HomeMy WebLinkAbout0139.095•
TO:
FROM:
, -
---
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Summary Report -------
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Phmnlng and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: February 0, 1995 CMR:1J9:9S
SUBJECT:
REOUFSI'
Comprehensive Plan Advisor)' Committee'. Draft Goals, Policies
and l'rcgraIJIs for the Ne ... Compcehenslve Plan -Re5poDS< to
CouocD Request fO<' AMitionallnformllOOn on Housing Issues
This report responds 10 questioos r.ill;ed at the Council'. January 30, 1995 meeting
regarding legalization of existing second 1Illlts (Amnesty Program), map references and
site locations, and the relatioDlihip of Comprebensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC)
recommendations 10. November 1, 1994 staff report (CMR:488:94), ·PoIicy A1teJ'Illltives
for Providing Hoosing Within Palo Alto.·
nroMM!}NDATIONS
ConsisteD! v.i!b earlier staff reports on the Comprebensive Plan. staff .. .!ppOl1S the concept
of an amnesty program for illegal second units. Information 00 implementation of such
• program is outlined in this report. Specific map is= are 10 be dealt with by the City
Council after completion of iliitial rev1ew of the Draft IV Goah;, Policies and Programs.
. The Plan!:iing Commission is cond.'1Ulng work: on map issues wj!h further
recommendations coming 10 the Council this spring. Further exploration of issues raised
in the November 1 staff report (CMR:488:94) has resulted in refired and additiooal
impIemen!atioo conceplS that could appropriately be considered for expanded or new
prognuns for the Draft Comprebensive Plan. Tbooe concepts are described in the
attacbed in-<lepth staff report.
POUCY IMPLICATIONS
As v.i!b other parts of the Draft IV GcaJs, Policies and Programs. potential
ComprebeDliive Plan actions conWn a variety of policy implications. lIlstitution of an
illellaJ second.mil anmesIy program would be • major City pelky change. Changes 10
the land Dlie map for specific sites respond 10 and reflect City policies. Policy issues in
the November 1 .laff report incbde the extent the City .'loold control the specifics of
Paz. t III 10(
,. '.' _f
• >~ ~"-~.'
., ..
9
. --.. -~~-
.:--
future developmelll (generalized rules that allow considerable latitude in !he type of
housing ~ the land owner!developer wlsbes 10 propose I!> rules that estal>'Jsb the
expecled housing product and the nature and extent of the design review process (from
detailed e>:peetltions 10 minimal design review for proposals that fit !he zoning
regulations and from reliance OIl preset City developmeDl rules with limited discretionary
review 10 proces."'" that allow the developer great fle:<lbility in the type of housing
product 10 be proposed. but give the City substantial discretioo in the review process).
JOOI£I!ID'E SUMMA8X
The allacbed irHlepIh staff report identifies a p<>Iential approach to use if !he council
wants the City 10 implement an amnesty program for illegal serond units. It is not
possible to accurately estiIruite the nu,nber of suell units, b.!t staff believes !bat !here are
at least several hundred. These units are primarily IQcated in the older section; off the
City, OOt some are probably located in all resKiential areas.
Maps discussed at the JOI\U2rj 30, 1m City Council meeting are attached. The PlannIng
Commission continues to worll: on map-related recommendations. The Council is
sct.eduled 10 review !he maps at the conclusion of the initial review of draft goals,
policies and programs. If the Counc>] wishe> 10 conduct • detailed review of potential
housing si!l:s at the current srage of !he text review process, notif.calion of affe<:1ed
property owners should precede that alSCUSSion.
Regardi"8 information related 10 the six Policy Alternatives identified in the November
7, 1994 staff repon (CMR.:488:94), I recent bistocy of multiple family zoning is
provided. The nruJtiple fam.ily regui.ations adopted in 1981 substantially tightened the
zoning rules and bav. not functioned particularly weU. The regulations and "banging
market perspectives bav. =ibuted to a general inability 10 produce housing in
commercial areas and P'.anning C«nmission, ARB and publK: dissatisfaction with the
housing products being proposed and developed. The curren! regulations do not provide
po ed"1Ctability 10 ei!her the developer/property owner 0< neighbors. The regulations li.ave
also coorributed to in<:reased use of the Planned Community zone.
A series of implementation options are described, in<:luding:
1. Rewrning 10 more flexible early 19805 zoning rules;
2. Creation of prototype housing regulations for identifialJle housing types (e.g.,
small \0( single family, townhouses, garden apartments, higher density urban
multiple family);
3. Creation of a Form Code Ih.1t would li.ave ill osuaooos accompany site developmeDl
regulations;
.. -.~--..• ':>
-,--::.~~(::~~'<
-" "i,~
. I' ... "
_.-".: ....
. ..
h&<2olU
,
". CRaticn of • Pl=ned Development Ifl.strk."1 IlIat .. 'OUld combine de<;ga flexibility.
I ~ review process and not have a public benefit finding; and
S. Use of coordinated a''''' plans as recommended by CPAC and the Planning
Commission.
The .ix November 1 Polley Alternatives are ~ with related observations aDd
CP AC recommendations. Also identified are potential solutions 10 the issues raised in
dlC: policy allernatives and observations. The potential 8Oh;.tions are pres-onte<l rot as staff
reo;:ommendatioos. but rother as an expanded range of choices for Council considenltion
in identifYing items for the draft Plan. If the Ccuncil wishes 10 pursue scm. of dlC:oe
ooIutiom. specific wording for the draft Plan would be pr"IY.miI. Potential housing
deve1opment-related 8Olutioos include:
• Creation of .. small lot single family housing proto!ype zone for use in
multiple family (and perhaps some single family) areas;
• Establish. PIatmed Development (PD) zone that does not require a public
benefit finding for residential uses;
• For rommercial areas where higher densily housing is appropriale. return
10 the less res1rictive rommercial zone multiple family regulations in use in
the !.ale 1970sfearly 1980s;
• Elimination of the Site and Design review requirement (Le., ARB, Planning
Commission and City C<luncil) for mixed use commercial and housing
projects {i.e., rely on the ARB review process}; and
• Establish as port of the funprebensive Plan a prioritized listing of areas
where area plans should be prepared and/or housing prO!D!ype zooes
developed and applied.
Additiooal "solution' comments are made regarding the processes 10 identify commercial
properties with reskIential potential; ef:mination of design review for some types of
residential deveJopment; C<JUIICii clarification of wbether market role hoosing should be
regarded as having inheRnt public benefit; and Stale Legislaeve changes.
FISCAL IMPACT
AdopIioo of a new ComprebeliSive Plan will result in poIellliaUy signi.ficant impacts on
City expenditures and City revenues. F1SC3l analysis will be conducted during
preparation of the draft Plan.
Pac-J 0114
E!.jYJB.QNMENTAL AS£ESSMFNT
..... EDviwmnenllll Impact Report will be prepared 00 the draft Plan thaI emerge,; from
1Ile public review aDd S1l~ goal, pOO.."')I and program direction given by the City
Council.
PREP ARE!) BY: 1~ E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning OffICial
Keooeth R. Schreiber. Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: "&nnt«< e..ld.4~"
XE!>.'NETH R. SCHREIBER
Direclor of Planning ODd
Coo:munity Enviromnent
. "--..
. 'f,f
,
•
.-.
) .-,.,.,-"
": ,
City Manager's Report (In-Depth)
SIJBJECT:
RF,C0MMENDA1l0NS
Coosis!e!lt with earlier staff r<:pD<1S on !he Comprehensive Plan, .taff supports the concept
of an amnesty program roc illegal second IlIIits. Information 00 implementation of such
a program is outlined in !his report. Specific map issues Ire 10 be dealt with by the City
Council aft.er completion of iIlimI review of !he Draft IV Goals, Policies and Programs.
The Planning Commission is oootinuing wack on map issue. with further
recommendation> .:aning 10 the Council thls spring. FnrtI!ec exploration 0{ issues raised
In the November 1 staff report {CMR:488:94) bas resulted in refined and additional
implementation concept! !bat can be considered !o< expanded 0< new programs roc the
Draft Comprebensive Plan.
BACKGROUND
At the January 30, 1995 City Council meeting, several issues were raised by the Council
related 10 recommenda!ioos In the CPAC Goals, Policies and Programs. These included
questions regarding the legalization 0{ existing >ecood IlIIits (Amnesty Program), a
'l'le.."fIon on fIIlij> references and site locations, and the relationshlp 10 the CPAC
recommendation> 10 CMR:488:94 -"Policy Alternatives roc Providing Housing Within
Palo Alta" as prepared by the Ecooomic Resource Manager.
POUCY DIPLICATIONS
As with <>!her parts of the Draft IV Goals, Policies and Programs, potential
Comprebe!lslve Plan actions contain a variely of policy implications. Institution of an
illegal second IlIIit amnesty program would be " map City policy change. Cbanges 10
the land use fIIlij> roc specific sites respond 10 and reflect City policies. Polley issues In
the November 7 staff report include the exteDt the City should contrd the specifics of
Mure deve~DI (generalized rules !bat allow considerable latitude in the type of
. .housing product the land ownerldeveloper wishes 10 propose 10 rules that e.tablish the
. Cxpect.ed housing product and the nature and extat 0{ the design review process (from
detailed expectations 10 minimal design review roc proposals :hat fit the zoning
regulalions and from reliance 00 preset City development rules with limlted discretionary
review 10 processes that allow the developer gr ... t flexibility in the type 0{ housing
product 10 be ~, but give the CiIy substantial discretion in Ille review process).
.: '
~.~~,{:::., . ~
. J __
\,
~ ~ :
hi' 5 or 24
.-,:
mS<Jrss'QN
J £PUnting of EIipjqg Second Unit, (Amnesty Procnwl
Dlega! units c:oosist pr1marJy of un:mthGrized socon<l kitchens installed in • legally
coostructed single family dwelling OI an accesSOQ strucNre, usually. garage, converted
to a dwelling unit. In all cases, the wOIk bas been done v.ithoot benefit of applicable
permillo and OIller approvals. A dwelling or living unit is defined as any building OI
portion thereof thaI contains living t-.dlities, including provisions for sleeping, eating.
cooking and sanitation for no( more than ooe famt,"'y. Provisions for rooidng iocJude an
oven, stove or microwave and provisions for sanitation include a sink, water closet and
• tub. OI sbower. Enf<m:emelll of rest6.."lioos against illegal dwelling units almost always
focuses on removal of eating Cae Dities and/or removal of one of the three sanitation
facilities.
It is impossible to know bow many illegal units exist in Palo Alto. Staff. estimate is that
!hen: ar. at 1east severa! hun<:lred such umts. These units are most likely to be found in
older sections of !he City, inc:ud"l1Ig Barron P-.... k, College Terrae", Dowlltown Park
North, Evergreen Park, and South of r-orestiProfessorville. It is likely thaI some illegal
second units are located in all areas of Palo AI1o.
Current City enforcement procedures respond to compIainIs submitted 10 the City. In
recenl years, staff bas received about 20 10 2S complain~ • year. When an illegal second
unit is bind. staff requires at 1east removal of one of the utility fixIureo, thus removing
the fiving un.'t sta~JS. In addition, buillfing code violations are required 10 be removed
and, where applicable, required parking areas (i.e., garages) restored.
Regarding bow such • program could be implemenred, staff 1'.... rev'.ewed similar
programs that have been implemenred by the cities of Los Altos and San Mateo.
Implementation steps cooId include:
I. The Council adopts an ordinance creating the amnesty program thaI indudes the
specific criteria for accepIaDCe of an applic<ltion for approval. The criteria should
inctJde:
A. Designation of the Umform Housing COOe (UHC) as !he applicable code for
the program. The UHC is not compa.. ... ble to !he Umform Building Code.
It is intended to apply 10 all existing residemial units and anything Ieos than
the UHC is grounds for declaring the unit substandard housing and subject
to abatement or repair.
B. Establishment of parldng or other zoning requirements.
•
C. Deflllition 0( tbe scope 0( the program, wbkh would most likely be Iimlted
10 second units in single family sln.'Ctures or in detached accesS<><)'
struclUIes located on lots with a single family borne.
D. Estab!ishmenl of I ....moow 0( opportunity 10 apply (e.g., 6 months}.
2. An owner meeting !he criteria applies for a permit 10 legalize the second unit.
Application includes I site plan an:! floor plan.
3. A fee is P"id 10 cover the cost 0( • contract inspector lO provide consistency in
in<pec1lon and recools search and 10 limit impact on eiliting inspection w""k load.
4. A permit is issued and an iIlspection performed 10 verify compliance with the
UHC.
S. Corteuions 10 bring the unit in compliance willl the UHC are made, if necessary.
6. Upon completion, • document would be recorded with the Coonty Clerk's property
record. designating the second unit as I legal dwelling.
An cp!iooaI element would be 10 establish a fine (e.!., $500, $1,000) for any illegal
second units discovered after the amnesty window closes.
CoonrD Member R9'fJ!bpum's Map Rwoesl
CoonciI Member Rosenbaum requested an ~xplanation 0( the first staff comment 00 page
2 of the Housing Section. This comment references a map (attached Exhibit A) titled
'Proposed Land Use Changes.' The map speci&s oppor!W!ities fur increased density
for housing in the immediate areas surrounding the neighborbood commercial and transit
centers. AnoIber attached map (EuulJ;t B) which accompanied the Housing Section is
titled 'New Multi-Family Housing Sires.' It also includes an sites which have been
suggested for additional housing potentiallhroughout the CPAC process. This map was
attached 10 the PoIi<:y and Program documeDl and it includes sites wbkh were derived
from several sources: I) the three community worksbcps; 2} the Dream Team chare!le;
3) the Stanford University planning pr"""'s for the Sand Hill Corridor; and 4) the Ad
Hoc Housing Committee established by staff in 1992 10 "xplore new housing site
opponunities. The Planning Commission is currently doing their review of the map
exhibits wid! !he inteDI 0( m:ommendiIlg new potential areas or sites for consideration,
or conversely 10 recommend remcval of unwanted areas or sites. The Council has
adopted a process which includes reviewi!lg the map exhibits at the cooclusion of their
initial documeDl review, and the Commission '$ recommendations will be available at that
point in the process.
.....70124
;',
'. "\ -:
~. '\' 'c ". ~
")~:--.~,'"
: '"--
It is DO! staff's inlenl 10 have 1M Council make sUe specific decisions during review 0{
!he Housing goals, policies and programs, but rather to oblain Council eodocsement 0{
!he policies and programs, using the maps l<> assist in locating Ihe gener.tl geographic
areas where nrious policies would apply. In !he case 0{ potential housing sites, the large
scale maps are con<;idered sufficiently general to acrompIisb thls goal. If !he Council
desires 10 conduct I detailed review 0{ !he potential housing sites at Ihe individual parr.el
level at this stage 0{ the rev1ew process, DO!ificafion 0{ !he affected property owners
should precede lhat discussion.
CMlt:488:94 -IJPnIicy Alternatives For PrnyHtlng Housipg Within Palo Alto"
To better IllIderslalld the current CompreheIlSive Plan and Zoning regulations, staff
believes that • synopsis 0{ recent changes in zOning reg-olations and market cooditions
which have affected multiple family housing in Palo Alto would be helpful. Additionally,
an overview 0{ some 0{ !he potential implementatioo Iools avail. bl. 10 CotlIY-il for
carrying out fu!ure policies and programs might be nseful.
R'tts"t If'rstory 01 Moltiple FemRy Zooin ,
The J 978 zoning ordinance's residential zones contained reasonably large potential
buikrmg areaslvolumes 10 provide developmen! flexibility, with !he expectation lhal the
maximum building v,,!urnes would seldom be deveioped. In !he 1980s, proposed
residential developments began 10 routinely "fill the zoning box,' with related
neighborhood and broader community objecfions 10 the proposed housing because the
deveJopmeru's sizeIvisuaJ impact were ·llII3CC<lp!able.· This developmenl situation led
10 the significant tightening o{!he 'zoning box' in boIh single family (1989) and multiple
family (\987) disIrlcts.
The multiple-family regulations were changed in 1987 10 include lower heigh! and
daylight plane requiremen .. and greater setbacks, common usable open space, and private
balcony requirements. The prlmary assfiIDpOOn used 10 develop the new regulations were
iliat housing redevelopmeJll would occur on relatively large parcels in Sooth Palo Alto,
such as !he Traynor-Hill property, the Cameo Club site and !he Elks Club, many of
which are adjacent 10 single family residential neighborhoods ",here 6,QOO.square-fO()( 10(
patterns and single-story houses are !he prevaleIll context. The City Council adopted
Wee districts out 0{ fuur lhat were ''CCOIIlInended. Using the three a1Strlcts available.
RM-1S was placed on !he land use map adjacenl to R-l and near Neighbochood
C.ommercial. The RM-30 atstrict ",as nsed between RM-lS and commercial zones or the
RM-40 zone. The RM-40 was reserved for a~acenllo !he higl-.er intensity University
and California Avenue commercial alStricts. The recommended RM-SO zone was
eliminated. The housing prototypes being built at the time were • suburban., • with ei!her
stacked unit condominiums or large Iownbouses with two parking spaces per unit.
Parking was assumed 10 be handI<:d at grade for Iow-<lensity, semi-<lepressed v.'iIh or
····:{'>B:.·
,:."1 .::
\
. \
.. \ .~
't
.\ f
,... •• nc
/"
.~ , ,
l
•
without some at-grade for mediwn«nsity, and below grade for high-density. The
regulations for commercial districts were amended 10 refer directly 10 the new zone
districts by reference. Housing within the commercial districts, inclu<flIlg mixed DSe, is
permitted with die use of 1llese suburban site development regulations.
The martet for conOOminiums cfmllnished in the late 19805. Before the financing market
became • constraint, the new regulations were ,,--<cd in several instances. Most projects
being pr~ were IOwnboose units, attached oc detached. It was possible 10 achieve,
with 1OWnbouses, much lower density {i.e., units per acre} 1han &!lowed within !he
various mnltiple-family zones while using most or an oft!Je 2liowed floor area. AJ. these
lower densities, most projects have been built with surrac.: parking.
The currenl multiple family zones do not provide predictability 10 either the
developer/property owner or neighbors. That is because the reg'.1lations are defined by
physical development parameters, IS opposed 10 expec!ation of product type. Foe
example, !he City's RM-30 wiling aJ]Qws any housing product type that does not exc=!
thlny units 10 the acre, and the tools applied 10 the zoning speak 10 maximum building
height; allowable floor area ratio; required open space; front, rear, and side )'ard
SC'.backs; etc_ What is allowed to be btiilt on an ll,.'d-30 zoned property can be anything
from conventional 6,OOO-square-foot-lot single family detached housing '" coodominiums
wilh double loaded conidon (i.e., interior hallway eDlrance 10 each unit) 00 podium
parking. If !he homebuilder purcbased the property wilh the expectation of doing the
above-described condominlum project. and by a combination of public review process
andfor rigld development regulations, ends up builcflIlg lower density Iownhouses with
smaD private yards, t!Je home developer's expectatioos are 00( being met, and belshe may
well have overinvested in land for the project. Equ.alJy impo<tanI, nearby res!dents bave
no preOlCtabilily IS 10 the kind of housing project that will ultimately be built in !heir
neighbodlood_
Under these regulations, the Planning Commission and ARB have continually expressed
d;BSatisfactioo with !he density yield. the lack of variety in size of units offered, lack of
flexibility for creating private open space and with the manner in which the surrac.:
parking and driveway configurations dominate !he sit<; planning. The projects nsually
!un! inward and offer little "human scale" archirecture 10 !he community _ Predominanl
architectural fearures are often garage <loon or privacy or noise walls. CPAC came 10
the same conclusion os the, reviewed the regulations and housing products within the
community during their years <Jl study.
The 14 most likely future cbange areas identified in the CPAC proce<s bad cbaracteristics
quite different 1han the .i1es that were e.amined in !he 19805. Staff and citizens
concluded that !he City zoning iflStricts do not encoorage the types of development which
necessarily fit in many 0( the are .. identified IS likely k>r tbange. (Refer 10 Exllibi! C.>
r
Impkjprnfatinp <mtioos
There are any IlIIIIlber of approaches 10 modifying or expanding the implementation tools
available 10 the Cily for creating housing. Staff an identify five options whkll bave bet:ll
discussed in the CPAC process:
1) Early 19!!Os lpnInl, ReIUra. 10 the relaxed regulations of the 19705 and early
1980s, whick allowed ma.timurn flexibility and any DUmber of housing prOlotypeS
10 be ronstructed because 0( the permissive zoning envelope. Thls would require
numerous clWlges in the e:<isting zoning regula!icns that would need furtller
review by the Planning Commission and Cily Council.
2) Prototype District R"fpl.tjnns. Create new multifamily districts that are
based on idenl:ifiable housing types. For example, the fo!JowIDg housing types are
suggested for purposes of Council discussion:
A. Single family de!acbed and anacbed homes on small lots.
The puIJ>OSe of tllls zone might be 10 promote infiIi single family
developmenl in mixed housing areas wbere !here is • predominance of
single family homes, or 10 allow fur • more dense single fomily bousing
type adjaceD! 10 !raditionaI single family SIIbdivlsioos throughout the Cily.
The product type is one-and two-SIOry development (but predominantlJ
two-story) with S\l[face-only offstreet parking (generally enclosed), ",id1!he
possibilily that some units share a common wall. Tra<fllional yard areas are
subs1antialJy smaner than with standard It-I developmem:. This prototype
nsuaIly ranges between 10-IS units 10 the acre.
B. Townhomes.
The purpose of !his zone might be 10 promote infilI development in or near
single family or <>!her townhouse deve1opments, pa:"ticularly in mixed
housing areas such as OOlliIlloW\l or California Avenue, or iIoog FJ Camino
Real adjacent 10 existing neighborhoods and in lieu 0( COIIllDCrcial
deve1opmem:. The product type is one, and two-story development (but
predominanIly two-story) with offstree: surface or SIIbterranean parking.
Building clusters generally include 4-6 units, !herefur. hlgher building mass
is evidenced. While yard areas may be min!maJ, theJ are gener,,",. private,
in the form 0( fenced-in ""no., balconies or bOIb. Larger projects may
provide common open sp2Ce amenities, such as pools, spas, or chlldren's
play areas. Townllomes usually range from 10-16 units to the acre.
Pqellr.rll4
.-:-........ ""._ ... ~, ---. ---;--
... '~.' .,~,>
\
----." ----'
C. Cluster coodomin.'ums 0< garden apartments.
The purJ><m of tills zone is 10 provide for re!!lal or for-SLIe housing in I
'andscapM "garden-like" setting. Larger properties within the downtown.
California Avenue, or along El Camino Real =y be suitable for !his
product. particularly if integraJed within • COOIIIlerc[a! area or adjaceDl 10
existing IOWIIboose Of coocIominium projects. This product type is
geoerally two-and Ihree-srory development, and is cba~lerized by
multiple units wilhin a single structure, b.!1 with separate (outside} entries
10 each illIR. Covered parking is generally ganged. While patios and
bakonies may exist with individual units, open spacl' is predominantly
commoo, not private. Units are stacked, therefore projects with pcrtioos
of three·story developmeDl can accommodate loWnhouse-style two-story
units. Given the larger unit e~ of recent years, cluster
coodominiums or garden apartments u.uallly do not ."coed 20-22 units 10
the acre.
D. Urban Multiple Family Residenlial.
The purpose of Ibis zone .. -ooId be 10 allow for higher density for sale or
rental housing in appropriate oo..'IlloWn 0< CaIif<>rnia Avenue envirorunenls.
SocII projects would generally not be .'Uitable elsewhere in the City. The
product type is predominantly Ihree-aod four-story stacked units, although
four-10 six-srory projects coold be appropriate in seiect commercial and
transit station Iocatioos. Soch projects typically .xhibit inIMor hall entry
10 the UIlits and little oo-slte open space. Underground parking is IlSIIlIIIy
associated with the pro!OIype. Urban housing projects of this kind are
trad:>tiooaIIy noI appealing 10 tw<>-parenl familIes with cbildre!l. Variable
unit size can dramatically alter building massing; coosequemJy the density
of such projects could I1IIIge from 20-50 nnits per acre.
0Iber protoCypeS coold aJso be coosidered. CPAC recommendatioos include
courtyard housing, ro-housing, Iivelwor!< and mixed-use housing. The prolD(ypes
would require dIfferelll rules for different desired housing products. Zoning by
housing protDIype migbt include some combination of tra<f!tlonal site developmeDl
pararne!ers (e.g., FAR, dayligbt plane, height, ~ks), but the empbasis is on
the design type. The code would offer I greater number of housing district (i.e.,
proIotype) optioos and • study or studio.> cooId be performed 10 apply !hem to the
map, or developers could apply for zone map amendments.
This approacb woold lead to • number of expanded zone districts and/or
potentiaUyoverlay zones. It would be an expensive public effort (staff, COIlSUlt:an!
and attorney resources), but it woold allow • greater number of options tban our
Pac. II 01 14
current RM-IS, -30 and -40. Even if we "keep it .imple' and begin with ooe
additional prototype district at a time, say IOwnhou~e or small Ie< regulations, there
is much that goes into ~reating • new district 0< ov<rlay districl and in applying
iI to the zone map.
Once applied, the prototypes an lead 10 signifiCaI:t predictabilitiy for property
owners/developers as well as neighbooi. However, protolype ZOIle5 '110'.11<1 also
significanlly limit the flexibility of. owners/developers. A related CO!lCern is that
staff is very uncomfortable witih !he ability of. government to anticipa'" the
cbanging <leoires and demands of the private bousing market
3) Fono CoIk. In COIljuncfioo with proto!ype zoning 0< independelllly, adding
new districts and complexily to code5 has C2IISed some cities 10 adop< a 'form
code' . Form code provides drawings that accompany the .ite developmetll
regulations and e><plain the selbacks, beight. number of stories. open space
configurations, and parking arrangements that are required (see attached form
rode example). These code5 are much easier 10 explain 10 "JlIlIican!s and
neighbooi th!a traditional zoning regulations, butexpensiv. 10 develop. StAff does
not know the cost of. developing such code5 but e<.'llld e q>!ore this possibility with
the Compreberu;ive Plan coosultanlS if the Council <leoires.
4) PIppned Deveiooment I1'Dl Distrlct. Create I t1eUbIe PO Distr'.cl wblch
allows for • variety of bousing prototypes, but requires that the <leoign proposed
will be appropriate 10 the situation. Willi this I00I, the developer bears the costs
of woding through the site developmetll parameters for the individual project on
• =-by.ase basis. In this instance, the site developmetll parameters are
flexible, bulthe burden of. proving to the community that the proje<:t will 'fit· the
site, neighborboocl amteJ<1, etc,. is geneIll!ly carried out through an extended
public hearing process with the use of. three..rrmenslonal models. 1'hls is bow our
C\llTeIIt PC process is being used for bousing developments iliat the multi-family
regulations do oot now allow.
1'hls is I relatively ineq>ensive publk efforl and contains the maximum fleXlbilily.
It coo1<l be done in-boose with approximately SOO hours of staff time and the
support olthe City Anomcy', Office . However, it is an expensive process b the
private developer and is l1llpredictable fur aD parties.
One way of making it more predictable !o the property owner, developer and the
community is to accompany it with guideIiIH:s' for various bousing prototypes.
This was the conclusion tbat followed an unsuccessful attempt by the Planning
CommIssion and ARB 10 introduce the PO ordimnce in 1993. The PO approval
process cook! contain flndings of. coosistency y,'ith guidelines, and guideIiIH:s would
be more flexible than regulations. Staff believes iliat guidelines cost approxiotately
l'a&e 11 01%4
, -..
_/" ,.'-
'-1
/ '",'
-~ ~ '.-.. J-. -,-
1M same as p,-ototype regulations 10 prepare. Again, the COS'.s o(!his option couJd
be obtained from the Coolprehensive Plan consultalllS.
5) rnnnJ'p·ted Area "M'lS1 DevekJp coordinated area plans foe various portions
0( the City !hat are Iil<ely 10 experience or need cbange is anodier rcgu!atory
option. This process bas been studied and recommended by the CPAC and the
Planning Commission for areas 0( the community where multiple owneIlihips have
led 10 coostraiols 00 redevelopment and where clJa.'lge is "nee<kd." These areas
are Iocaled around the transit staOOllE or in mixed use a\Strlcts where the CPAC
and Commission have identified opportunities for additional housing. The
dis3dnnlage of this type c( tool is diat it is very expensive and irs success is
variable, aDd it bas not been used very often in Palo Alto. Staff estimates thaI iI
would not be feasible for the City 10 undertake more than one of these plan
assignments at a time, and they would need professional COIlSUltanI support COSIing
approximately $250,000 each. They involve the propeny owne"" businesses and
community member.; in I design process.
According 10 cities who have used these types 0( processes, they have mixed
Slr..<:e5S. The plans deal with portions of the city as whole areas, a model which
more closely fit3 reili.'y than the standard disttict zooing tools described ahove.
Because they create !hrce.<fimensional parameters for the area, they a.n take
advantage 0( coordination opportunities between private and public properties and
between pdva!e properties. They create predictability for both community,
property owner and developer because the physical outcome desired is prescribed.
According 10 other cities. those projects which q>1ickly ~ the initial plan
receive a sttearnIined review and move into construction rapidly. They allow for
concunei:li planning of the iIl1'nl.'lIUcture and public space improvemems. if any
are pImoed. The public expenditure for developing the plan can be recapIUred
according 10 state law, although the amount 10 be recaptured will depend on the
SIlC",,"! of the plans implemen!ation.
Disadvantages inclndc the facl :hat the plans become ootdated rapidly. as do other
zoning tools. However, these plans !end 10 be more difficult 10 mo<flfy due 10 the
number 0( stakeholder> who were involved in the original process. Other
juris<fl<.-OOOS recommend a builHn modification pl<1CeSS which is not legislative.
The idea 0( prescribing tbree-<fnnensionally the physical form 0( an entire area is
viewed by many as overly intrusive into the rights 0( the private property owners
within it. While the ARB oow reviews the design 0( the developmeDl on a site,by
site basis, the individual proper!} owner's needs and interests generally override
the common public interests and !he needs 0( other participams in the CilfreDl ARB
process. Communities ",ho utilize the Specific Plan or Coordinated Area Plan tool
llSIl3!ly do so at the proper!} owner's request. where property owners and the
community have deadlocked, in redevelopment, or in the case of multiple
om, 139:95
-.. ,
. "'-"
", . ~.: ..
, .'-"
.:,
.... '-
ownersblps wben the ability 10 create positive or needed cbange bas !I()( oc.c;urred
through more traditional means. It is no( usually • I0OI used in areas that are
considered "healthy' and where traditiooal zoning is working ,,'ell. One kx:al
exception 10 this is the City of Mountain VICW where the use of Area plans and
Specific Plans is the znning ins= of cboicE and widely practic<:d in many
parts of the community,
BeYkY of November 7 Po!ic:y Opt!oos
The November 7. 1994 report identified six policy alrernatives for consideration by the
City Council. Each of the policy alternatives is repealed in the following with • section
on the is..<UeS raised by the alternative, the related CPAC recolll;nendations and potential
implementation measures .
• }. Establisllmenl of standard housing zooe(s) that allow for subsiantial flexibility in
site planning, but with clear limits on density ond building mass. S!lch zoning
shoold limit the discretionary approval processes 10 design issues. since use.
density. and building massing would bE defined ",ithin the zoning regulations .•
Observations:
I-I Development consistent with the zoning requires deslgn review ooIy at the
Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB process fOcuses on boIh
design and arcbltec~=. boIh of which are related 10 builamg mass and
design.
1-2 New reoidential developmenl proposals in Palo Alto will lend 10 involve
relatively sm.all parcels. A significant number will bE adjacent 10 or in
close proximity to single family uses. Others will bE in higher densily
commercial areas. Some sites will bE adjacent 10 boIh commercial and
single family uses. Ex-~rience indicates that many of Ihese situations bave
unusual circumstances (e.g .• lot size and shape. nature o(adjacenl uses) that
do no( lend themselves 10 generalized Cityv.ide rules and e<pectations.
That is one of the reasons wby the curren! thr .... zone multiple family
reguJatOl)' frnmework is no( working well 2.-td lending 10 posh deveq.ers
10 the Planned Community zone.
1-3 Clearly deflning builamg mass with significant predictabilify for boIh the
property ownerideveloper and the neighborlcommunily can best bE
addressed with !he previously-<lescribed prototype district regulations or
from code zoning. Development of these zones and applying them to
, -.
. -~, ' --.; ~.
,'Y"c<'., t, ','
,~ " -",. ,
., >; ! • 10 • ,
" ' , \
•
specific pare<:1s will be • difficult undertaking, both 1eCbnically and in lerms
01 <:OIIJIDunity involvement.
14 ·The nature of Ille boosi.-,g product will generale signiticandy different
neighborhood/community reactions. The recently-approved resklential
reuse 01 • portion 0I1lle Times-Tribune .ile bas 21 uni", lOtalJing over
43,000 square feet 01 iloor area 00 • S4 ,~square-foot parcel. The small
\0( single family de-/elopmen: received essentially no neighborhood
objection. The small lot product and the site planning tor the project
coosklered traditional neigbbodJood patterns and was regarded as coosistem
.... ith and complementary 10 the neighborhood. A new coodominlum
structure with the same tIoor area could well have been regarded as a "high
density intrusion.· On the OIlIer band. • similar small-lot product, when
proposed by the developers of the Hyatt Cabana site. was delennined by the
project proponenI 10 be problematic afrer receiving consklerable negative
feedback in the public outreach prQre<s. inc:uding numerous comments thaI
the small lot pattern was inronsis'.ent with Ille neighborhood.
1-5 BoI.'l neighbodJoods and property owners/developers express a desire tor
predictability in the developmeDl (or usually redevelopmem) process.
DesigII and site planning flexibility lead 10, in some situalioos, boosing
products thaI generate significant <l!JI>O'ition. That opposition generates
pressure on the City to tighten the rules as was done when the current
multiple family regulations were adopted in 1987.
1.0 The revised multiple family regulalioos develop<:d in 1987, when attached
10 the commercial zones, are not yielding residential deveJopment. A major
problem is !hal the increased open space, setbacks. dayfIght planes, and
suburban parking ratios developed and incorporated into the commercial
zones in 1981 do not work in mixed use areas or commercial cfistricts.
There are two funda.'IlCntal IIlllfket reasons wby we might anticipate housing
proposals on commercially zoned land, if the zoning facilitated resklential
developmeDl. O!le is that the City's absorption of Neighborhood
Commercial zoning may well be limited to our existing neighborhood
commercial centers (!lased on the marlret trade area as defined in the
Midto'll&. Market Analysis), and the second is that the commercial real
estate market for retail and resklential is very oomparable; indeed, lower
density .... idential land currently commands even higher proper.y values
than non-specialty retail commercial.
1-7 A key facsor in the land value issue is the availability of larger properties
for either retail or res>:!ential development. Many large volume retailers
demand very large sites, which ate almost non-existelll in Palo Alto, and
-"'.""2--9 t __ ,e-s ~-..--:_"' __ --__
"1 ... _ , .
=}
.-~ -:.-:"" ' . . -' .: .-#'" ":." " .. -' .•.. -
," :::. , .
". -. -' .
. "-.• <:_._'--, .......
lhey generally pay • lower amoun! 0{ donar. per square foot of land in
romparison to specialty retail cr resideJl!ial. This would suggest that
pressures 10 use sites for housing sites would be greater tha:l for use for
major reIl!i1ers, and that is ..m.tanriatal by Ihe proposed single family and
IoWnbouse project on the closed, commercially designated Hyatt Cabana
site.
Relatal CPAC Housing Recommendations:
Policy HS-IA: Increasing the supply and availability 0{ affordable housing
should receive priority in planning decisions, so long as the p.-oposals are
eonsisllmt wit!: this Comprellens1ve Plan.
PrOgram MS-IM: Develop a p!aJmed development process, w;t1Jout
requiremeDl for • public benefit rIDding for denser uses 1llat etlCOOJ"3ge !he
construction 0{ affordable smaller lot sL"lgIe family and multifamily housing
units.
Program HS-1D7: Provide zoning flexibility 10 e1ICQIJnge the <levelopmeDl
01 smaller units aF.ordable 10 very low, low and moderate income persons.
Program HS-ID9: Permit smaller sized residemial Jo(s and smaller units
on tho5e Jo(s. Allow deveklpmenl 0{ smaller units Oil Jo(s 0{ less that 6000
SQUire feet.
Program HS-I D 14: Develop site specific incentives to eocourage multi-unit
housing on lOp of below grade parking lots. Create incentives for owners
of existing wge par'.dng areas 10 develop such projects.
Program MS-mIS: Modify parking requirements as required 10 allow
greater housing density in certain areas.
Potential Short Term Implementation Solutions (1 10 3 years):
I-I Of all the identified housing prototypes. small lot single family deve10pment
is curreotly the most popular style in the marketplace. If Ihe Council
wishes 10 be market-responsive, a short term implementation program could
be to assign this proto..)"pe ahead 0{ omen and direct staff 10 develop this
type of zoning as a permitted nse in some or all of the multiple family
zones. This curreIll pWduct is being proposed at lower (1~15 dwelling
units per acre) multiple family densities but the City bas 00 conventional
zone !bat allows this form of deve1opment. An estimate of consultant, staff
CMR:U9:95 I'qe 16 '" U
I
•
and atrorney time could be p'"vided for !his rewning assignment and it
coold immediately follow !he Comprehensive Plan adoption.
1-2 Establish a Planned Development zone that does not require a public benefit
finding for residential uses. This zone responds 10 three ConsideratioDS.
First. the City will oot be able 10 anticipate an of !he housing !) pes that the
private secIOr wisbes 10 pursue. Second, finishing !he Comprehensive Plan
and adju..<ting !he Cit)·s zoning will take time, and the PO zone is a viable,
low public-c.ost <ljlIioo. which could be initiated as aooIher initial
implementation program .!rer completing the Comprehensive Plan and
conCluded wiIhin the firs! six mooths 10 one year. Third, the existing
Planned Cooumlllity ZOO< with its public benefIt finding j; troublesome for
some policy makers.
1-3 Where boosing is appropriate v.~thin. comrnerdalarea, there should be an
underlying housing designation with process approval !bat allows for equal
Irealmelll of hoosing 10 commercial development proposals. This can be
facilitated by breaking the link between housing in our commercial ZO!lelI
and the exlsting multiple f3!llily reguJalioos by reruming 10 the less
restrictive commercial zone multiple family regulations present in the late
19?Osfearly 1980s, which the curren! Comprehensive Plan assumes. This
would recogl!ize that within commercial areas a more urban style multiple
family product (e.g., little if any common open ~, reduced or no
setbacks) is acceptable. Again Ihis legislative assignmen! could be
undertaken immedilo./iely after completing the Comprehensive Plan.
1-4 Another 1981 ZODe regulation change was 10 require Site and Design review
0( mixed use developmenlll. This added process and inc=sed perception
0( developer risk discourages mixed use development. Currem lencfmg
institution practice and real estite marketability of mixed use projects work
against such developments; the outside prCSSllres 10 create oppornmitics for
mixed use projects is already minimal. From an urban design pel1lpective,
however, an accommodation 0( mixed use proje..cts is highly desirable,
particularly if such projects are subjected to an approval process which has
a higl-.er degree of predictability_The Site and Design review requirement
could be eliminated for mixed use projects with reliance "" the same ARB
design review process as appIles 10 commercial projects.
Medium 10 Long Ra!>~e Implementation
I-S Recognize the need (especially for areas where the City wisbes 10 encourage
cbange) for more deIaiIed regulations that confront the issues of flexibility
and predictability. Establish, as part of the Comprebensive Plan, a
CMIl:I]9,95 hp 17 or 14
fiJ.&i!iS F Y 1 .;o..oo;:;>~~--
prioritized listing of areas where area plans should he prepared and/or
housing pro!o!ype zones developed and applied. S!2 ff would develop a
work program and schedule for accomplishing tb" Council prioriIies.
'2. A.\ part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, identification of appropriate
commerci.JII zones. and within them, the desirable location of housing in-lie1! of or
in conjunction with commercial. M"", sue<:inc!ly, all area. a,!!icipated 10 be
developed oc redeveloped should be evaluated for their appropriateness for
commcrciall1.."', housing ill lie!! of rommercial use, or mi"ed lISe. Where housing
is app,opriate, the applicable lllIOOrlying residential zone should be incorporated.
Approv2i processes sboold be defined for each type of development, and all
required discretiooal)' review processes, particularly for housing only projects,
should be mjnjmal .•
2-1 The CPAC workshop processldenlitied 14 <bange areas tbrooghou! the Ci!y
in the next IS 10 20 years (Exhibit C). From these, three commerci.al!
mixed use areas were endorsed by the Council for concentrated analysis.
TIlcse were MidIOWll, South EI Camino R.eaI from Arastradero 10 Curtner,
and the CaliforniaIVentura Area including the east side 0( EI Camino fram
California 10 FerDllIldo. Another 'clIange IJU' was studied during the
Dream Team effort and CPAC incorporated the resuits of that planning
analysis in their C.ommunity Design recommendations. Private planning
efforts. like the StmfooI Sand Hill Corridor process and the Hyatt a,bana
redevelopment proposal. are being brough! forward by the private property
owners. Finally, the results of an Ad Hoc Hoosing group. established by
staff in 1992. were referred 10 the CPAC for thek consideration. The
results 0( all of these private and public efforts were assembled onto a
single eJ<h.ibit. Sp<cilic potential m.ident:i.al sites are identified in the
eJ<hibiL The Planning Commission is conducting more in~ field trips
and further r"views of potential housing sites. with tb"ir recommendations
10 be reviewed by the Council near the end of the curren! Phase n review
process.
2·2 • .tJl commercial zones in the Cily allow for deve10pment of exclusively
residenti.al projects as well as mixed residential and noo-residenti.al projects,
bowever. as DOled in observation 10{; the setback. open space, parking and
other site development regulations do DO( appear 10 work in mixed use areas
or more urban commercial zones.
2-3 For multiple family residen:ial projects consistent with the zoning
regulations, the discretionary City reviews are design review (ARB) and,
,
., "
•
-' -,'
-,:' .
~ ,"-,.:
it I subdivision is required, Planning Commission and City Cou!lCiI review
of the map. Mixed esc projects require I site and design review process
which includes the Planning Commission, ARB and City Council. The
poteotial ellmination 0( design review for residential projeets bas not been
seriously (If at all) coosiderod in the Comprehensive Plan update process,
although it bas been recognized that it specific plan IoOIs were applied so
various areas "ithln the City, design review may become less necessary and
ARB rev'.ew wookl lOcus primarily on architectural quality.
ReIaJed CP AC Housing Recommendat!ons:
Program HS-IA1: Allow for increased density for bousing in the
ilnmediale areas surrounding neighborhood commercial and transit cenlers.
Goal HS-3: Encourage a mix 0( !aDd uses and mixed use projects so
promote diversity and vitality.
Policy HS-3A: Support the mixing 0( residential above and among
commercial QSeS.
Program HS-3AI: Determine which "' .... wookl benera from the addition
0( low cost or affordable housing, particularly if such bousing can be
a.."SOC1aJed with mixed w;e buildings.
Program HS-3A2: Evaluale existing incellllves for encouraging residential
use on land zoned for commercial use 10 determine whether incentives
implemeI!led 10 dale are effective and should be maintajned and determine
wbat !leW incentives should be pro,ided.
Program HS-3A4: Create inceDlives to encourage mixed uses such as the
combination of senior bousing and child care facili&s.
PoIential Solutions:
2-1 The evaluation of commercial properties for their resideotial poIeIIIial can
rake two fOilllll. FIrSt, the Council will review CPAC and Planning
Commission map recommendations. Secood, the Council can authorize
special studies it more in-<lepth ev2luaoon of particular areas is desired.
CMR:139~
CPAC identified • large number 0( areas for future special studies
(coordinated area plans). Staff comments "n the CPAC recommendations
are contained on pages 3, 3a and 31> 0( the Community Design
recommended gorus. poIkies and programs. Staff disagrees wilh CPAC
Pac-l' '" 24
".'
---. -..: .. -..
regarding doing detailed plans ~ the SUUlfool Shopping Center 0< the three
neighborhood centers, It is ooted thai Midtown, EI Camino Real south of
Page Mill and the California AvellUc-Ventura area are the three areas where
either the private rroevelopmenL process bas not worked .... eD 0< CP AC bas
identified a significanl desire for physical change and upgrading. The issue
tor the Council is whether desired cbange is best bcililated ~y reliance OIl
the traditional City wning:privat.! developmenl: proposal/City review
process approach 0< whether desired "hang. needs a more active City
iru.erventioo.. Active iruerventioo efforts will be costly (mocey for
consultants and City slllff resources) and the Council will need 10 prioritize
any desired area studies.
2-2 Elimination of design re>;'w for some types of residenli.al development
should ooIy be ac<:ompanied ~y adop6on of • planning i00i, such as a
specific plan 0< ~ zoning. Even in this case, there cool<l be an ARB
role. perhaps restrlcled 10 arcbirecruraJ quality review ooly, or approving
desigs. enhancement exceptions ~ those projects.
2-3 See Solution 1-2 regarcrmg adoption of a Planned DevelopmeD! zone without
!he necessity tor findings of public benefit.
2-4 See Solution 1-3 regarding regulations for multiple fanu."Iy developmenl in
commercial zones.
z-s See Solution 1-4 regarding ellmination of Site and Design review of mixed
use developmelll5.
'3. Exploration of a developmelll review proce!.', as part of !be join! City
Manager/City Attorney', study, ~ milled 1lSe projects within the City's
commercial zooes. As with all housing developments, the inherent public benefit
of the housing portioo of. mixed nse project should be recognized .•
Observations:
3-1 There is an implication in !be existing C<lmprebensive Pian and CPAC
recommendations that there is inherent public benefi( in housing
developmenL However. explJcit public benefil is recogn!zed only for bel<Jw
market housing whe!ber through the BMR program 0< oIher specified
low/moderate income developments. It would be appropriate for the
Council 10 clarify whether martel rate housing should be regarding as
having inhereD! public benefi(.
CMR: U9:95 """. ZII ot Z4
•
Related C'PAC' FIou$ing Recommendatiolls:
N~ directly addrusing this reoommendatioo.
Potemi.sJ Solutions:
3-1 See Sclution 1-3 regarding relUming 10 late 197Os!early 19805 regulJ;ti.:>ns
foe multiple family developmeDl in commercial cJnes.
3-2 See Solution 1-4 regarding elimination of Site and Design review of mixed
nse developments.
"4_ The City should support tile Association of Bay Area Governments' position on
pending legislation before tile State of California 10 allocate required fair-share
boosing on tile bas' .. of regioos or su1>-regions within the San Francisco Bay Area.
The City of Palo Alto's commitment 10 its own hoIBing programs would DOt be
diminished by any cbange in allocation process. "
In !be 93-94 legislative session, tile City supported East Palo Alto in tIleir support of
legislation a1Iowing foe tile limited transfer of Fair Share Housing requirements between
adjaceDl jurlsdictions. Proposals foe tile current legislative session bave DOt been well
defined. This issue is a legislative rather !ban Comprehensive Plan issue, especially given
the assumpdon thai Palo Alto', housing commitments would DO( be diminished by any
changes in the allocation process.
'5_ The City should explore with tile S!ate of Oilifomia's Office of Housing and
Community Developmenl (HCD) tile accepIabilily of allowing an "incentive based"
housing prognun 10 satisfy a portion of tile City's housing requirements. Such a
program would incorporate !he removal of existing reguJatiolls thai impede housing
development, wbile defining • predktable approvol process foe both tile developer
and the ;::iIize!lC)' _ •
Observations:
5-1 State Housing Element law requires tile City 10 study alternatives 10
salisfying boosirog allocations including governmenraland IlOfr-governmental
constraints analysis. The re<:ommended changes can include anything from
revil;lng site development regulations 10 proviamg incentives \() encoorage
boosing. These changes can be used 10 gain approval of the Housing
EIemeDl by HCD, however. satisfying this requiremeDl does DOt redoce the
obligation under State Jaw 10 identify adequate ,ires foe the fair sbare
housing allocation. MIXfIfying!he adequate sites requiromeDl would require
Stale legislation.
.5-2 Discussion 0( Poticy Ahernative. I, 2 and 3 directly relates 10 process and
incentive issues.
Related CPAC Housing Recommendations:
Program HS-IA3: Develop a planned developmenl F''OCeSs, without
requirement foe a public benefil finding for der;ser uses t!la! ellCOUJ'llge the
coostrucdon 0( a!fordable smaller Io! single family and multifamiJy boosing
urnts.
Progwn Hs-ID1: Provide zoning (..,xlbili!) '" encourage the development
of smaller units affordable 1G very low, low and moderate income persons.
Program HS-IDIO: Coosider, where appropriate. allowing the splitting 0(
larger lois. wkh the resullaIll lot size being compatible with the general
clwo<:ler 0( the surroonding neighborhood.
Program Hs-ID 1 S: Modify parking requrr.ments as required 10 allow
greater boosing density in cer'.ain areas.
Program Hs-3A2: Evaluate exjs(Jng incentives for enrouraging residential
use on land zoned for commercial use 10 determine wbether incentives
implemented 10 date are effective and should be maln!aincd and delermlile
what new incentiv,," sboule! be provided.
Program Hs-3A4: Create incentives 10 enrourage mixed uses such as the
combination 0( senior boosing and child care facilities .
.5-1 As DOted above, the Housing Elemenr will address inceuti. es and process
obstacles. See many 0( the Solutions identified under Policies I, 2 and 3.
"6. Expkntion of the legal and policy implications, if lillY, C!f the use 0( commercial
impact fees for acquisition 0( existing housing sucl: for use as low and moderate
income housing. E""lore the feasibility 0( Stale legislation that allows low and
mo<IeraIlo income exlsting rental hoosing acquisltion prugrams 10 meet Stare of
California HCD requirements for the 'creatioo' of tbls type ()( housing.'
--.' .-
6--1 The Housing Corporation'. Rental Housing Acquisition Program (RHAP)
has been in existence .iIlce 1980 and has added 91 unit! 10 the low income
housing slOCk.
6-2 The RHAP Program has proven 10 be as or more expensive I1Ian new
constructioo in terms 0( the amount 0( Ioc2I funds added 10 the project
becaase 0( the cost 0( rehabilitation 0( eDsting p"--.perties and the
availability 0( !aX crealtS and federal funding for new coostruction.
6--3 The City, Ihrough the Cily Anomey'. Office, is exploring the possible use
0( commercial impact fees for acquisition of eDsting housing stock for use
as low &nd moderate inI:ome housing. However, use 0( funds for
purchasing existing housing will correspondingly reduce resources for
development 0( new low &nd moder.te income housing.
64 While it is very important 10 CO!l!inue efforts 10 acquire existing and
deveJcp new housing for low and moderate income households, limited
local funQ1Djl and Iil<ely decreasing federal resources mean that these efforts
will DO! yield a subt.'tantial number 0( units over the neXi 10 10 15 yea. ....
6--5 HCD 00es allow the Ci!y 10 COUD! the unit! cooverled from market rate 10
affordable as af<.ordab!e units, but !hey don'l COUDIlOWards meeting overall
Fair Share Housing numbers be.oause !hey are not new bousing units.
Related CPAC Housing Recommendalions:
Policy HS-lI: Pursue addiliow funding sourr.es 10 provide affordable
housing.
Program HS-lII: Develcp local revenue sources 10 ..:dress funding for
affordab1e housing.
Program HS-IB: Continue support and expansj,?Il 0( the City's
• Affonfable Housing Trusl FII!ld' or successor 10 be funded by fees
assessed upon appropriate programs.
Proposed SoI'~6ons:
-6--1 Council could direct staff 10 rum><' policy allermtive 6, either separate
from or as part 0( !he Comprebensive Plan update process.
CMIU39:95 ..... 2J or 24
-.
i
nsculMPACT
Adopc:ion of a new Comprebensive Plan will result in poIeDliaIly significant impacts on
City expenditures and City revenues. Fiscal analysis will be conducted during
preparation of the draft Plan.
EN\'IRQNMENTA(. M§J§SMENT
AD EnvlronmeIltalImpact Report will be prepared on the draft Plan !hat emerges from
the public: review and subsequent goa.!, policy a..'Id program direction given by the City
CoonciI.
ATIAf'HMTi:N'I'S/'flTS
Exhibit A -·Proposed Land Use Chang .. " Map
Exillbit B , "New Multi-Family H<l\Jsing Sites" Map
Exhibit C -CP AC-Idenlified Change Areas
Exhibit D -Prototype District Zones and Form COOe
a;, Atchitectural Review Board
CPAC
. ,
Planning Commission
5peakers Re Housing at 1130195 City Council Meeting
Palo Alto H<l\Jsing Corporation
•• :Il~-" •• ' IIUC~' 1-"1[1111
,~"., .,". "'...,
./
... '.~.
, .-~-. o.
Palo I t 0
CO,.,..aR I!MII ya
1'1 J-
.. __ .. '--.......
PLAII
I • I •
o f~ -... , .-2 ...... -hJIIiIJ ........
• fnxaace.' ST"~1PIIIIf-.r .. .u.:.r _ willi RIiiIIcdIIl -.....:
.... 'r1 ....... _
CTon. • CeulI']i 0 • nr-. T_ ...
_ ..... '--1Jao
o
Proposed Land Uie Chanica
",'I .... ,_~. ' ••• ,.,....~ •• ' ....... '_ "",_ ... e,' •• , ~., •• " •• '0-''' •••• r>nO'."., .. _ ... , .......
:= " ,
0'7 .:
C t, .,
P a A Ito
COY':,a. ••• ,.llva ., . , 'I.a.
-JUI
""''''l* tiM Atft'Wlf7 .......
.... It,,a4C ........ , ............... -..... , ~_, ... _ .... r ...... r
-.:-1dl .-0' ·~r:I-______ --t
Nn' MIlltl-F.mily Housin, Sites
<fj)
o 2000flT olOOO~T
In
~~(
Exhjbit C
o l'o, ... dol S",dy " .... I .. DOJf&n Wot\oohojllld .. Uflod, by ".If.
1.
2.
3. '. 5.
6 .•
7.
, "" H,
9.
10.
ll.
lZ.
,j). ,.,
Stanford Wu!lSllRford Shop,",,1 CnterISMIt Hill P.odI
SUlnf'otd Mldical Center
W*t"aVJ411 'i'r.M1t StI\ionI\IJ'Mn ,..,.
SOfNflAMP InfiU
I)owalt'!Wll NOI'tb IJ\tllt
Edllwood. Sllopplng c.nlU
Mid .....
Will liIy.bore JndWllriallEul. MellkJW CiRllIEur B.,wm: lnduItrili. .s ... Antonio Road IDdw;lriaI
QArlu'.GD. ClnlA1/SpaPg\er SdumllL"lIbbul.q
a C~1lG }(ul Corrfdw/El Camlno '.'lq Trian!'.
H.wlett Paclwd, )try'., L, PoI\Iliftl and Cou,nty Pukins Lot lii_
Alma (:orridor/AlIDI Sbopp1n.I (Wit -
Stanlon:! RllIutth PlI'kIPile Mill RDad-lU Cwuiao RaI Cornv
Camillo R_.J
~';i.
[.'"
"
"
" "
", ,
,'..'
'I
i' '
\,-
TYPE n . URBAN HOUSE ______________ -:=::-:==-____ ' __ . __ -;;;~ Exhibit.»
'-'URBAN REGULATIONS TUECODE
SIONAOJl:
I, .... \II4IIt6 '.......". ...".. .. --.. M\MIIIMIII 1Itt& .................... A~ ,."" .. ......uu.w ,..
¥Iia .w-. ~ ,.. ...... ~ • ..,. Itnv __ AIIf8Na He _ MWUINQ II PT IH ......". ........ """"" .. ~ ..... --. .. ""'...,l.'I,
l'I'Ut1J)INQ
Pt.ACJDo(EN'l'
I, -..u. N&MH. NoIU -.............,. .... ~-
~ ...... ~ ~ mil. ~_"' ..... ,. ........... ....
... ~ PJI,IWIoM .-.w.a. U'*'I:IJ ....... "... .......... ~ .. ~ -"-... .T .......... !.Am',,.,. ..
~_1N .. 1'orr,NrIR • UAI'IP'T __ Nr,ttAa ....,.._.itf' •• PIIIl1' _ !\NtH .....
liIVILJ)INQ
~
• , ~""""1IP6J( --_MWoI.""~ WffIeN .,.. ........ MaA --& .. "... MMNaI. .,. lWLMltIiIII
~ ..-._ -.... IIOWJ..
.. MIft,K _ ,.. 'II' ,.,..,.,.. -
I -;r '0 '" .... __ ",", I (;f:, "7'
I
... ....
I'IIM Iln, ... t "&fn"AQI. aun"p..DlIf 'tOil
IIIIWoIM t.aM ••• "" ",..cxm_y • ...""t' ~
......... w.r.4o MII'o .... .....u..T ~
(= 7
P.uuaNG
1, ..................................
..w.. .. fI~ 0HI.1r ..".. .,.,... ................... .. 0I( .. .....t .. ___ ___
;utM '* ............... 6-.a,. -.no ~ __ I'NUJI«Ii _ ........ . .. , ...... ..---. ................
.. ,..\M4Io,"",,"'tP"l',.
1.~ .. """''''''''''ftI" ...... _ NJJ/IN •
.. _~"'iWD
~..,.,.. .......... ,..,.
~ ,... I'MUfIo MMo .............. --~~ .. ~.
".. IWIUIII II~ H-. I.'" ........ -.,~~
"'tWA. H ..-....0.
Bt11IJ)INO USE
I. N.I-UNA a.wJ. _ " .. ~
wmt_IUl."""""W
P'IM+4IM'IftO 1.1-' ..\lie ... """""" .... .....
...... , •• IMJ .. .
! Bt11IJ)ING .
Hl!:XOHT
I ..... "'"NIO~
~~uu,u. .. .......... M~., .-.. .".. -' ~ IHM.io ..
_~'rHooVoIt.""'T""" ...... -.. ......,u....,.. MW.i. ..
MIMUMIt~_.,....
~ ........,.... """"''MH _A,.,. ...... ~ .. --,
OXNAlU> DO'WNTOWN DXS'l'lUCf MAS'l'RR »:LAN A1'JGl.1ST 1'93 DRAFT
.... ~ .... -
... til...,. __ a.t:M NT
l'AGE 9
!~'; .' ,
, ,
,J
'.--,~.
" ,
..
..
; .
' ..
\'
';',
"
.~'
•
J/
'l'YPE DI" COURTYAIU) APARTMENT
I SIo.NAo.:It
t. ...,..., • ...",. ... Wo\U. I'IMIN1'P ....... Mi,..... _10'1',
.., ~ ""H./. ... 0fI.....u.. jIINa ~ .. ,," ~I.~.
THE CODE
pANCINO
I ............ t _1""1 &ftNYlf
......,... .. ,.~~t.y~
.,....~...".,. ......
.. 1"AIWo'l'll _-. ......... 1W.Io
--~"""'" . ..,., . I."',,_~"" IlNartT _ ........ ",
.,-~-~
~ ~ •• 1MGofI'I'U
\IMIoIIO( nu. "~Q M&4
., _ ....... 0 A !oW.I ..... p."'u1
tnmAN UGULAnONS
., ....
L ~ ____ _ ~ •• " ....... ". DII"&LI.1d.
............. fllI8V\DlD.
[BUILDXNG
PLACI!:l4EN'l.'
I
I
I, flOUOla:I'AI, ..utwjPII~ AND
~_ AI4olU." "" _
1,p'I'Il IaI.I,MM. l'O fl'Ia "_,, .. "'"
UHu. ..... ,,_ .......
III, IoUl.-...q I'NI"IP8CI II"""'" u:r-U
_NQ TWIll ,...ott ..... 1,.1 ... 0 M
CI&6IqIU.'I'aD HNIA
BUILDING
EtJD(J!;NTS
i. --... •• ~, ......
--'~"'-""D
-...~ ..... UHm'UI """""'-.......... ~ _.-
.. ... ~ .....,.., .1' M/lWIIIIq
~,"""~.Ho\U,.
.. I"Wl\,T ... nul IjI1 ~ ......
.,....." II
,,"~
_""'II.a1' lWr
<:'OU .. TY .... D :;tOo!
" ,.,. M 'lr}'fT "PAI<I 1'0 Jii""t'T ,
*" I'0Io QCMIIo~ \b'TO
I'1II'f .~1 ~II,,",AQ& alJl\,b-otn' •• 111
...., ... \oMU. "III'D GtI \,lm",1I111' _NY ....
I
....
.'"
,
I
' . '"
OXNARJ) DOWNTOWN DlS'.I'R.IC'l' MAsnR Pl.\N
~=:::::::::J;:::' ::::::::====::::=:~
B'O:u.:oXNQ USE
I, WI ...... "'"""''o'ITHI .. 'floill
~ ... 6tW..~ .... AH.wN -
BUILDXNG
HltIGH'l'
t • ..........".AIt.~
~ .....................
M~"''''''''''''''''' ........ , 1L*a-I .......... &lQl1IU
1111 (If, ......... "" 0I!fIJ0M0.
AUGVST 1993 J»)l.AFl'
~/'" .
~ --J
~" -~. -OI.~y -..,.." .. -... .... ~'I'.
·~ ..... .,,.. ........ 11'.-..... 1HIII~
. ,,-~
PAGE 14
•
f';
"
I ,:' , r/
" \
I'
i,
',.,
f e,.
" , ,
i'·; "
;!',
"
~!,
~ THE CODE TYPE IV • HOUSE
, ------------~ I !'lIOl'lAGiI:
I I. alQ/llla AtW.t,. ... 'oIJU. ... .uH'NO All"'''''''. "U~. __ • tl+4t.v,
I. alQHA a~ .1. _ ... 1,11. ~ ~a_ .. 1It O"""Y.
I
r
1 13VILJ:)X!'lO
J'LACEME!'lT
I, "_"'M. ..... u.It4. ."....
.utwlllUll/ll~ I."""'" ....... ,. _
unsllflV'llN'l."'Tl-I.~""""
I
~ ,. A ..... ", IIML
I. .\,111,11""''' N,UpU AIW,l. AolflulD
_"'C/o Nil "'"'''',....,.,. "'''' .. IlIA I PYIQHo\TaIt H_
BVILJ:)XNG
ELEMENTS
.JtI .... ~III,II~fotATI»I
1'Mr Il~ .rr,D,I.fr,Q1I/fII'T 6UIDINCo --,.,..
I I'T "'11'1
t'\II't .,,,U1 ~~MIIt. .UlU)~DV'f III.
I, -.00""'" .~~ •. ""~ ..... _ ... ~"'"o
~III IHI.I.I. .. "MIU1TI.D
wm4IH ,"I. • .,."... MM "_1'1 .. "
(;.:w;, iii
...... ...-M-....M ... _fV1"l'1ID·
OH 'IHII ~1mIIrAA \,lilia, . ,,-
17.~:: .. _ '-l I ...w.I._ .. ~~~1i
~ .... ~.,...-........
a, 1"OI/WIft. ..... Iou._~
..... ~ YMl#II " ". " I, Pf" wrrH ~ fI!I .,. ......
a. '_~.N4D .,.,,.,.,..1.1.,,., ........... UfMTWI
""'"'""" ... ......,.INIII ....
•. "WO 0"" ... .,....,. ... ""' •
.,. ........... II~ ...........
.-.oM.
--
:BVILJ:)X!'lG t1!'lE
r
I. u ... ,.1IJUVT'I'V\ """"'l1li nota
1WIU11101Uo I.IUoIoI,. •• M 61'10W1't ---
i ll'OXlJ)X!'lG
HEXGHT
I, ,.,..IJM _ ~
MII\.oIIINI. ....... AHi\U.. ..
~UIlU~~"" .!'OIlIIA. ..... """ 1'It MI1iU£1 I."', ........ 'ft~ .. .,. .... a".....,..~ ..
"' ......... .......nYIlmfto. .......,. .... _~ aulVIlMft
N4IJ ...... ..,. .. .,.. NIl --
\
I
URBAN REGULATIONS
'"-
-.,,;ff§tA~
iJaiZimak·· ',' '" % i
£3-:":: ;t'" ."'-
"""I.T'fI.,V, ~
1I.!I'IotlN . ~ ,.. ~ """
==============================================================~-
OXNAJU) DQWNTOWN J)ISTRlCf MASTEl P\',AN AUGUST 19,3 DRAFT PAGE 17
• I.,