments on the smaller lots. 27
28
In addition, staff added Program 2.2.9, which monitors the development of the properties on the 29
Housing Inventory Sites. HCD again was concerned about our, since our surplus was so small 30
and if a couple of the Housing Inventory Sites were not developed at their realistic capacity at 20 31
units per acre they were concerned that we would not be able to fulfill our requirements therefore 32
this monitoring program has been implemented or will be implemented to make sure that if the 33
existing sites are not developed at 20 units per acre staff will look for other sites to backfill that 34
shortage. And lastly additional review and greater analysis of each site was done to help meet, 35
help satisfy HCD’s concerns in regards to those sites. 36
37
Another significant comment was about emergency shelters. In State law requires that each 38
jurisdiction designate a zone or zones to help accommodate an emergency shelter. And the 39
shelter with whatever zone is designated must be done by right. In other words a ministerial type 40
permit and no discretionary action or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) could be required of the 41
emergency shelter. The City’s unmet need right now is 107 beds, which we calculated a shelter 42
would need approximately 107 beds. Therefore, we designated, staff has designated the 43
Research Office and Limited Manufacturing Embarcadero ROLM (E) Zone District as the zone 44
district to accommodate the emergency shelter. Therefore staff also added Program 3.5.2, which 45
will amend the ROLME Zone District to allow emergency shelter by right. 46
47
And smaller, another issue was a previous unaccommodated need. This kind of refers back to 48
Cara in that there was a small rollover from our current Housing Element. There was one parcel 49
City of Palo Alto Page 4
in the previous Housing Inventory list that was not rezoned. Therefore we had unaccommodated 1
need of 15 units. Therefore as part of this Housing Element we had to find a site that would 2
accommodate 15 units in addition to the 2,860 that were required of this Housing Element and as 3
part of that staff has designated 3877 El Camino Real as the site to help fulfill our AB2348 4
requirement. 5
6
And just moving on last, couple more comments that HCD made is that they wanted clear 7
identifiable objectives for each of the City’s programs. And each program as they suggested 8
should include the City’s role in implementation, implementation timelines, objectives, and 9
identification of responsible agencies. So as a response staff has included a five year objective, a 10
funding source of how the implementation would be funded, who the responsible City agency 11
would be in implementing the program, and a timeframe, and that has also met with HCD’s 12
approval. 13
14
Let’s see… and also there were a couple other comments. Hotel condominiums. What had 15
happened is after PTC had reviewed the draft Housing Element in 2012 when the Council 16
reviewed the Housing Element they had also requested that hotel condominiums be included as 17
part of the Housing Inventory Sites, but after review it was found that they would, hotel 18
condominiums do not meet the definition of housing units. They don’t have a kitchen. 19
Therefore those have been removed from the previous draft Housing Element. And also there 20
was also a State law that cities must analyze housing needs for persons with developmental 21
disabilities so that additional text has been added. 22
23
Couple last things, a little less significant. HCD had requested further explanation about the 24
City’s agreement, the Mayfield agreement and how just additional details about what, how many 25
units were for affordable, how many for market, and also what the timeline is in developing 26
those additional 250 units. And lastly, rezoning programs. Those weren’t included. There are 27
some CN zoned parcels in the Housing Inventory Sites. Currently CN zones have a maximum of 28
15 units per acre and all those CZ zoned parcels in the Housing Inventory Sites will be up zoned 29
to 20 units per acre. In addition there are a couple GM zoned sites that will be rezoned to allow 30
for residential uses. 31
32
And we have received comments from a couple law firms, Public Advocates and the Public 33
Interest Law Firm. And staff has worked closely with them and their comments were many of 34
HCD’s comments were driven by these two law firm’s comments including they were concerned 35
about reliance on small sites, talking about the previous unaccommodated need and about the 36
Mayfield agreement. So pretty much whatever comments Public Advocates and the Public 37
Interest Law Firm made were rolled into HCD’s comments. So both the law firm’s comments 38
have been addressed as part of these revisions. 39
40
And the next steps. It’s anticipated that staff will take the revised Housing Element to the 41
Regional Housing Mandate Committee in May with a possible date with the City Council in 42
June. And we’re anticipating HCD certification also in June. From June 2013 staff has one year 43
to implement many of the zoning changes as listed in the programs. And finally it’s time to gear 44
up for the 2015 to 2022 Housing Element, which they’re looking at a deadline of December of 45
2014. So that concludes staff’s presentation. 46
47
Chair Martinez: Great, thank you Tim. Let’s open the public hearing. There aren’t any members 48
of the public that wish to speak… pardon? We do have some cards. Vice-Chair. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
Vice-Chair Michael: We have a speaker, Patricia Saffir, and you’ll have three minutes. Thank 2
you very much. 3
4
Patricia Saffir: Good evening. My name is Patricia Saffir and I’m speaking tonight on behalf of 5
the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. Chairman Martinez and Members of the 6
Commission, the League of Women Voters is very pleased as you’ve stated that you were that 7
you have before you tonight a Housing Element proposal that has received the approval of the 8
State Department of Housing and Community Development and they found it fulfilled the 9
requirements of the Housing Development law. We appreciate the hard work of the staff and the 10
Commission in getting us finally to this point. The League generally supports the contents of the 11
document although we still believe the vision statement should include a sentence concerning 12
our desire that our neighborhood supply adequate diverse housing and be free of discrimination. 13
We are however happy that the document now clearly states the City’s intention to do its part to 14
work to fulfill the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) fair share housing mandates. 15
16
We approve the new programs added at the behest of the State HCD and believe they will help 17
towards meeting the goals of the Housing Element. We also like the addition of the five year 18
objectives, funding sources, responsible agency, and timeframe for each program. This greatly 19
clarifies the needed actions. We recognize that the Housing Element has been written over a 20
long time and is a complicated document. It would be helpful however if more of the tables and 21
charts were dated to indicate when they were prepared. 22
23
In conclusion, we urge you to approve the Housing Element before you tonight so we can soon 24
be in compliance with State law and therefore be eligible for housing, transportation, and 25
infrastructure funding programs from the State. Thank you very much for listening. Good 26
evening. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 29
30
Vice-Chair Michael: And our next speak will be Bob Moss. 31
32
Robert Moss: I’m all done. Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. I think the Housing 33
Element that you have so far is about the best compromise we can come up with, but there are a 34
few aspects of developing Palo Alto that I did not see really discussed or emphasized and I don’t 35
want them to be overlooked. The first one is Palo Alto housing is one of the four or five most 36
expensive in the entire country. During the collapse from the Great Recession a couple of years 37
ago typical housing prices nationwide went down between 30 and 50 percent. In Palo Alto the 38
worst they did was drop 13 percent. We have now recovered all of that plus an additional 8 to 10 39
percent. So when they talk about low income or affordable housing in Palo Alto unless the 40
people who are asking for it are willing to come up with the money it isn’t going to happen. 41
42
So one of the first things to point out is that Palo Alto was the first city, as far as I know, in this 43
State that required a proportion of developments to include low income housing. Subsidized 44
Below Market Rate (BMR) units originally started at 40 percent. That didn’t last too long 45
because nobody would build any housing 20 units or more. In fact the first development that 46
was built when the City adopted that is kitty-corner across the street. 19 units so they wouldn’t 47
have to put any BMR units in. So they cut that down to 10 percent and they cut the threshold to 48
five units. But that being said we are not going to be able to build the amount of housing that 49
City of Palo Alto Page 6
they’re talking about, the amount of affordable housing they’re talking about unless somebody 1
else comes up with a lot of money. 2
3
Second I notice there were some complaints because most of the areas which were identified for 4
housing increases were already occupied. Like upper store commercial buildings. Well that’s 5
what we’ve got in Palo Alto. That’s all we have to build on. There is no vacant land. So it 6
should be emphasized that we’re doing what we can to identify those sites. But if nobody wants 7
to tear down existing perfectly valid commercial building and build multifamily on it that’s their 8
choice, not ours. 9
10
Finally one of the things that you keep in mind that is overlooked frequently is every housing 11
unit which is built in Palo Alto, especially multifamily units cost the City between $1,600 and 12
$2,000 per year more for services than it pays in taxes. So at some point when you build an 13
additional 2,000 or 3,000 units our budget is taking a hit. So there are real problems both with 14
area and with costs building a large amount of housing in Palo Alto. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. We shall leave the public hearing open in case 17
Commissioners have questions of those speakers. So the way in which I wanted to frame our 18
discussion tonight Commissioners is that we permit ourselves the luxury of talking about the 19
Housing Element in terms of what we would like to have seen, questions we have about how 20
we’ve undertaken this; really to help ourselves and help the public sort of understand how we’ve 21
come to tonight’s place in proposing to recommend the Housing Element and in recognition that 22
there are several Commissioners who didn’t have the chance to participate at all in the draft of 23
this Element. 24
25
The second thing that I wanted to do is give us a chance to look ahead and talk about sort of 26
where we go from here and how we make it more effective and questions about housing that Mr. 27
Moss raised in Palo Alto that really are germane to us having a workable housing policy. And 28
third I wanted us to reserve a period of time where we focus on the environmental review. so 29
rather than going back and forth from questions about the environmental document from one 30
Commissioner to move to questions of policy I’d like us to focus on the environmental review 31
portion of our recommendation for our third round. 32
33
So let’s see if that works, I’m not sure I’m clear, if you need clarifications. So commissioners 34
let’s start with a round of five minutes each. You don’t have to participate, but if you have 35
questions or comments about the Housing Element presented tonight let’s start with that. And 36
I’m going to start with Commissioner Panelli. Surprise. So as a new Commissioner if you have 37
questions about sort of how we got to where we are or questions about why we have a Housing 38
Element or anything of a nature of the process, I think this is a fair time for us to discuss in 39
general or specifically your questions or your concerns about our Housing Element. 40
41
Commissioner Panelli: So we’re going to talk about process and policy now and reserve 42
(interrupted) 43
44
Chair Martinez: Yes. Let’s see how that goes. Start a great (interrupted) 45
46
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, thank you Mr. Chair. I want to first just before I launch into a couple 47
of questions echo the sentiments of our esteemed Chair that the way to position this is what can 48
we do better for the next one. I think we’re sort of backs up against the wall; we’ve got to get 49
City of Palo Alto Page 7
this thing done, and it’s very good. But I do have a couple of questions. One is just a simple 1
question. Tim, you’d mentioned that we have a little bit more than we’re required. Do we get to 2
carry credits over? Is it only that we get to carry forward debits so to speak? 3
4
Mr. Wong: No, any of the parcels that are not developed we can carryover. So right now we’ve 5
identified approximately 1,600 units on X amount of parcels. If those don’t get developed within 6
the next year or so those can be carried over to the 2015-2022 cycle. 7
8
Commissioner Panelli: Maybe I, sorry. I probably mischaracterized the way I was phrasing it. 9
You had mentioned there were something like 37 units more than we would’ve been required to 10
have. Assuming all of those got developed, would we get to carry over that 37 or no? 11
12
Mr. Wong: Oh, I don’t think we can with the 37. 13
14
Mr. Aknin: No at that point they would just be kind of frozen within this cycle. You only get 15
credit for things that you’re planning for in the future that haven’t been built already. 16
17
Commissioner Panelli: Things that are entitled but not developed? That’s what gets carried over 18
to future (interrupted) 19
20
Mr. Aknin: No, not even entitled, things that are zoned. Sorry, things that are zoned not entitled. 21
22
Commissioner Panelli: Things that are zoned, not entitled, not developed. 23
24
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 25
26
Commissioner Panelli: Get carried over? 27
28
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 29
30
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. My next question is can you talk a little bit about how HCD, just 31
give, I know some of it, but I think it would be helpful for all of us as well as members of the 32
public who are interested to understand how HCD works together, comes up with their numbers 33
for what’s required in the State and then parcels that out and how that jives with what ABAG 34
sort of pushes on us. 35
36
Mr. Aknin: Ok, I’ll try to give the simplest answer possible because it’s somewhat complicated. 37
So the Department of Finance (DOF) creates population projections. And the way that State law 38
is formulated it says those DOF population projections then are created to household projections 39
and HCD is supposed to base their household projections on those population projections. So 40
then HCD says statewide we have to have X number of units built and then they distribute those 41
to each one of the regional agencies. So ABAG gets an allocation from HCD based on those 42
numbers. Then ABAG then distributes the units to either sub regions or to individual cities. 43
44
Commissioner Panelli: And then just building off of that though is it parceled out equally 45
meaning if the State says we need to have 11 percent more units to accommodate the population 46
growth does that mean every region gets 11 percent, or do they say these guys get more? Is it 47
percentage based, is it numbers based, is it… are there policies that say we want to promote more 48
City of Palo Alto Page 8
density in smaller areas or we want to promote continued conversion of farmland into suburbs? 1
What, can you help a little bit there? 2
3
Mr. Aknin: So the way it works now is they do population projected based on certain regions. 4
And then the way it is now SB375, which is basically the Land Use and Transportation Element 5
of AB32, which was the law that the Commission knows is aimed to reduce greenhouse gasses. 6
The law as its stated now states that it basically is encouraging higher density housing 7
development near transit locations to reduce the need for single occupancy vehicle trips long 8
distances. So what we’re seeing now is the trend to require cities that have additional transit 9
stops that are located near higher employment areas, higher employment regions to take on more 10
of a share of the overall housing. 11
12
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, so one last… so I kind of set you up a little bit there because what I 13
was trying to get at is my final question, which is if HSR goes through as planned and if Palo 14
Alto becomes one of the, what is it? The four stops in between San Jose and the city; does that 15
mean that we’re going to start to bear a greater share of housing units because of the transit 16
oriented housing policy that we see, we observed? 17
18
Mr. Aknin: I don’t know exactly how the methodology works, but I would say no. I think it has 19
to do more with how local rail stations work and local commuting rail station works and it’s 20
actually even more tied to what regions have additional job growth. So it’s not exactly how 21
many jobs does Palo Alto have. For instance, how many jobs does Santa Clara County projected 22
to have within a certain amount of time frame and then how many housing units are to follow 23
after that. 24
25
Commissioner Panelli: I’ll let some of the other Commissioners build off of my questions if they 26
choose. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner King. 29
30
Commissioner King: Thank you. So real basic question, can you define a housing unit? I know 31
that you presented that the hotel condominium because they do not have a kitchen were not 32
acceptable as a housing unit, but I’m curious for instance the Opportunity Center, the housing 33
there, is that a housing unit? And are there any income limits associated, you’re giving us a 34
gross required housing units. Are those broken down by income or is it just any additional 35
housing units you zoned for meet the criteria? 36
37
Mr. Wong: Commissioner King those numbers are broken down into income categories: very 38
low, low, moderate, and above moderate incomes. And I believe that is in Chapter 2 or Chapter 39
3, but there is a breakdown. 40
41
Commissioner King: And how are we then measured? Do they measure and say, “Oh, you.” 42
What happens the next round then if we don’t meet those? Let’s say we only have above 43
moderate income housing units developed and no below market units developed. Then what 44
would happen? 45
46
Mr. Wong: There isn’t really a penalty per se. For example, in our current we produced over 150 47
percent of what is allocated for above moderate, but we fell short in our very low and low, but 48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
there isn’t any legal penalty or anything from there. There is no rollover as far as I’m concerned 1
(interrupted) 2
3
Commissioner King: So you’re not really measured, it’s a goal, but you’re not measured on that 4
outcome? 5
6
Mr. Aknin: Correct. What I would think would happen is that during the next housing cycle 7
HCD would pay more attention to what type of affordable housing policies you have within your 8
Housing Element and be more focused on creating policies which is going to encourage the level 9
of affordability that’s needed. 10
11
Commissioner King: Thank you. And then just to finish then could you clarify any, is there a 12
size limit or type of occupancy other than human that’s specific to housing unit? What defines 13
that? 14
15
Mr. Wong: No there is no minimum size, but a kitchen is definitely part of the definition of a 16
housing unit and I believe they have to be separate, sorry. 17
18
Commissioner King: Separate entry maybe? 19
20
Mr. Wong: Yeah, a separate entry to access the kitchen also. In other words group quarters are 21
not considered living units. 22
23
Commissioner King: Such as a dorm room or something with one kitchen? Ok, ok thank you. 24
And then let’s see, then you had a comment in there on your PowerPoint it said one of the 25
Council’s directions was no rezoning of commercial to housing, but I thought you used the word 26
actual “retail.” Was that specific to retail or all types of commercial to housing were not to be 27
converted? 28
29
Mr. Wong: Excuse me, yeah. It’s all types of commercial, not just specifically retail. 30
31
Commissioner King: Ok. 32
33
Mr. Wong: Nonresidential. 34
35
Commissioner King: Ok thanks. I’ll come back I think in the later sessions. And then the other 36
question I’ve got is regarding the carryover. So there’s no penalty now, let me back up. We 37
haven’t met our goal of actually developing or having built what we zoned for for this Housing 38
Element. So now we’ll have a new Housing Element requirement number of units for the next 39
period. Does that, does the fact that we didn’t actually build those units get factored into our 40
allocation next time at all? 41
42
Mr. Wong: Not for the number themselves, no. so if we’re, for example, a 100 we did not, we’re 43
100 units short of low income, those 100 units will not be carried over to the new. We will not 44
have to plan for 100 more units of low income units for the next cycle. 45
46
Commissioner King: So that new number is completely independent of what happened in the 47
past? 48
49
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Mr. Wong: That is correct. 1
2
Commissioner King: Got it. And so that’s a quirk. Obviously I guess the reason why the 3
realistic capacity comes in is they don’t, the game the City could play is zoning things that will 4
never get built and then if none get built they just get to carry them over to the next time, the next 5
time if they don’t actually get built. So I guess that’s the tug of war with HCD is they want to 6
make sure they’re realistic. Ok. And then it introduces a whole bunch of potentially strange 7
behaviors on the part of the City such as slowing down approval times so that, because you really 8
want to carry, if you were gaming the system you’d really want to carry over those units to the 9
next time. And also then if you exceed as Commissioner Panelli asked you’re sort of it’s that no 10
good deed goes unpunished. You don’t get to carry those over for your success, is that right? 11
12
Mr. Wong: That is correct. 13
14
Commissioner King: Ok. Thank you. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck. 17
18
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I want to start by saying that I thought the staff report was 19
excellent. I think it’s the best staff report that we’ve have in the seven months that I’ve been 20
here. It was a really well organized and very, very clear. I also think that the Housing Element 21
is an excellent read. I think that it’s really informative and I think if more community members 22
read it they’d really understand what we’re dealing with here. 23
24
I want to mention one thing real quick before it gets away from me, which is that you said in 25
your presentation and it’s a bullet point in slide two that there’s no requirement to approve or 26
build the units. And that seems to suggest that down the road there will be greater oversight and 27
discretion and I believe there will be. So quick question, doesn’t the process, doesn’t this 28
process and the rezoning that will result sort of pave the way for an approval free development 29
process for projects that comply with the new zoning? 30
31
Ms. Silver: Yes, Commissioner Alcheck I did want to correct one statement there. if a particular 32
site is on the Housing Inventory and an applicant comes forward the City either needs to approve 33
the project at the density as set forth on the inventory or if the City decides to exercise its 34
discretion not to approve the project if there is some discretionary permit that is in play and the 35
City decides not to approve the project then the City needs to actually substitute another site for 36
that site in order to stay within its allocated number on the inventory. So that slide may have 37
been a little bit misleading in terms of (interrupted) 38
39
Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you because I just want to make sure that we appreciate that if 40
density is coming in these rezoned parcels it’s going to come, it won’t necessarily be because we 41
want it or we don’t want it. There is going to be some automatic intensity, more intense 42
development as a result of the rezoning effort and I know that there’s a lot of I think fear about 43
that and I want to make sure that it’s not directed at the wrong place. 44
45
I want to make another point. I did a little research before tonight’s meeting. I’ll say at the 46
beginning here that the numbers I received from staff, so if you question them… in 1950 Palo 47
Alto’s population was approximately 25,000 residents. And there were 8,800 units. In the 10 48
years that followed the population increased by 27,000 and the housing units increased by, 49
City of Palo Alto Page 11
excuse me, the housing units increased by approximately 10,000. That’s in 10 years. In the 50 1
years from 1960 to 2010, in the 50 years since that period the population has increased 12,000. 2
Over 50 years. And the housing units have increased by 10,000. In 50 years. I make that point 3
because I think the likelihood of us missing a credit, if you will, or a debit, whatever one it is is 4
really unlikely. We are not going to exceed in five years our allocation. And we may not exceed 5
it in 20 years. And I mention that because we are developed. There is very little open land to 6
develop. And I think those numbers are really impressive. The notion that our City doubled in 7
10 years from 1950 to 1960 and since then has increased, since 1990 to 2010 there’s been 3,000 8
units is sort of astonishing. 9
10
The legal requirement to have a Housing Element is actually well articulated here and there is an 11
obligation to make room. And I think that increasing our, making an effort to create the 12
opportunity for these developments is important. There are environmental justifications for it, 13
there are moral justifications for it, and I know that there’s a lot of controversy involved in this 14
process, but I think that the notion that our City will change dramatically as a result of our effort 15
to comply with the State law is inaccurate. And so I certainly will not stand in the way of 16
supporting a Motion to recommend the approval of this Housing Element. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Keller. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I think it’s apt that the City Attorney used the expression 21
that we’re in the home stretch because I think it’s certainly a stretch for Palo Alto to absorb the 22
number of housing units that are in the Housing Element if they were fully built. Especially with 23
the new Housing Element that we’ll have to do coming in, starting in 2015 that we’ll start 24
working on in December 2014. It’s sort of like the Golden Gate Bridge. Once you’ve finished 25
painting one end you start at the beginning and paint it again. 26
27
So there is, I assume that we can control the maximum unit size so if we want to have, zone for 28
more units we could have smaller unit sizes as being maximum allowed? Would that make 29
sense? 30
31
Mr. Wong: I don’t think you can control, you can provide incentives for certain unit sizes, but to 32
control the maximum unit size I don’t think is (interrupted) 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Through our zoning ordinance? 35
36
Ms. Silver: You can’t control the occupants. The number, the maximum number of occupants, 37
but I think you can control the unit size. Although that’s not a program we’re proposing in this 38
particular Housing Element. 39
40
Commissioner Keller: I understand, but we’re talking about the future so I just asked that. And 41
in terms of the emergency shelter in the Embarcadero region is that in existing buildings or in a 42
new building? 43
44
Mr. Wong: That is up to the developer. This program is just to make an emergency shelter 45
permitted by right, but if it’s vacant land in the ROLME district or if it’s existing that’s up to the 46
developer. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So in terms of substituting sites there was a question as to if a 1
site is built by City forcing a developer, preventing a developer from building on that site with 2
housing when the Housing Inventory has housing on it. If a developer comes along and for a site 3
on the Housing Inventory and chooses not to develop housing does the City also have to find 4
additional places on the Housing Inventory to cover those sites, the number of units that are not 5
built? 6
7
Ms. Silver: Yes, unfortunately we do. 8
9
Commissioner Keller: So it doesn’t matter whether it’s the developer that comes along or the 10
City. In either case we have to do that. Ok. Another thing is that during the previous Housing 11
Element in ancient history we had a Housing Element that I think was 1999 to 2007 I believe, or 12
2006. And that Housing Element we were allocated about 1,400 housing units. We built about 13
2,100 housing units in that period of time. So I’m not, and at that time we were not allowed to 14
carry, I think at one point in time it was counted as 2,500, I’m not sure how the number was, but 15
we were not allowed to carry forward that excess of housing built in that old Housing Element to 16
the current Housing Element we were working on if I remember correctly. Although apparently 17
there was some fudges that were done. and also if you, that there were some things that were 18
counted and some things we could count to this Housing Element, but essentially we did not get 19
credit for the excess housing that was built in the last Housing Element. 20
21
Also the issue is that if we, is that if you talk about to address the issue that Commissioner 22
Panelli brought up, the data from Natural [unintelligible] and Transportation Commission is that 23
jobs near transit is twice as transit use inducing as housing near transit. And so therefore it 24
makes sense because to build jobs near transit and housing near transit people can actually drive 25
to transit or other ways to transit but near, on the other end it’s hard to get from the transit to 26
your work unless there’s facilities for doing that. 27
28
I agree with the concept of no good deed goes unpunished. The more housing that’s built, the 29
more that we have to build. Part of the reason that our ABAG RHNA allocation is high this time 30
is because we were so successful at building housing between 1999 and 2006 and they’re saying 31
you’re good at it, do more of it now. And the less housing we build, it actually that’s part of the 32
feedback loop in how much housing we get in the RHNA. So that’s another thing to consider. 33
34
A very minor thing is you pasted as an image Excel tables into Word rather than pasting it as 35
content and that’s why they are kind of squeezed and not readable. So just a, I can tell you about 36
that if you want to know more for next time. 37
38
And I’ll close my comments with an idea that I’ve been kicking around for a while now. And 39
that is, may I? May I finish? 40
41
Chair Martinez: Yes, of course. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. And that idea is that essentially Market Rate housing crowds 44
out Below Market Rate housing. And if we allow more Market Rate housing to be built then the 45
RHNA allocation of Market Rate housing then essentially it makes Below Market Rate housing 46
less economic because it has to compete with land values for Market Rate housing. So if we 47
instead have a rule that throttles the amount of Market Rate housing that can be built to no more 48
than the RHNA allocation of Market Rate housing for the eight year period and you know 49
City of Palo Alto Page 13
ratably over a period of time and if you under build you can build more next time. If there are 1
more requests for permits then you can auction it off with the extra money going for Below 2
Market Rate housing to subsidize that and promote the building of very low income housing 3
which is not built through Market Rate Housing inclusionary zoning. 4
5
And you exempt all Below Market Rate housing from this cap and if a housing development is a 6
least 50 percent Below Market Rate in terms of units and square footage and no more than 50 7
percent for Market Rate, for example, the project that’s being developed at Maybell is an 8
example of that. That could be built and those 15 units or so would not be counted towards the 9
Market Rate cap. Then you have a system that would essentially promote Below Market Rate 10
housing. It would preserve land for Below Market Rate housing and it would allow our Market 11
Rate Housing to be built at a rate that we could absorb more appropriately then the free for all 12
that’s happening now. So I would encourage us to seriously consider adopting such a plan for 13
the next Housing Element and I’m wondering if our City Attorney has any comments about the, 14
that she’d like to offer at this point about the legality of such an approach to the extent that 15
you’ve studied it. 16
17
Ms. Silver: Cities are starting to explore programs like that and I know that this program was 18
looked at for this Housing Element cycle as well and frankly I can’t recall if we included that as 19
something that we would study in this Housing Element cycle, but it’s certainly something that is 20
worth pursuing. We would have to look at it more closely in terms of legal limits on growth 21
control because there are some constraints in that area. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: I think I proposed it as a study item and it was taken out by a Council 24
Member. 25
26
Chair Martinez: Ok Commissioner. You’re encroaching on, now the Vice-Chair only has two 27
minutes. Can I do a brief follow up on that before? Excuse me. How would that be received by 28
HCD and in terms of ABAG’s RHNA goals to say this is how we’re going to do it, we’re going 29
to do a cap on housing? To me it, the cap on housing, to me it doesn’t seem like that’s what they 30
want to hear. Can I get any response on that? 31
32
Mr. Aknin: In general, yes. I mean things that are going to slow down housing projection are not 33
looked upon favorably by HCD. I think they would like to see goals and polices that both 34
promote Market Rate housing as well as BMR housing. 35
36
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Vice-Chair Michael. 37
38
Vice-Chair Michael: So hearing the comments from my esteemed colleagues about the mandate 39
from the State and the regional authorities and the operation of the free market I wonder what 40
Margaret Thatcher would say about what we’re doing here? When the Housing Element came 41
up for the Planning Commission most recently we were not looking at a 200 page book, which is 42
quite impressive and thanks for all the hard work. But instead we were focused on the material 43
which is primarily on pages 163 to 170 in the draft plan, which is the vision, goals, policies, and 44
programs. And I wondered if you could just give us a quick tutorial as to the relationship 45
between what the City is proposing to adopt in terms of its vision, goals, policies, and programs 46
versus what is in Chapter 3 of the document in terms of the hard numbers for the allocation of 47
the units. Because we have this quantitative target, but we have this qualitative ambition in 48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
terms of our vision for the City and the housing and whatnot and how do those two things work 1
together? 2
3
Mr. Wong: I’d be happy. The programs that are being proposed help expedite or incentivize 4
some of the development to possibly achieve the production of affordable housing and housing 5
in general. For example, there is a policy that if you build units of a certain size of nine units or 6
less it provides the incentive that you will be able to “skip” site and design. So that’s trying to 7
help incentivize multifamily production of a certain size. In addition we have our programs for 8
lot consolidation that if they take advantage of a lot consolidation program then the City may 9
achieve a higher yield from those smaller lots. So these programs are to help implement or 10
achieve some of those numbers. In addition the BMR policies have been slightly revised to try 11
to get additional low income housing production. So these programs again are to help meet 12
some of those RHNA numbers. 13
14
Vice-Chair Michael: Excuse me. My next question is that the, on the Commission and on the 15
Council and in the community we have a lot of very thoughtful and analytical people who have 16
been skeptical of the forecasts that come down from the State Department of Finance and ABAG 17
and whatnot. And so we have also an ongoing activity, the Regional Housing Mandate 18
Committee, which includes four members of the Council, two members of the School Board, and 19
one representative of the Planning and Transportation Commission. To the extent that this is an 20
ongoing challenge for Palo Alto to both understand or maybe challenge the assumptions relating 21
to what would be a realistic set of targets how do we stand in terms of making sure that we do 22
the best we can in the future to have a realistic target for Palo Alto what we can actually do and 23
what we should do in terms of our land use planning. 24
25
Mr. Aknin: That’s a multi-level answer. I mean I think, and this was brought up at the last 26
Regional Housing Mandate Committee and the Mayor brought this up. These allocations are 27
handed down to us by the State and that is the system that’s set up right now. That seems to be 28
the system that’s going to be there for the foreseeable future. ABAG recently released their One 29
Bay Area Plan that projects growth out to 2040 and it shows increased, I mean the way they, 30
their methodology shows increased growth even more than the 2014 to 2022 housing cycle 31
where Palo Alto was allocated about 20, a little bit more than 2,179 units. So right now that’s 32
the system in place. We do have ongoing conversations with our local State legislators to see if 33
there can be changes within the system to have a more realistic forecast. 34
35
I think the thing that is set up there is that on a positive side is that you do get the rollover units. 36
So if we do zone for units and the market isn’t there to create those units you do get a credit 37
towards the next cycle. For instance, as Tim pointed out right now we’re estimating about 1,600 38
units, 1,600 sites that have not been built. Well if we have a requirement in the next housing 39
cycle of 2,179 units we’re already 1,600 units of 2,179 on our way there. So we really only have 40
to find 579 more housing sites. So there is kind of that built in mechanism there where if the 41
market demand isn’t there it doesn’t count against you. 42
43
Chair Martinez: So I have two areas that I want to try to take over and talk about in my five 44
minutes. One is the sort of what our City Attorney called the “home stretch” and the second is 45
about the Comprehensive Plan itself. The latter is kind of easy, so I’ll save that. It seems to me 46
like once you’ve gotten to know me a bit that the most important thing that this body does is look 47
at policy. So here we are in the home stretch. We spent four years of our lives really being 48
City of Palo Alto Page 15
intimately involved in the dialogue about the Housing Element. We’ve taken it very seriously all 1
of us and I’ve enjoyed working with all of you. 2
3
But the home stretch, you get a letter from HCD it says, “What about this and that?” And you 4
get together and you respond back to them says, “Well, we can do this.” And they said, “What 5
about this?” And then you said, “Well, we can do this.” Where’s the sort of public process in 6
that? I was, not that I so much disagree with all of what you’ve proposed. I think largely I agree 7
with it, but I’m a little bit, a lot concerned that as hard as we worked as a group that the staff has 8
taken upon itself to propose policies and programs that are different than what came before us. 9
And it’s not so great, but some of it is like providing incentives like reusing parking for mixed 10
use housing. Well, parking is a big issue right now in our town and I think it needed some input 11
from us. 12
13
So in the home stretch I think we kind of left our process, our public process and moved quickly. 14
And I understand why you wanted to do it quickly, but looking ahead and looking at this and 15
what we’re going to recommend to the Council I feel sort of like abandoned that there should 16
have been built in some time for the Planning Commission to weigh in on this. And I think it’s a 17
great oversight that these important policies and programs that were altered were not run by your 18
Planning Commission for our support for it. I’m sure you would have gotten it for most of it, but 19
I’m sure there’s a couple of us that would’ve asked them to be stated a little bit differently. So 20
what’s done is done. We’re approved; great job for that. But I don’t want to see that, because 21
that’s the most important thing we can help with. 22
23
Ms. Silver: Chair Martinez, may I respond to that briefly? 24
25
Chair Martinez: Sure. 26
27
Ms. Silver: I think that’s very good feedback and we had some internal discussions about that 28
process. From a staff perspective I think that if we were in the early years of this process that 29
that’s what would, that would be the best protocol. But if we were to stop the negotiation with 30
HCD to bring each, to hold public hearings on each of those items it just simply would not have 31
been feasible to get this approved by the end of the cycle. However, this is the time for the 32
Planning Commission to weigh in and so there certainly is that opportunity and so staff used its 33
professional judgment on recommending to you programs that it thinks will be viewed in a 34
favorable light by HCD but if you don’t agree with those programs of course now is the time to 35
weigh in. 36
37
And also I would say that maybe for the next housing cycle what we might want to do is think 38
about forming a subcommittee, a Planning Commission subcommittee that would be more 39
involved in those negotiations with HCD if the body as a whole felt comfortable delegating that 40
authority. But in very time sensitive issues like this it’s very hard to go before all three boards 41
and actually get responded to HCD in a timely fashion. 42
43
Chair Martinez: I understand that. I’ll save my second part for the next round. I understand that 44
and there’s no way that I believe this body would jeopardize what’s been achieved by saying 45
well we want to pull back and hold a public hearing on this or propose significant changes. 46
Because in addition as important as the City’s liability is on having a certified Housing Element 47
to me the most important thing is that we have a Housing Element that, the most important thing 48
going forward as the our speaker from the League of Women Voters is to be proud that we 49
City of Palo Alto Page 16
achieved this and it’s the right thing to do. So I’m going to actually in the interest of time just 1
wait on the Comp Plan issue and I’ll pick it up if I get a chance to speak next time. 2
3
Commissioners do you want to carry on a discussion or further comment on this item? Yes, 4
Commissioner Alcheck and then Commissioner Keller. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but what was the 7
bottleneck you think that got us to a point where we’re approving a plan that will essentially 8
lapse in 2014 in 2013? And have we taken the steps you think to make sure that the next 9
Housing Element is approved sort of early in the cycle so that we’re not sort of in this situation 10
again? And can you kind of elaborate on that a little bit? 11
12
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Well I think certainly, Steven Turner, Advance 13
Planning Manager. I think certainly what we would like to complete the update sooner than 14
later. Alright excuse me. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager. Certainly the length of 15
time to prepare this Element exceeded our expectations. I think probably as part, actually a very 16
good accomplishment by the City for this Element is that essentially was done in house. We did 17
use some consultants to assist us on the technical aspects of the report. But for a large part the 18
City saved I think quite a bit of money actually doing this in house and building upon our 19
analysis on the technical portions of the chapter utilizing a PTC subcommittee for the goals, 20
policies, and programs, doing the outreach that we did with the volunteer group, the Technical 21
Advisory Group that was involved in very early stage development and review. That was a very 22
public process and the Technical Advisory Group had how many members Tim? 23
24
Mr. Wong: Approximately 15. 25
26
Mr. Turner: 15 members of the community from representing various disciplines participated in 27
the review of and preparation of this document. And so we had a very extensive public process 28
at the beginning kind of through the early draft stages involving the Planning Commission again 29
in the goals, policies, and programs and essentially doing this all in house I think extended the 30
timeline. I think we are ahead of the game for the next Element. One of the benefits of 31
completing this current cycle’s Housing Element near the end of the cycle is that it will allow us 32
to move forward I think that much more quickly while the issues and topics are still fresh in our 33
minds, still very much of a public issue and concern, that we can move forward I think very 34
quickly and meet the initial deadlines that have been established for us. 35
36
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 37
38
Commissioner Keller: Yes, couple of quick things, just cleaning up. It was not mentioned that 39
the One Bay Area Grant program eligibility is to some extent conditioned on having an approved 40
Housing Element. Is that correct? 41
42
Mr. Wong: That is correct. However, they offered extensions for eligibility for One Bay Area 43
Grants and the City applied and received extensions that we have until January 30th of 2014 now 44
I believe to get our Housing Element Certified. 45
46
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So that’s one more reason to have it done. The second thing 47
is I just want to clarify units that are proposed by developer, but not yet approved are considered 48
under the old Housing Element; in other words, not rolled over to the next time. Is that correct? 49
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
Mr. Wong: Sorry, one more time? 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Let’s suppose that a developer comes along in 2014 and proposes a 4
housing development on one of the Housing Inventory Sites. 5
6
Mr. Wong: Ok. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: That development is considered as if it was built and because it’s being 9
proposed isn’t rolled over to the new Housing Element from 2015 to 2022. 10
11
Mr. Wong: I believe we can roll it over. Yeah. 12
13
Mr. Aknin: No, the only way it gets counted towards the current housing cycle is if it’s entitled. 14
15
Commissioner Keller: Ok. 16
17
Mr. Aknin: Without those entitlements it has the same weight as not being proposed. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: And two other things quickly. We do have a Housing Element 20
subcommittee. I believe I’m on it. So that could have been consulted in terms of these 21
questions. And the second thing is regarding the expansion that happened from 1950 to 1960 22
there was a lot of vacant farmland in Palo Alto south of Oregon Expressway that has since gotten 23
filled between 1950 and 1960. So that’s one of the reasons why there was a great expansion. 24
There also at one point and time 24 elementary schools and about close to half of those were 25
closed and often sites sold off. So while the School District once had over 15,000 students at its 26
peak we’re approaching that but with a lot fewer school sites to have students to attend our 27
schools. 28
29
Chair Martinez: Anyone else on this round before we… yes, Vice-Chair? I wanted to spend a 30
little time talking about the environmental review of the… Ok. Vice-Chair Michael. 31
32
Vice-Chair Michael: So I have a question that goes back to the Regional Housing Needs 33
Allocation and how that affects Palo Alto. When the Regional Housing Mandate Committee last 34
met there was a presentation from Stephen Levy who is the Director for the Center for 35
Continuing Study of the California Economy and he helped clarify exactly what the process was 36
in terms of the forecasting by the State and by ABAG. And what I took away from Mr. Levy’s 37
presentation, which was excellent, was that the biggest driver of population increase is jobs. So 38
when population increases there’s the need for housing. So what we’re seeing is an allocation of 39
what’s believed to be the share that Palo Alto should create or contribute or enable relative to 40
housing, which is driven by jobs, dives population. And currently Palo Alto has sort of more 41
jobs. We have a bigger daytime population than we have a nighttime population. So our 42
daytime population is about 110,000 more or less and our nighttime population is 65,000 more or 43
less. And we have a goal that we’d like to continue to stimulate the vibrant Palo Alto economy 44
and create more jobs. So this situation is in many ways desirable, but it leads to this deficit of 45
more housing or the deficit in housing relative to jobs. And when people aren’t close, aren’t able 46
to live close to the jobs then they have to have transportation to get to the jobs and that creates 47
our issues with traffic and transportation and parking, which is a great concern. 48
49
City of Palo Alto Page 18
So one of my questions is are we learning anything, sort of out of the box thinking other than sort 1
of acknowledging that we have this built out city, this wonderful city, this quality of life and 2
great community character, but because we’re driving with all this innovation and economic 3
vitality to have a lot of jobs in excess of housing, is there something about the future that’s going 4
to… is there going to be a breakthrough in terms of how we might approach this opportunity or 5
this challenge different from what we’ve seen in the past? 6
7
Mr. Aknin: That’s another good question. There’s no, I think the answer, you know, a lot of 8
cities have the same challenges as Palo Alto, especially along the peninsula. We’re constrained 9
by a bay on one side and we’re constrained by a mountain range on the other side so and then we 10
had the typical suburban type development pattern during the 1950’s and 1960’s which really 11
leaves us little land to work with. I think the general state as I had stated before, the general 12
State policy goals is that you build higher density developments, whether that be office or 13
housing near transit so that people don’t have to drive in their cars and they can get from… I 14
think there’s a, you know, the term jobs/housing balance was used a lot. It’s used a little bit less 15
at this point, but I think the idea is that if you don’t have jobs right next to housing and people I 16
think it’s unrealistic to think that everyone’s going to live in the exact same community that they 17
work. But I think that what we’re going for as planners as well as transit planners is that we set 18
up a transportation network and a housing network that is connection based so that even if you 19
live in another region you’re able to take the train and able to take another form of transportation 20
in to get to your office space or to get to your back home. So I think it’s really looking at these 21
connections between transit and housing is the way that we’re going to have to grow as a region. 22
23
Chair Martinez: I’m going to take the opportunity to come back to my final part of my 24
questions/comments. In the last stretch the HCD focused a lot on our goals, policies, programs 25
and cited them as the reason they support certification of our Housing Element. And I think staff 26
should be commended for the hard work of getting that together. But it also points how 27
important those goals, policies, programs are to our Comprehensive Plan. So in the questions I 28
sent out to you I asked well can we accept the certification of that Housing Element document 29
but reorganize in the Comprehensive Plan our goals, policies, and programs so they provide that 30
kind of readability, transparency, ease of use that we’re reaching for in the update. Not changing 31
any language, not changing any substance, but trying to get it to work in the same manner that 32
the other six elements work. And I think the response I got was are you asking can we change 33
the Element? And my response is no. So I’m going to ask the question again: can we accept the 34
certified Housing Element in that bound document that you gave us, but also use it as part of our 35
Comprehensive Plan and the way in which we have designed it for the 2014 update or whatever 36
the date is? Steven? 37
38
Mr. Turner: Yes. As you’re aware one of the improvements that we’re looking to make with this 39
Comprehensive Plan update is to make this element or this document more accessible, more 40
usable to members of the public and City staff and boards and commissions. We’re looking to 41
achieve that in a number of different ways. One of them is to reformat each element so that a lot 42
of the narrative discussion occurs at the beginning of the element followed by a simple list of 43
goals, policies, and programs that we want to achieve over the long term. I think that we can do 44
that with the Housing Element as well. This is our Housing Element and its part of the 45
Comprehensive Plan. It’s the only element that the State requires certification or approval of at 46
the State level so it has to contain certain elements. But for the purposes of our public, our staff, 47
our boards and commissions I think we can create a document that retains the goals, policies, and 48
programs, retains the narratives that are contained in here that provide that context for our goals, 49
City of Palo Alto Page 19
policies, and programs over the long term and still create a useable, readable document. So I 1
think we can adapt this document. 2
3
This document is our Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, but I think for public 4
consumption and public ease of use we can certainly create a tool or a document that is more 5
easily assessable. And then as you’re aware we are trying to also determine a good way to make 6
this available online through a searchable tool, through an application where folks who have a 7
particular interest in the Comprehensive Plan or a specific part or chapter of the Comprehensive 8
Plan that they can have easy access to that. So I think because we’re offering the Comprehensive 9
Plan up in a variety of different ways for people to consume, I think we can create products that I 10
think can be accessible by most people. 11
12
Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. And then my last comment in this section; one of the nice 13
things in the report was the assessment of the success of the previous Housing Element. I 14
thought that was very useful. It would have been nice to have it earlier so that we could also use 15
it in sort of going forward with our new programs and policies. But it also would be, will be a 16
useful tool in future years for all of the elements. When staff comes to the Planning Commission 17
and asks for our input in starting an update to have an evaluation of how successful the 18
Transportation Element goals, policies, and programs have been I just think it said so much 19
about what we needed to have worked on. So going forward I would really like to, I don’t know 20
who’s going to be here in 2022 or whatever it is, but to consider that as a vehicle for really 21
looking at where we’ve been successful and where we haven’t been. 22
23
So I’d like us to spend our remaining time talking about the environmental review of the 24
Housing Element and perhaps our City Attorney might give us some insight of why this is 25
required. Thank you. 26
27
Ms. Silver: Sure. The adoption of a Housing Element is a discretionary action that invokes 28
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and so some type of environmental review is 29
required. And what you do when you decide on what level of environmental review is 30
appropriate is you look at the type of land use changes are anticipated by this Element. And for 31
the most part this Element takes advantage of existing zoning to accommodate the land use, the 32
housing sites. And there are some rezonings that are going to be required and those are the 33
commercial zones that will be up zoned to allow for greater residential density. And so since 34
that’s the major land use that’s anticipated in this Housing Element cycle that’s what the 35
environmental review focused on. 36
37
And so it’s a Negative Declaration is being proposed and there really weren’t any impacts 38
associated with some modest up zoning in those commercial sites that were identified in the 39
Negative Declaration. And so it’s relatively straightforward for this particular Housing Element. 40
In the next cycle we will have to accommodate a few hundred more units and so we would again 41
look at whether a higher level of environmental review is required. But at this level there were 42
not any significant environmental impacts that were identified. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Ok, and if I may ask in other situations where we are reviewing an area plan or a 45
study you have said these, we’re not proposing a project and so there is no environmental impact 46
for us to weigh in or something like that without putting words in your mouth. Is that the general 47
nature here that the impact is really the future projects that come forward and at this point it’s 48
really a review of a plan? 49
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
Ms. Silver: Yes. We do do environmental review for area plans, but the level of environmental 2
review is much broader. We look at the plan level we look at, we try to look at the maximum 3
density that would be contemplated in the plan and but then as particular projects come online 4
we also do an additional level of environmental analysis and it may be that as we go from the 5
overall plan policy level to the more micro project level you do start to see additional 6
environmental impacts that are exposed as you drill down further. For instance, as you start to 7
look at particular footprints for where a project will or a building will be located a particular, 8
there might be a groundwater plume for instance that you want to drill down further and look at. 9
Or there may be some kind of particular aesthetic component or impact based on the proximity 10
of the building vis-à-vis other buildings. And so it is more typical at a project level 11
environmental review to get more specific. And thank you for that clarification. 12
13
Chair Martinez: And then one last and I’ll stop. What if we, can we arbitrarily decide to set the 14
bar higher for environmental review? For example, could we say we’re going to under land use 15
planning focus more on the category of potential impact, significant impact if not mitigated and 16
say that’s where we are going to make sure we address measures that need to be followed or is 17
there something in environmental law that limits us from taking that kind of posture? Does that 18
make sense to you? 19
20
Ms. Silver: Yes. I think you’re talking about the local thresholds of significance? 21
22
Chair Martinez: Yes. 23
24
Ms. Silver: So the CEQA statute and the guidelines provide some general thresholds of 25
significance. There is a checklist that’s contained in the State law and for the most part cities 26
rely on the State mandated or State recommended thresholds of significance. So for instance, 27
there are certain key areas like transportation and greenhouse gas impacts and aesthetic impacts 28
that CEQA contains recommended ways to analyze those impacts. Local agencies do have the 29
ability though to adopt their own local thresholds and, as long as they comply with the minimum 30
State thresholds and some agencies do have more area specific thresholds and sometimes those 31
thresholds are more stringent than the State. Palo Alto has some thresholds that were adopted 32
through a formal process a number of years ago and more recently though we have some 33
thresholds that we’ve been using in larger projects that have been updated at an administrative 34
level. They have not been formally adopted by this body or by the Council, but they are in 35
practice. We have been using them fairly consistently. And those local thresholds that we have 36
been using are largely consistent with the State law, but there are some areas where they are a 37
little bit different, perhaps a bit stricter than State law. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller you want to begin? 40
41
Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. So I read the Negative Declaration as basically saying 42
that there are no impacts because the barn door has been opened and all the horses have left and 43
not many horses will leave in the next year and a half. That’s my interpretation. And the reason 44
I believe that is because in the previous Comp Plan and the Housing Element the Comp Plan 45
remember was from 1998 and the Housing Element being from 1999 to 2006, that studied 2,400 46
housing units if I remember correctly. And we far exceed that without any analysis of exceeding 47
that. And it’s true that we have zoning, we have, that we’re limited by zoning, but the reason 48
that the impacts are useful to look at from a broad perspective as opposed to project by project is 49
City of Palo Alto Page 21
because of cumulative impacts. And you can’t really effectively, we don’t really effective, 1
maybe you can, but we don’t really effectively study cumulative impacts on a project by project 2
basis. So looking at the Housing Element overall is how you look at cumulative impacts. And 3
it’s essentially on a year and a half not much is going to happen is the answer. So I think that 4
when we get to the next Housing Element I hope that we do an adequate CEQA review that 5
looks at the cumulative impacts of all the housing that could be built based on that and we 6
understand what the effect of that is and then we appropriately mitigate it as needed. 7
8
One thing that we are precluded from unfortunately and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe 9
we’re not allowed to consider school impacts under CEQA. And that’s because school impacts 10
are supposedly fully mitigated by the pitiful amount that developers are required to pay under 11
State law, which doesn’t cover the amount that the impact is on our schools based on the price of 12
land and the price of construction in Palo Alto. So essentially unless we form an assessment 13
district or things like that we’re kind of stuck in that regard. 14
15
The other, the last thing is that in terms of these impacts and thinking about where people are 16
going to live there’s really a thresholding effect. And that is that the average commute based on 17
the latest data, which is from 2004 data from 2000 census and we should be getting data from 18
DC in 2014. Next year we’ll be getting some, the new data from the 2010 census. But that data 19
shows that the average Palo Alto resident commutes 11 miles each way to work. Now a lot of 20
them are commuting less, some of them are commuting more and the average person who works 21
in Palo Alto commutes 16 miles to work. And so there’s not a lot of commuting going on to and 22
from Palo Alto. There’s a handful of people coming from San Francisco and things like that. 23
There’s more commuting into Stanford. But there’s not, the distances are not really that great. 24
But what happens is the people who commute into Palo Alto are commuting from Mountain 25
View and Sunnyvale and Menlo Park and such and a lot of them are taking, a significant number 26
of them are taking bicycling and things like that. But essentially that means that the people who 27
live in Mountain View would be pushed out further. So essentially there are these rings of where 28
people live and where people work. And so people in Palo Alto tend to, tend to not all of them 29
but tend to make more money and they tend to live closer, but that essentially pushes people 30
further out if they’re living further out. So that’s essentially the pattern that we have. 31
32
So essentially there’s a big ecosystem that’s going on and so when you look at the environmental 33
impacts there’s different layers that you can think of it. There’s the layer for Palo Alto, there’s 34
the effect of what happens in Palo Alto and how it affects other cities, and there’s the cumulative 35
effects here. We can consider the cumulative effects here, but it’s hard to consider the 36
cumulative effects elsewhere. 37
38
Just closing on one thought, which is interesting about this phenomenon. When a commercial 39
building is built, like for example when Stanford did its, the Stanford Medical Center expansion, 40
they said that a certain percentage of those people who live in Palo Alto and a certain percentage 41
of those people who live elsewhere. We can only consider the impact of the people living in 42
Palo Alto, who would live in Palo Alto. And developments that happen in Menlo Park from 43
Facebook causes developments in Palo Alto, but we don’t consider them. So essentially there’s 44
this cumulative impact that gets technically and legally ignored. That’s unfortunate, but 45
essentially it’s a system for considering impacts that both limits the amount we can consider and 46
ignores certain impacts as well. Thank you. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli, comment? You good? To the other end, Commissioner 1
Alcheck? 2
3
Commissioner Alcheck: I share Commissioner Keller’s sentiments on the, on my opinion on the 4
Negative Declaration and its, I guess I don’t want to say relevance, but significance particularly 5
because of the time frame. I want to add though I think it’s, I don’t know what the right word is, 6
it’s peculiar for me the discussion about environmental impact of what I would consider infill 7
housing. I know that we’re specifically talking about Palo Alto and that is the context, but it is 8
significantly more environmentally friendly to develop in this town than it is to continue 9
developing all the way from one side of 680 to the other. And that is essentially what all of the 10
Bay Area municipalities have to consider is that the development that doesn’t occur in their 11
neighborhoods will just move farther and farther out into the abyss. And those commutes will 12
increase. I know that that’s not a component of this environmental analysis, but again, I just 13
think there’s an irony in suggesting that the environmental impact of infill housing is so 14
significant that it justifies not developing as opposed to the development of housing in areas 15
where the environmental impact is just so significant it shouldn’t be ignored. But that’s a side 16
note. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. Commissioner King? Ok, Vice-Chair Michael? 19
20
Vice-Chair Michael: So I’m not really an expert on the nuances of the environmental impact 21
analysis, but one of the things I’m coming to appreciate about the work of the Planning 22
Commission as we take up this topic of the Housing Element is that it relates to a lot of the other 23
things that we work on in the course of our meetings. If you have sort of a holistic view of the 24
scope of topics that we consider and I’ll shortly give you a list, I am curious how this plays into 25
the environmental impacts which relate to things like traffic and parking and impact on schools 26
and infrastructure and the biology and natural resources of the area and wildlife, and so on. Air 27
quality, water, public works, and so on. But among the topics that we have taken up a very 28
serious study include the Rail Corridor Study, the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, obviously 29
there’s a lot of tension on the possibility of High Speed Rail, El Camino transit, the Grand 30
Boulevard. We’re, on our upcoming agenda we’ll see the California Avenue Concept Plan. 31
We’ll see the Downtown Development Cap and maybe more work on the Arts and Innovation 32
District proposal. 33
34
There’s concern about, in the Housing Element, about Below Market Rate housing. Assistant 35
Director Aknin talked about in response to an earlier question that you have sort of, that housing 36
relates to jobs/population imbalance relates to the importance of regional connections, proximity 37
to transit, housing proximity to transit, jobs proximity to transit. And all of this kind of goes to, I 38
mean the environmental impact is really a very focused analytical study, but it goes to the quality 39
of life and the character of the community. And so and I’m imagining that although 40
Commissioner Alcheck had the data about the extent to which changes happened in the past or 41
didn’t happen at different times in the past, I suspect that we’re going to see more changes in the 42
future and hopefully those are going to be positive changes and changes that we manage 43
successfully. So I guess my question about the environmental impact is if there’s any sensible 44
way to look at it not in isolation as it relates to housing, but how it relates to these other 45
important concerns to the community along these other master plans and studies and concept 46
plans and so on that we and the Council and staff work so hard on? 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Martinez: So where was I going with my question about what are the impacts? You know 1
I understand that we want to move on beyond our Housing Element and having this Neg Dec is 2
an important part of it. But this is also one of the places where we can have a discussion about 3
what would it be like if we were building 2,000 housing units downtown, Cal Avenue, El 4
Camino Real, and not skirt away from well less than significant to it’s only a study, it’s a plan, 5
it’s on paper, it’ll never happen, probably never happen, we don’t have to do this. But I think 6
what it would do is that it would inform the discussion for the next cycle and with HCD and with 7
ABAG that this is what we would really have to do to meet our housing allocation. 8
9
So what I’m trying to say is that maybe this is the place. Let’s move the category over to the left 10
and say this under land use planning this could have significant impact without these kinds of 11
mitigations if we built 1,000 units downtown we would have to do something about 12
transportation and this is what the impacts could be. The impact on our schools, the impact on 13
our sewer… it could be theoretically large, but it also points to the unlikeliness that this would 14
happen and so we go into the next cycle with another 2,000 units that we have to spend the time 15
and effort to prepare a plan which goes into the next one and it gives us the opportunity to begin 16
a dialogue with HCD and ABAG that says there’s got to be a better way for One Bay Area 17
community to address commuting and housing needs and where people work that’s more 18
reasoned than this; that this is not taking us to where we need to be. 19
20
And I’ve suggested maybe it’s, we’re going to continue to be a job center, but Mountain View is 21
much better at building housing for us and that’s half of the commute from San Jose and so the 22
way we look at jobs to housing imbalances is really more regionally and not on what can we do 23
with the cost of land and the limit, supply of vacant land and so maybe it isn’t environmental 24
review. Maybe we need to put that to rest, but it’s one possibility. And rather each time where 25
we can say, “Well, it’s less than significant, let’s close it out,” let’s take the opportunity, the 26
challenge to say, “Well it could be significant,” and therefore we need to say here is what it 27
could be and what the conversation should be going forward for the next round, the next time we 28
have to do this. Because we’ve all agreed and you will all agree that we don’t, the likelihood of 29
us building housing of that nature in this cycle is very, very remote and we need to find another 30
way in which we can do this. So Commissioners… yes, Assistant Director Aknin. 31
32
Mr. Aknin: I would just like to clarify one thing. When doing a cumulative impact analysis 33
within an environmental document you do have to take into consideration things that are going 34
on in nearby communities and that’s something that we do look at within our documents. So if 35
something’s going on on the other side of the border on Menlo Park that impacts traffic along the 36
El Camino Real that is something that we have to look at within an environmental document and 37
something that’s not ignored. 38
39
And the second thing I’d like to touch upon is with CEQA and doing the environmental analysis 40
I have a feeling by the time we get to our next Housing Element cycle there’s going to be 41
changes within CEQA and that’s something that we do have to track closely as a city. And my 42
guess is that, you know, there’s been a lot of talk especially related to infill housing and potential 43
categorical exemptions for infill housing and I think the general theory behind that and why 44
there’s a lot of pressure to categorically exempt or create laws at the State level that categorically 45
exempt local infill housing is that they believe the intent behind the law is that any localized 46
impact is far less of an impact then the regional impact the large commutes are having within 47
regions within California. So I think that’s something that we’ll end up seeing and end up 48
City of Palo Alto Page 24
participating in a discussion at the local and State level on is that as CEQA legislation is 1
proposed. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Panelli. 4
5
MOTION 6
7
Commissioner Panelli: I’m going to take this opportunity to make a Motion to approve or I’m 8
sorry, to recommend. Pardon me; I need to be very clear about that. A Motion to recommend 9
the adoption of this HCD approved Housing Element. I’m going to speak to this Motion though. 10
11
SECOND 12
13
Chair Martinez: Can we get a second? Motion by Commissioner Panelli and second by 14
Commissioner Keller. 15
16
Commissioner Panelli: Thank you. 17
18
Ms. Silver: And just as clarification I assume you also include the recommendation of the 19
Negative Declaration. 20
21
Commissioner Panelli: Yes, I’m also making a Motion to approve the Negative Declaration as 22
part of this recommendation that we adopt. It’s interesting to talk about this in the Housing 23
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. I’m sort of used to thinking of a plan as something you, to 24
map out the future and this is more of a, well it’s five and a half years of historical record and 25
maybe a year and a half of planning. And I understand there are things that are contributed to 26
that. I sincerely hope that we can achieve this goal of as I understand it submittal by December 27
2014 (interrupted) 28
29
Mr. Aknin: It’s approval actually. 30
31
Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, I know. I understand that. That seems, given what we’ve 32
experienced already that seems ambitious. But I like that ambition. I’m hesitant for us, there are 33
many reasons to approve it. It’s a good package. I also think it’s a poor use of resources to 34
continue to spend time on something that is effectively a historical record now. I’d rather see us 35
focus our time, staff’s time, on the future, which is the 2015 to 2022 plan. I also think it’s a 36
really interesting timing issue in that the next Housing Element can be done in conjunction or in 37
parallel with the development and finalization of some of the specific plans with downtown and 38
California Avenue as well as hopefully a little bit more clarity around things like High Speed 39
Rail. So I think it actually, the timing works out really well. So I’d just rather spend more time 40
on what I think our esteemed Chairman has said before, which is I want to spend more time on or 41
we should spend more time on policy and holistic planning. And I think focusing our energies 42
on that is, there’s a better return on our investment. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller on your second? 45
46
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I have taught computer programming and one of the 47
things I’ve taught my students is that spending more time on planning reduces the 48
implementation time, but I think this is taking it to a little bit of extreme. But, I think that this is 49
City of Palo Alto Page 25
an excellent report and it produces, it represents excellent work by staff and by members of the 1
public that contributed and by the various members over a period of time by the Commission and 2
by the Council and other bodies that have reviewed it. So I think that this is something that we 3
should at this point approve and certainly not approving it as we’ve pointed out is too onerous a 4
thing to do even if we were, even if we thought it was not a great thing. And I’m not saying we 5
do think it’s not a great thing, but even if that were the case it would be too onerous not to 6
approve at this point. 7
8
So I hope that next time we do earlier planning so we have more time to see the effects of the 9
Comp Plan, I mean of the Housing Element over the planning cycle and that we as suggested by 10
the Chair actually do a more thorough analysis of what the cumulative impacts are and what 11
things would be like if we built it to that level. And I think that that exercise will be very 12
instructive when we get to the Comp Plan, the Housing Element that starts in I guess 2023, that 13
that exercise will feed into what we do for the, to our input to ABAG for the next RHNA and 14
those policies and I think that that will be a valuable exercise in that cycle. So at this point I’m 15
pleased to recommend approval to the Council of the Housing Element and recommend approval 16
to the Council of the Negative Declaration for the 2007 and 2014 Housing Element update. 17
Thank you. 18
19
VOTE 20
21
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioners, the vote. Those in favor of the Motion say aye 22
(Aye). Ok, the Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Tanaka absent. Thank you very 23
much. 24
25
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Commissioner Tanaka absent) 26
27
I would like to see if the members, the applicant is here for 2035 and anybody else that wishes to 28
speak on it before we take a break? Let’s give the staff a minute to organize for this and then 29
we’ll move right into the next item. The third item in place of the second item if it’s… no, we’re 30
going to just. Let’s go for that. We’ll take a break after this next item if you don’t mind. Ok. 31
Thank you. 32
33
And by the way did I close the public hearing on item number and if not? I did now. Thank you. 34
35
Commission Action: Recommended approval of Housing Element as recommended by staff, 36
Motion by Commissioner Panelli, second by Commissioner King (6-0-1, Commissioner Tanaka 37
absent) 38
Melinda Coy
q~ of Palo Alto
Department o/Planning and
Community Environment
Department of Housing and Community Development
1800 3rd Street
P.O. Box 952053
. Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
RE: Removal of Program 2.2.8 and HCD Compliance
Dear Melinda, ' ... ;
, .-~;.;
Thank you for taking the time to di~9Jf~~,inepr0{1R;~~hity ofP~lo A.ltO :~ViSiQPJl t~'~;"
letter dated March 26, 2013. As c!i$9~ssed,{~he Ci~y i'Ssu~ll1itting;;afol1l1al~~vi,~i~n';i
request to remove Program 2.2.~;:ff;dm the cj;ty,'.~.,draftHous'ing)!lement ,(l11d' to rH:'Vis~its
Housing Inventory Site list. Ji'~~.Y:" ., , , , .
Removal of Program 2.2.8r 'i" ..... .......,:..":' ".,
In the March 26, 20 13 leryer,,;ione~8ft~e pr?gr~s highlighted in th~\;~ity' s Goals, PolicieS"
and Programs was Progr.~··2.2:l.8."PrOgrarit2'.'2;8 involves the rez~4J~~iof 595 Maybell
Avenue to allow for deve~'9pmePt"pf 60 uni!s of extremely 10w~p"~'~W'inc'ome senior
housing and 15 market ra~ ~ts. ...... .' . >, <, '~j'>
The Housing Element ~;Rpro~~L.:l?~pic~;ss was moving forward~lightlY a:he~d of the
Maybell entitlement pr~~~ss when the M~ybell project began receiving a .l1igh level of
interest from surroundipg':neighbors., , As the Housing Element wa~flQo~t,;1~be
considered by the City ~Q}1l1cil, Progr~m 2t2.8 in the Housing<EiemerHlJ~etune a focal
point in the process. T~e~~oncemed,xd~idents felt that approval of the Hou~mg Element,
with the inclusion of Prd'gr~ 2.&;~~ wd\l19j~~ant implicit approval,to"the'\Maybell project.
The City is concerned th~l'.t~e process isslles not override tffe policy. issues. onJl1is
project. For this reason, th~,9~ty is conside~I!g::r~!ll0ving t~~~;,pragram./ftom;:r~M~ Housing
Element while keeping the ~aybell onth~,tn~~ b¥t~tthe pehnitted de,nsity, rathertha1),
the increased density. As a siG~r:~pte, tp.e MaybellPC <r~zpne, was re,cofumende~ for "
approval by the Planning and TraiI~pdttatiolr qqrniniS,sion on May22, 2013ai1d is
scheduled to be heard by the City/<;:;C>~p.cil,plr:J¥he 1;9,,2013.),he staff rep0Ii:
recommends approval. ·~·'<;t >:'
. ',' '. ,-. : .,.-,
As you know, Program 2.2.8 was a signiflcaQi'prograinas, Part0ftheCity :Ho~§ing
Element. The existing zoning allows for a totaluIl.it capc;tGi~y of 34 units.Wit4.th~
proposed rezoning, the site would yield an additional 41 un.it~oyeJ;th~ a.119''Yyd"zoiiing.
The 41 units are important because the City only had a surplus<~f37 units in its HIS. The
City has a unmet need of 1,643 units and there are 1,680 units in the HIS. With the
Printed with soy-based Inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.3292441
650.3292154
removal of Program 2.2.8 and its potential 75 units and adding the allowed by right 34
units into the HIS, the City is left with a deficit of 4 units.
Addition of201 units to the HIS
The City proposes to include an additional 17 sites to the HIS to eliminate the deficit.
U sing the City's Realistic Capacity of 20 units per acre, the total yield for the parcels
would be 201 units. These 17 sites are Service Commercial (CS) zoned parcels. CS
zoned sit~s allows for residential uses in mixed use developments with a maximum
density of 30 units per acre. The City already has a number of CS zoned sites in its
Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list. Attached is a list of the 17 proposed CS sites.
These parcels were not included in the HIS list since they did not meet the City.Council's
original criteria for inclusion on the Housing list. Primarily, these parcels were not along
the EI Camino Real corridor. However, these sites are appropriate for redevelopnlent.
Using the City'S AN (Assessed Improvements/Assessed Land Value) requirement of 1.5,
12 of the 17 sites have an AN of 1.5 or less, thus making them good candidates for
redevelopment. In addition, the sites are located along the major transportation corridor
of San Antonio Avenue with a CalTrain station a little more than .5 nliles from the sites
and a number of public bus lines.
City Surplus
With the inclusion of the 17 sites and its 201 units, the City now has a surplus of 197
units. HCD was concenled with the City'S relatively small surplus of37 units. The
larger surplus will allow the City additional flexibility in meeting Program 2.2.9.
If acceptable to HCD, staffwill make all necessary revisions and highlight the revisions
in the submitted approved Housing Element. The Goals, Policies and Programs will be
revised. In addition, the City will readjust its Housing Inventory Sites accordingly to add
the Maybell site with its existing zoning and include the 17 additional sites. If the
Maybell property were to be successfully rezoned, the City will report the rezone with the
associated affordable units as part of its Annual Housing Element Progress Report.
All other tables and figures will be revised in the Housing Element to insure consistency
throughout the document. This will include revising Table 2-57 "Progress in Meeting
Palo Alto's Fair Share of the Region's 2007-2014 Cycle Housing" and Table 2-58 "List
of Projects with Building Permit Issued and Planning Entitlement Issued by Income
Categories as of December 2012" to reflect the new numbers.
Other Minor Revisions
Staff is also proposing to remove two additional programs:
1. Program 2.2.6 '-Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for residential uses with
the density of up to 20 units per acre on GM parcels included in the HIS.
The City has two General Manufacturing (GM) zoned sites on the HIS. The City
is removing this program because residential use is already allowed on these sites
since they are within the City's Pedestrian and Transit Oriented (PTOD)
Combining District. Inthe PTOD, residential uses up to 40 units per acre are
permitted. A map has been attached for your review. If you would like to review
the City's requirements for the PTOD, you may find them online in Section
18.34.010 of the City's Municipal Code. Here is the link to the City's Municipal
Code:
http://www.anllegal.comlnxt/gateway.dll/Califomiaipaloalto ca/paloaltomunicipa
Icode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3. O$vid=amlegal :paloalto ca
2. Program 3.5.1 Enter into discussion with local churches participating in the
City's year round Hotel de Zink emergency shelter program to establish a
permanent emergency shelter in each church within a year of Housing Element
adoption.
This program was prepared to meet the SB2 requirements. However, the City has
proposed Program 3.5.2 which amends the Research, Office, Limited
Manufacturing zone district east of Highway 101 to allow emergency shelters by
right. Therefore Program 3.5.1 was not longer necessary.
It is the City's hope that with these proposed changes, the City's draft Housing Element
can still be found in compliance with HCD requirements for certification. The Council is
scheduled to review the Housing Element on June 17 with the staff report due on June 12,
so we would greatly appreciate an expedited review.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 329-2561.
~V0
Tim Wong ~
Senior Planner
CC: Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, Public Advocates, Inc.
Melissa Morris, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Attachments
, , , , , ,
"\
The City of
Palo Alto
RR,vera,2013-Q6..0517:31:55
o
HOS 2007 2014 San Anlonlo 0613 (\lcc-mapa'(jio$'(jisladminlPelllOnaIIRRlvara.mdb)
DRAFT
Additional Housing Inventory Sites
on
San Antonio Avenue
-------
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0' 900'
Thi. document i. a graph Ie represan1ation only of best available sources.
The City of Palo Allo assume. no responsibility for any errora Q1989 to 2013 Ci ty of Palo Alto
4201 Middlefield 147-05-086 I 6 I 10 I Automotive Service CS 0.32 I 1.09
710 San Antonio 147-05-090 1 5 1 8 1 Automotive Service CS (AD) 0.26 I 0.90
Antonio 147-05-087 27 41 I General Business Service CS 1.36 0.44
Automotive Service/General Business
744 San Antonio 147-05-088 25 38 Service I CS 1.27 7.08
748 750 San Antonio 147-05-089 I 13 19 General Business Service CS 0.65 0.63
760 San Antonio Ave 147-05-091 J 13 20 General Office CS 0.65 0.49
762 San Antonio
Ave_BackPortionofHengeho
IdAuto 147-05-012 20 30 Automotive Dealership CS(AD) I 1.00 I 0.00
an Antonio I I ~ngehold Auto 147-05-102 17 25 Automotive Dealership CS(AD) 0.85 2.95
768_790_796A_San Antonio
Ave 147-03-041 11 17 Automotive Service CS 0.57 0.82
780 San Antonio_Oil
Changers 147-05-092 8 13 Automotive Service. CS 0.42 0.37
792 796B San Antonio Ave 147-03-042 9 13 Personal Service CS 0.43 1.96
147-03-038 9 13 General Business Office CS 0.43 I 1.64
n Antonio Ave I 147-03-043 9 13 Personal Service CS 0.43 I 1.14
816 814 San Antonio Ave I 147-03-039 9 13 Automotive Service CS 0.44 1 0.18
824 San Antonio Ave 147-03-040 0 13 3 Story Commercial School CS 0.44 2.20
840 San Antonio Ave 147-03-064 10 15 Automotive Service CS 0.49 0.12
910 Charleston Rd 147-03-065 10 14 Eatinf:! and Drinkinf:! CS 0.48 1.43
The City of
Palo Alto
twong,2013-06-0615:46:42
GM PTOD (\lco-maps'Qis$'Qi.ladminlPersonantwong.mdb)
Pedestrian and Transit
Overlay Development
(PTOD)
Combining District
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--0' 456'
This document is a graphic representation only of best sources.
The City gf Palo Alto assume. no r •• ponalbilily for any errois. 10198910 2013 Cily of Palo Alto
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
The draft Housing Element has gone through a number of revisions from its initial review
with the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 11, 2012 April 11, 2012 – PTC 1. Rewrite Chapter 1
July 9, 2012 Council Meeting
1. Removal of PF sites (parking lots) from the HIS and other individual sites. 2. Inclusion of Hotel Condominiums to the HIS. 3. Delete Policy 2.3 and Program 3.1.12 of the 4/11 draft
4. Revise Program 2.2.2
January 29, 2013 Staff Response to October 18, 2012 HCD letter added the following programs. 1. Programs 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.2.2, 2.2.7 - Lot consolidation programs
2. Program 3.5.2 – Designate ROLM(E) zone for SB2 requirements
3. Program 4.1.6 – Citywide Reasonable Accommodation
4. Program 4.2.2 – Work with San Andreas Regional Center 5. Program 2.2.8 – Rezone Maybell Ave. 6. Program 2.2.5 - Revise the CN Zoning Ordinance to up to 20 units/acre
7. Program 2.2.6 – Revise the GM Zoning Ordinance to allow for residential
8. Program 3.1.15 – Housing funds preference for Extremely Low Income
Households. 9. Program 3.1.16- Incentives for ELI developments. 10. Program 3.1.5 – Preserve affordable housing stock
11. Program 3.1.17 – City contact with affordable developments with a high risk of
conversion
March 26, 2013 letter St 1. Additional text to fulfill AB 1233 requirements
2. Program 2.2.9 – Site development monitoring program
3. Program 3.1.14 – Evaluate BMR program
June 5, 2013 letter 1. Remove Program 2.2.6
2. Remove Program 2.2.8
3. Remove Program 3.5.1
Attachment M