|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto will have to revise its newly adopted housing plan after the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) concluded that its latest submission remains out of compliance with state law.
In a stinging setback for the City Council, the state agency notified the city’s planning department in an Aug. 3 letter that the Housing Element that the council adopted on May 8 fails to meet the requirements of the State Housing Element Law.
The state agency’s decision means that the city will have to revise dozens of programs in the newly approved document and perform additional studies to demonstrate that housing production is actually feasible on the sites that are listed in the document.
The HCD’s determination also means that for at least the next few months the city will remain vulnerable to “builder’s remedy” development applications — zone-busting housing proposals that builders have been pitching with ever greater frequency in jurisdictions that do not have an approved Housing Element. The city has already received four such applications, including the 380-apartment project that a developer pitched last week for the current site of The Fish Market in the Barron Park neighborhood.
The letter from HCD’s Proactive Housing Accountability Chief Melinda Coy also notes that if the city fails to adopt a compliant element within one year from the statutory deadline, which was Jan. 31, the agency will not find the document in “substantial compliance” until the city completes the rezoning needed to accommodate a shortage of housing sites.
This is the second time that the HCD has rejected Palo Alto’s submitted Housing Element. After the initial rejection in March, city staff spent months revising the Housing Element before the council formally adopted it in May. City planners and council members had hoped that the new Housing Element, which took roughly two years to draft, would be deemed in “substantial compliance” with state law. That HCD dashed that hope with its Aug. 3 letter.
The HCD determination comes just as the city is launching a multi-year effort to revise the zoning code to comply with the newly adopted Housing Element, which aims to achieve the state mandate of accommodating 6,086 new dwellings between 2023 and 2031.
The changes that the new Housing Element proposes include raising the allowed density in multi-family zones and encouraging residential construction in historically commercial areas in the southeast portion for the city, around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way.
City planners are also completing a study as part of an effort to expand and modify its recently created “housing incentive program” (HIP), which grants density and height bonuses, as well as other zoning breaks, to housing developers.
The new HIP program is one of dozens of programs in the Housing Element that aim to boost housing production. Others include encouraging housing on public parking lots and church lots; allowing denser residential projects in commute corridors; and encouraging the construction of more accessory dwelling units throughout the city.
The letter from the HCD does not take issue with any of these proposed programs and concurs that the HIP is a great tool for housing developments. The agency also found, however, that the city has not done enough to prove that the non-vacant sites on the city’s adopted housing inventory are actually suitable for housing.
As such, Palo Alto is now required to provide an analysis that looks into possible impediments to residential development, including “existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development or other relevant information to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment such as expressed owner and developer interest.”
The HCD also found that the city has not sufficiently analyzed some of the existing commercial zones for potential addition of residential use.
The agency is also requiring the city to further analyze the development standards in recent projects to better understand whether its processes for expedited project reviews are effective. Based on the analysis, the city may need to add programs to “address constraints on local processing and permit procedures,” the letter states.
Addressing past patterns of discrimination
Another area in which Palo Alto will have to make significant revisions is the section dedicated to “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” which looks at past patterns of discrimination and proposes policies to address historic injustices.
The city’s adopted Housing Element describes past practices such as blockbusting, redlining and use of restrictive covenants, policies that made it difficult for Black people and other racial minorities to purchase homes in Palo Alto.
The HCD, however, indicated in its letter that the city must firm up its commitments to reversing those practices. This means adding goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. The analysis, according to the letter, “could examine past land use practices, investments and quality of life relative to the rest of the City and region and then formulate appropriate programs to promote more inclusive communities and equitable quality of life.”
The HCD’s letter mirrors some of the criticism that the council had received in the past from local housing advocates, including the group Palo Alto Forward, which had argued that the city’s housing plan is too reliant on non-vacant sites in the commercial district.
It also shares the view of Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims, who suggested during the council’s May discussion that the city’s section on housing integration and discrimination “felt like we largely avoided the topic and handled it in an oblique way.”
“I’d like to see our Housing Element make a declarative statement about our problematic history with zoning, redlining and restrictive covenants and an avowal to undo these vestiges by intentionally creating truly inclusive communities going forward,” Lythcott-Haims said.
The letter from HCD orders the city to not only include a complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing plans but to also “add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis.”
“Actions must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numeric objectives and, as appropriate; must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection,” the letter states.
Hurrah for council members like Julie Lythcott-Haims who have a genuine commitment to making housing in Palo Alto more affordable. Palo Alto needs to acknowledge past discrimination and make explicit commitments to help those who have faced barriers to housing. We need more voices like hers on the council. But it would also help if Palo Alto could work with VTA to make sure that as we add housing in commercial areas like San Antonio Road that we have the public transit to offset the increase in traffic, which is one of the main reasons residents oppose more high density housing. I live in Charleston Gardens and commute along East Charleston to 101, so I know first-hand what this means. I am not a NIMBY resident, and I applaud the recent housing developments. But working on housing with an eye to transportation needs is also key to making new housing opportunities a success and gaining support from Palo Alto residents who have been here for decades. I hope the council can take this setback as yet another opportunity to making Palo Alto a better and more diverse community.
Is there legal a concept to protect oneself when one side keeps changing their requirements?
The city has responded point by point to two feedback letters. Talked to HCD. And paid consultants that work with HCD tons of money. Two years of hard work. Extremely good faith efforts. It’s time to stand up to the bully.
@PaloAltoVoter, if you look at the difference in the amount and source of campaign contributions to both Mayor Kou and Marc Berman, you’ll see that “bully” is a huge understatement when one campaign is funded by small donations from individuals/residents and the other by big-money PACS and companies.
https://padailypost.com/2023/08/06/berman-ahead-of-kou-in-fundraising-for-assembly-race/
Read that list of contributors to see why there’s such a huge push to build huge expensive housing complexes that do nothing to create affordable housing and to replace resident-serving retail with medical.
That’s why people have started calling “Builders” Remedy “Berman’s Remedy” because he’s so clearly a DODO (Developer Owned Developer Operated) intent on destroying our community and selling us out to the highest bidders (his backers).
@PaloAltoVoter Before anyone complains about “…Is there legal a concept to protect oneself when one side keeps changing their requirements…” the city of Palo Alto should look in the mirror and see all the times that they (the city of Palo Alto) has changed the requirements on builders.
Racial Housing Discrimination was outlawed in California in the mid 1950s and nationally in the mid 1960s. The HCD is rejecting the housing element in part because it feels Palo Alto has not done enough to address this historic discrimination that was outlawed almost 70 years ago. Let’s keep in mind that Palo Alto has higher percentage below market housing that almost all other cities in Santa Clara county. I understand the HCD wants to eliminate single family housing and is overstepping their authority to try and accomplish this. The reality is most people would prefer to live in their own house if they can afford it. Raising a family in a high rise apartment is just a lot less desirable and if you are renting, you are not building equity. In our area, the high number of successful tech workers has driven up prices because of companies like Facebook, Google, Tesla, Palantir, LinkedIn. On top of that many wealthy foreign buyers have driven up our local housing prices and often don’t inhabit the homes. Lastly large investment firms like Blackstone have started funds that turned single family homes into investable assets driving up prices. This is up to the state and federal government to regulate, not cities and is certainly not the cities or existing residents fault.
In terms of vacant land, Palo Alto has almost none (about 1/2 a percent) so any building must be redevelopment that goes higher. Less successful retail and old office buildings are the best candidates for large multi family buildings and those happen to be concentrated along El Camino and in South Palo Alto. The cities plan to meet RHNA is a good one that has focused on areas most likely to redeveloped and I think asking the city to analyze every lease for over 6000 new units is overly burdensome. In reality, RHNA is just an unfunded mandate because its easier politically for the state than substantially funding affordable housing.
Is anyone really surprised at this? Submitting a compliant plan needs to be priority #1 for our planning department. HCD is now adding requirements that may not be achievable. For better and worse, history is what it is and while we can find ways to add housing (which I think we have done in the plans we submitted) it will take a long time to do the new analysis that is required and develop goals and actions based on that analysis. And until that is done, we are vulnerable to opportunistic developers.
I’m not familiar with HCD’s charter, but I am surprised that it has the latitude to demand what it is now asking. Palo Alto will be lucky to have that done for the NEXT cycle of the HE. Maybe our CM and City Attorney should consult with HCD about accepting, as a start, the sort of declaration Councilmember Lythcott-Haims suggests. But we need to be realistic about this. A declaration can define intent, but it cannot reverse the market forces that have made affordability an obstacle in Palo Alto for pretty much everyone, regardless of race.
You get what you vote for.
Democrats Berman and Wiener in our area, along with other Democratic State Assemblyman across the state, etc (Lythcott also in that camp) are destroying Palo Alto and soon the protected CA coastline. This Democratic agenda (utilizing Builders Remedy which allows builders to ignore all local zoning codes, which are in place for critical reasons) is an ENVIRONMENTAL TRAVESTY in the making. Berman/Wiener’s biggest donors (public data) are Labor Unions (such as Construction Union) who have zero interest in affordable housing. These major donors to the Democratics are all about profits and do not give a hoot about affordable housing. Massive high rises do not belong in suburban areas, aren’t remotely affordable, and will forever change Palo Alto for the worse. They will add to residents’ stated number one issue: traffic. Menlo Park now faces the same issue. Sunset Gardens former headquarters is a historical architectural gem will be torn down for a building taller than the Statue of Liberty, in the middle of a suburb using “Builders Remedy”.
Do you care about the environment? Want to stop the impending traffic nightmare that will result from Builders Remedy? Really want high rises that are NOT affordable housing in neighborhoods and the coastline? Vote differently. Otherwise, it’s coming soon.
P.S. The strictest environmental regulations in CA to date were passed by GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He launched CA to the forefront of environmental regulations. As Governor of CA he worked to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. Schwarzenegger´s efforts helped make CA the global leader in combating climate change. Recent Op Ed by him:”Environmentalists are behind the times by Arnold S.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/05/16/arnold-schwarzenegger-environmental-movement-embrace-building-green-energy-future/70218062007/
We’ve put ourselves in this position over the past 50 years. We need millions of new units and the easiest way to get there is to build taller. Hate that because it creates a shadow? Give me a break. If 2,000,000 new were built in CA overnight, the homeless would be living in the older apartments. Supply and demand does work if it’s allowed to.
FYI…VTA just issued a report that recommends against expanding bus service on San Antonio–once again thumbing their nose at Palo Alto. Maybe it is time to take back our bus transit dollars and build our own local bus service to get people to train stations. I support Caltrain. VTA is arguably one of the worst run transit agencies in the nation. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/07/04/grand-jury-report-blasts-vta-for-inefficiencies-poor-oversight I don’t think MTC would serve us any better.
Transit in the Bay Area is awful and getting worse. A recent article in the Mercury News cited new state population projections that show population staying roughly the same due to a massive exodus workers. From state and local budget and population growth perspectives, we are not in a good place to be adding and supporting the scale of housing new state legislation requires. It’s time for the CA legislature to take a careful look at current population growth projections and consider revising recent bills that incentivize housing construction well beyond current projected need. The state’s housing plan is based on OLD data. That’s not good. As a voter, I am getting impatient with the poorly informed policy work in this area. That will certainly affect how I vote in the upcoming election cycle.
That said, we do need more housing in lower income categories–smaller unit housing in particular will create more demand for local transit, community services and public schools. We will need our Public Facilities zoned land for expansion of public services. As a city, we need to spend to make Cubberley functional as a community center again to serve already approved new housing and whatever else is coming in the pipeline. Additionally, the school district needs to recognize the need to maintain holdings for longer term future growth at Cubberley. Well-informed long-term planning and collaborative problem-solving between PAUSD and the city is needed.
I walk through Beth Wahls’ Charleton Gardens when I drop my car off for auto repair. These houses have exquisite garden frontage – everyone appears to be in competition as to who has the best gardens, entry ways, and “street” appearance. Where does she think all of these people are suppose to go? People are talking to an “idea’ but no solution to that idea relative to our city and their neighborhood.
I was at a luncheon where half the people had been let go from Google, FB, Apple and now had other jobs. The Pres of SU now has a different job. A Los Altos person had great ideas about what PA should be doing – no mention of what Los Altos should be doing.
Went to the Stanford Research Birthday Party at the Hub. Note that there is a huge number of diverse people that work in that business location. WE are not lacking in diversity. Check that box. Now you all can quibble on the percentage of the diversity representation.
So how do you make housing more affordable? Looks like reducing the quality of life for everyone. That appears to be happening in San Jose that is losing support from Google and others relative to big housing plans. I think the game book calls that “equity” – reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Time to take legal action concerning how projections are developed. The jobs keep changing. The available land in each city is vastly different. When we say “available” that is land that is not contaminated from previous industrial endeavors. Need to pin down the who, what, and connections to developers.
Let’s see. Imagine 100 people making a dollar a year, and 2 rich people move in who have $5 million in the bank each. They can basically own everyone and everything. There is no scenario under which building more is going to make the overly simplistic ideas of supply and demand disingenuously spread by YIMBYs work to make housing cheap for the bottom rungs.
There are in fact over a million vacant properties in CA, 16 million vacant properties nationally. We already have more supply than demand. Building willy nilly will only make communities vulnerable to sudden loss of population and tax base because of loss of quality of life, which people are moving away to get. Look what happened to S.F.
We have drought, safety, and environmental issues going unaddressed, in addition to the actual need for affordable housing which will never be a side effect of building more expensive rentals in a job center.
The pandemic and remote work changed things. Palo Alto really should join with other impacted communities and sue the state. Let the state do it’s part to ensure existing empty housing is available first, and pay up for unfunded mandates which our state Constitution says are not allowed.
Before you rush to give a highly subsidized apartment in a tall tower to favored groups, as some gleefully hope for, see what resulted in Chicago. While this is on a bigger scale, and generally refers to much more indigent persons, it does have some lessons of what happened over decades:
CHA Chicago Housing Authority wasted millions and created tower ghettoes. Images are easily seen on the net if you search.
Now they knocked down Cabrini Green and many much larger towers. They were horrible filthy gang-ruled concrete places with no foliage around. Tragic for kids who were raised by their moms there. Terrible for surrounding arras, too, of course. At least land was cheap where they were built, generally.
Those who require a free or highly subsidized home in Chicagoland are in quite small low rise apartment complexes now!
I have SEEN this walking by in person. There still are ghost gun crimes from when relatives get out of prison and visit their moms, but overall things are much better. Yes, certain south side neighborhoods are still overrun with ghostbgun gang shootings, but they aren’t where many of the above subsidized apartments are located. Chicago is a spread out large city.
Ok, here we have state politicians intent on punishing Palo Alto and several other “transit rich” (make me laugh) cities by shoehorning in narrow tall residential buildings.
Apparently we must pay for such buildings, bureaucrats to run them and favored groups to be given new apartments, often in a good deal.
Favored upscale CA places like Marin escape the rules.
– but why Palo Alto? Yes, I get certain state level Democrats want to punish a successful city with good schools and high tech educated employees. People are entitled to live in this city!?!
Reality proves people change jobs, locations, residences, living circumstances and there is no need to remove small needed downtown civic parking lots to build these towers here.
There is plenty of room in San Jose, etc., rents are low …there ARE options!
I’d love more context – do we know which cities (or how many) are also still out of compliance?
I’m all for more units for new workers, but not any racialized policy since I’ve lived back East and have seen what slotting large numbers of poor “targeted” minorities into dense high buildings brings. It makes all parties worse off.
I think we should push back harder.
The HCD seems to have morphed into a power mad clique of far left, power hungry, solipsistic – lets just say it – “crazies” that have set forth demands that many communities have been unable to satisfy despite numerous redoes of very well thought-out housing plans.
Alexis de Tocqueville in his thesis almost 200 years ago on Democracy in America addressed the risk of “The tyranny of the majority”. What the housing issue in CA has become is a product of very very far left idealism that suggests we can solve what is possibly an illusory housing issue by enforcing a set of wishful thinking rules for housing that as by-products will also address poverty, homelessness, and discrimination, as well as social and economic inequality.
A much more likely outcome of these mandates is not the creation of idealized “Camelot” communities these dreamers are suggesting but slums of the future that other communities are now having to recover from such as in Detroit and Chicago.
We need to rid our communities of this tyranny and not by waiting to try to do it through ballot box. The numerous communities throughout the state that have had their plans trampled by the headstrong few in Sacramento need to band together and take the issue to the courts by first refusing to produce yet one more reworked plan and trampled by the “Builders Remedy” and at the very least demand that the basis for the creation of what seems like millions of perhaps unnecessary housing units be reviewed and agreed upon through the use of data on real future economic growth in the state and how to put currently unused housing into use.
Interesting that there are “holds” put on housing developments in San Jose, eg Google’s planned development.
Anything using 2019 prepandemic projections should be ignored.
@Paly02 asked “…do we know which cities (or how many) are also still out of compliance?”
You can find this at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-review-and-compliance-report
As of today (2023-08-07) about 62% are “in compliance” and 38% are “out of compliance”.
@Palo02 –HCD has a great dashboard for questions like that [1]. Right now 40% of Santa Clara County is compliant. 31% of the Bay Area. Something like 75% statewide.
I think most of other noncompliant Bay Area cities are closer than we are to compliance. When reading one of these letters, one of the early sentences says something like “you satisfy [some, many, most, all]” of the legal requirements.” This second rejection is an 8-page “many” letter. That’d be a really bad result for a first draft, and it’s abysmal for a second draft. You really want to get to “most” by the second letter.
The reason we didn’t is because the city changed very little of substance between the two drafts. SB-9 expansion notwithstanding, they mostly tried to analyze their way out of problems without adding commitments. My favorite example is that in response to HCD saying the first draft was too vague and needed concrete commitments, they changed “study” to “research.”
Another is that they added designs proving certain densities can be physically achieved in certain zones, but these were mostly small-project designs (<= 10 units) that take advantage of minimum floor area allowances created by a Scott Weiner bill. But that law was only for small projects! In Palo Alto if you add an 11th unit, you lose that protection and about half of your floor area allowance goes away in most zones. Taking that into account, their models actually severely discredit the site inventory, which mostly relies on projecting projects with 11+ units. (For good reason.) [1] https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-review-and-compliance-report
Several people have said Palo Alto needs to “acknowledge past discrimination” in housing. Just a reminder: Joseph Eichler, developer of thousands and thousands of houses in South Palo Alto, was a fair housing activist and did not allow discriminatory practices when his houses were being sold. An important fact to remember when past housing discrimination is discussed.
Historic discrimination that was outlawed in California in the 50s?? When about 50% of Palo Alto residents were NOW non-white, a number that keeps rising.
However, discrimination against women remains a REAL and current danger, with women being paid a pittance vs men, where Big Tech keeps settling with thousands of women now.
So when will the YIMBYs and the DODOs start addressing CURRENT problems like sex discrimination or are they afraid of alienating their deep-pocketed backers representing disproportionately male institutions?
“I’m all for more units for new workers, but not any racialized policy since I’ve lived back East and have seen what slotting large numbers of poor “targeted” minorities into dense high buildings brings. It makes all parties worse off.”
Me, too.Our empty storefronts resemble the South Bronx.
But look on the bright side: think of all the opportunities for developers when cities start DYNAMITING their failed dense housing projects because it was painfully obvious what dangerous cesspools they’d become. (Look up Chicago and Cabrini-Green Homes where demolition started in 1995 and continued at least through 2011!)
There’s decade$ of opportunitie$ there, guys. Operators are standing by. Get your bids in now.
When politicians such as Berman, Weiner, Newsom, Bonta, Malia Cohen, etc are elected we are sure to experience the “Berman remedy” as someone has appropriately termed. We are all now part of this social experiment. The Palo Alto city council should be the body that approves the ‘Housing Element’ as local people know better the wants and needs of their city.
– The city should join others to litigate against the Department of Housing and Community Development and each of its leadership to stop their demand to build projects in our and other local towns.
– The 503-c non profit tax benefits should be removed for companies that now propose housing.
– All should review the 2023 budgets of Santa Clara County and the state of California as there is so much waste embedded into the department numbers. Cut the budgets of both by 30% and they have little money for social experiments.
And they have included the term “affirmatively furthering fair housing” so are trying to stick that in. In the past forty years of being a CA resident, I have seen no process limiting who can buy a home and where. My area has a large number of people who are non-white so anyone with a good education, has chosen a career wisely, has worked very hard and saved has the opportunity to purchase a home where they wish. For each of the homes that have changed hands in the past decades, no regulatory body has requested my approval on who buys the house next door.
I am more concerned that the local housing is out of reach for our children and local police, fire, teachers, city workers. This should be the definition of who is eligible for affordable housing.
LOL! By refusing to accommodate new developments over decades, the NIMBYs have created a large class of voters who will vote for the politicians that most of the comments above are bemoaning. They can complain until their faces are blue. But that won’t change anything until more housings are built. Democracy is working exactly as it is supposed to.
@Annonomous “blue in the face”? How about a code blue housing emergency? Quality low wage worker housing needed, badly like you say, was needed yesterday. Yesterday is now tomorrow is, we’ll simply forever… when the normal wage working residents support surrounding towns economy and not this here in Palo Alto the boarded store fronts will persist. Wall Street is our zip code Main Street is where it is other towns that we support their economies: San Mateo: RWC, MV, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara. Palo Alto proper supports SFH owners and daytime SRP commuters exclusively — that’s it, full stop. period. Everyone else living here can suck it. What kind of economy is this? Certainly not conducive to those who break our backs and banks to serve the wealth & yet try to survive, raise children, contribute w volunteerism, empathy, giving. How sustainable or climate friendly is this as a thriving, rising so deemed “inclusive” a community of all?! Someone commented w an electrical outage “thankful I still have a gas appliance”. I’d add thankfully I still have gas in my tank to get to work off the 101.
Don’t like all the new housing that will be going up in big developments all over town? Sad about a mega development at the Driftwood and the Fish Market? Say thanks to our completely inept City Council and their City Manager’s failure to produce a compliant Housing Element despite repeated engraved invitations from the state to do so. These people couldn’t manage their way out of a soggy paper bag with two hands and a flashlight.
Personally I think anything is better for Barron Park than the strip of seedy motels and closed businesses along El Camino.
Michele Dauber doesn’t seem to get out in her neighborhood much, or maybe relies on Amazon? The retail, restaurant and commercial businesses she disses are invaluable to making both Ventura and Barron Park walkable neighborhoods (which used to be a major goal in this city).
Yes – some businesses are closed and some do look shabby, but this is not the vast majority. There is the beloved Driftwood Market (which will be lost at Creekside Inn, as the restaurant there has been already), other restaurants including the popular taquiria and California State of Mind pizza, gas station and mechanics where we take our car, credit unions, cleaners, and so many more.
While small retail spaces may be included in new development proposals, they will be as tiny as possible, used for PR purposes and to pass muster, with the neighborhood serving businesses wiped out, lost forever, destroying services to both current residents and the thousands of new ones.
I usually have many things to add to articles like this one, but so many others have already covered and posted what I probably would have said that I’m left, almost, but not quite, speechless. But, that famous “but”…I do have a few comments to make. Any attempts to link past discrimination in housing to today’s reality is not helpful to the discussion. Our neighborhood was totally integrated/dirsified when we bought our house on Ross Road in 1963. There were 5 black families who owned homes in our neighborhood. You notice I said families, not a single mother trying to raise her kids here. That was a common situation for people who lived in East Palo Alto at that time. And people who blindly follow the YIMBY mantra to build, build, build…even multiplex units in residential neighborhoods?…for what purpose?…to achieve affordability for all income level groups? You need to wake up from your deep sleep slumber and shed those sleepy dream ideas. I had issues with Marc Berman in his former life as a member of our city council, and now it’s being extended into his time serving in the State Assembly in Sacramento. Julie Lythcott-Haims is an intelligent lady and masterful speaker who can mesmerize her audiences, but she needs to study the economics of other attempts to bring affordable housing into cities, big cities and suburban cities alike. It ain’t easy and in no way have those attempts improved the quality of life that was imposed on their neighbors who had been living there for many years, and moved there for their goal of owning a home of their own. Why should many have to suffer for the benefit of a few? Other countries have tried it, but I have yet to hear a success story about it! It was the birth of dictatorships that eventually fell. Make our community great again, not by Trump’s way, but our own way. We know how to do it and we can do it. Palo Alto should never falter and fail to be controlled by the legislative bodies in Sacramento.
“Julie Lythcott-Haims is an intelligent lady and masterful speaker who can mesmerize her audiences, but she needs to study the economics of other attempts to bring affordable housing into cities, big cities and suburban cities alike.”
She also needs to start paying attention to pesky little details like the difference between commercial and residential real estate. At last night’s City Council meeting during discussions of the proposed senior housing / assisted living facility where she kept pushing for “more affordable housing” and missing the fact that the facility is a COMMERCIAL enterprise — not residential — and hence doesn’t have anything to do with affordable housing,
As staff repeatedly said, the proposal for 14 more units doesn’t count toward PA’s housing element because A) it’s a commercial enterprise and B) the units don’t have kitchens which are needed for units elsewhere to count as housing.
She also kept pushing to add a 4th story to the complex even though the elevator only goes to the 3d floor. Imagine all the seniors in wheelchairs and walkers trying to use the stairs during emergencies.
The devil’s in the details, not in reflexive and irrelevant sloganeering.
Spelling correction…diversified. Sorry!
Iam concerned that a lot of discussion is specific to one person on the PACC. If we assume that each member has a voice and presents their “logic” concerning the addition of units to this facility then we should hear all of the members “logic”.
Some legislation concerning housing rests on what is now considered bad legislation. That is coming up in the papers now. Bad legislation has a habit of undoing itself. Or undoing the people who push it. It is unraveling now.
Others are working on the “Kibbutz” theory – or some approach used in other countries. We are not a kibbutz country – or other type country – tribal. The other countries are not doing well now and do not provide any good examples.
I take exception to the request to add bicycle racks for the seniors. Not the job of the PACC to tell heavily regulated business how to run their facility. They have to function within the rules and regulations of their industry which has lot of insurance risk elements. Many senior homes have changed ownership due to the heavily regulated nature of the business.
A lot of comments which are outside the box regarding what the facility is requesting. EACH TOPIC THAT COMES UP IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR SLOGAEERING.
Once any one is recognized as working outside the topic on the table their future on the PACC will be limited. –
I guess that in order to have a compliant housing plan Palo Alto will have to include solutions to world hunger and global warming as well as all the other nonsensical issues being added by these nut cases at the state level.
When resubmitting the new housing element Palo Alto is required to address how the city has discriminated by “fostering a culture of affluence.”
When did the city start determining local salaries and/or regulating raises and stock option grants? I must have missed when PA and/or California moved to a planned economy with wage and price controls!
Clearly the discrimination isn’t about race since PA is already less than half white, a percentage dropping each year.
Since when does the city determine local salaries and compensation for residents who don’t work for the city?
Wouldn’t it be local companies and employers — not the city and/or its laws — who are fostering that culture of affluence? Will the state go after Big Tech to get them to limit their salaries?
To address that question is a clear example of “when have you stopped beating your spouse”!
Checking out the city this week we have clearly areas for apartments and clearly areas for R-1 neighborhoods. I think we have a very balanced city. I take exception to people who categorize this city as being more affluent then others in the bay area. That level of hyperbole is self serving for what ever agenda the person has.
This city seems to get targeted I think because it is next to the University which gets a lot of attention.
In the past we have had organizations like Palo Alto Forward who are always pushing for something – not clear on what. Of late I think of them as Palo Alto Backward. I am trying to figure out who in this city is feeding the “Housing People” with bad information. What is clear is that some in this city seem to be taking it apart relative to protecting businesses. Housing in the garages? The whole point of the garages are for the people who work and shop here. If you have no parking for shoppers and workers then the city goes out of business.
City management needs to focus on growing business in a responsible way rather then knee jerk reactions to the CA legislature. They are getting themselves into big trouble now with a lot of negative press of late.
It feels like the state is rejecting housing plans over and over in towns with expensive real estate so that the Builder’s remedy can be implemented as much as possible before the plans are approved.
It is so much fun to watch this argument play out. You guys voted for senator Scott Weiner (D-Destroyer) and now you’re getting what you paid for! In case you need a little reminder, Scott is the jolly fellow who said, “Owning a single family home with a yard in California is immoral.” Well, Palo Altans, how does it feel to be sinners? Time to get the palm fronds out and start the self-flagellation? In my humble opinion, Scott and his buds in SACTO won’t stop until Palo Alto is turned into a high-rise urban slum straddling an electrified rail that runs between South San Jose and The Cesspool By The Sea (formerly known as S.F.). Of course, no one will be working in those dumpster fires so the cute little trains will zoom north and south, completely empty, as they’ve been doing in San Jose since the 1980s. But, hey, at least you guys will have completed your acts of contrition.
Hum. Last I heard no voter registered in Palo Alto voted for Scott Weiner as he is not our local representative. I would think this comment might be addressed to anyone in Palo Alto who voted for Mark Berman though.
“It feels like the state is rejecting housing plans over and over in towns with expensive real estate so that the Builder’s remedy can be implemented as much as possible before the plans are approved.”
Indeed. Especially there’s no way the plans can be approved with the state demanding a mea culpa explanation from PA for having “created a culture of affluence” — a condition of acceptance of our housing element.
Who knew the city of Palo Alto determined and paid out our salaries, stock options, raises and other types of compensation. I hope the City Manager and City Attorney finally tell us when we can expect our next raises, company cars etc because the base salary they gave out doesn’t seem affluent enough.
Seriously, this is an absurd condition, as absurd as the state’s refusal to reconsider any and all aspects of the housing element for 8 long years when the economy’s tanked, the state surplus turned into a deficit, etc.
The state sure wouldn’t ask for that type of statement from Big Tech, Big PACs, Big Labor or other institutions because it wouldn’t want to rock the donor boat.
It’s beginning to look as if there is a hidden and punitive agenda to keep moving the goal posts attempting to force Palo Alto to give up R-1 zoning restrictions. .
My Dearest MJH, if you voted Blue, you, too, voted for the Weineroo. The point being that Palo Alto, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, EsF, Oakland, and so much of the Bay Area has delivered a solid Blue Block to SACTO which guarantees you’ll never see the end of the requirement for self-flagellation, endless acts of contrition, all kinds of disguised forms of reparations, apologies for the real and imagined sins of your ancestors going back to the Miocene Epoch, ever-rising violent crime, ever-increasing inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, and EVs that spontaneously combust in your garages, turning your homes into 2,500 degree barbecue pits. Other than that, have a great Palo Alto day! Oh, and I’ve always been a glass half-full kind of happy-go-lucky person who has created more jobs in the non-pollute, non-commute knowledge industry than most of the residents of that once fabulous little town.
It’s Orwellian. HCD is being the thought police as opposed to just asking the city to facilitate more housing in the modern era. I can’t believe this is constitutional, state or federal. They can’t tell the city what to believe.
@jjmm2009 – your posts are terrific and right on point about Sacramento. MJH is also right about what’s coming out of Sacramento. The edicts have taken a vengeful turn.
As Palo Alto grapples with a growing stream of regulations and commandments from Sacramento and beyond it may be time for the city leaders and citizens to push back against the authoritarians. I don’t think Atherton, Manhattan Beach or Palo Alto is “uniquely unique” but it is unlikely that succumbing to developer and real estate investor demands for ever more dense housing will make any of them better. Laws and lawsuits by folks outside of Palo Alto are not by YIMBY’s but Yes In Your Back Yard “YIYBY’s). If they are so convinced that the autocratic approaches proposed by Sacramento are so beneficial, they are welcome to double or triple the application in their back yard. It may work out well. As much as I would love to buy an “affordable” beach front home enabled by the “Builder’s Remedy” I think a diverse set of communities will be better for Californians.
As much as I would love to buy an “affordable” beach front home enabled by the “Builder’s Remedy” I think it is time for city leaders and citizens to push back against the authoritarians in Sacramento.
Demands by real estate developers and investors for ever more dense housing are unlikely to make most areas better. Laws and law suits by folks outside of Palo Alto are not by YIMBYs but by Yes in Your Back Yard YIYBYs. If they are so convinced the prescriptions of their real estate friends are so beneficial they are welcome to double or triple the application in their back yard. It may work out well. I think diverse communities will be better for Californians.
Sorry for the double post….the site indicated there was an issue with the first.
Read the Cal Matters report https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/08/ballot-measure-population-california-housing/ “How a ballot measure and population revisions complicate California housing war” which makes the state’s refusal to reconsider any changes to its housing element for 8 — EIGHT — long years in the face of mew realities even more egregious.
“The demographers now estimate that in 2030, California will have just 39.4 million residents – 3 million fewer than the previous projection – which would translate into about a million fewer households needing homes.
For example, in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, the state’s quota of 441,176 new units by 2030 is based on a projected population of 8.3 million but the state’s new 2030 estimate is just 7.6 million.”
And in addition the the population changes, there’s also that pesky factoid that the state’s huge budget surplus has become a huge budget deficit.
Meanwhile Palo Alto and other cities keep allowing the construction of more offices which of course makes competition for housing even more competitive which makes housing even less affordable….
But don’t let reality get in the way of sloganeering and pandering.