Affordable housing providers in other California cities are building projects that provide adequate parking, meet height limits, and respect the neighboring community. No one wants to say it, but a major step to getting more affordable housing in Palo Alto would be to bring in those other organizations and their expertise at actually getting projects built.

We should also rezone the VTA lot specifically for affordable housing and not let a commercial developer build expensive apartments there, as is the current proposal.

Why is zoning a problem-- why can't they work within the existing zoning?

Don’t let the Panning Commissing voting to support the Wllton project get lost here in the criticism below. The point is this is the FIRST BMR project proposed since Maybell and it just got the support of the Commision. It’s not as if we turn down BMR projects - in Palo Alto - we have a long history of strong support but for Maybell, now years ago.

The Planning Commission was right to reject another issue - the overlay that was to change where, how tall, etc such housing would be built. It was a mess. It was recognized that BMR projects were too unique to apply a one-size-fits-rule. Hence the reccomendation to use PC instead which is how nearly all our good BMR has gotten built.

To work, the much abused PC would have to be radically amended to only apply only to entirely BMR residential projects - otherwise residents will rebel rather than support. And most residents do support truly affordable BMR housing projects.

Don’t ever hold-up Mt View as a desirable model for Palo Alto.
It’s rapid approval of all development creates awful problems for residents there and neighboring cities in impacts.

The millions of square feet of office space for google, LinkedIn and other tech corps is so massive that the large amount of mainly market rate housing it streamlines for approval is unaffordable for most and the BMR is good but will help few in comparaison to the problem created by office approval. So streamlining the process isn’t itself a solution.

I agree with 'Two Simple Ideas'. Don't get caught up in the idea that 60 units with 30 parking spaces is the only option, and that providing retail is overly burdensome. Here are some excerpts from an Almanac article on affordable housing developments MidPen Housing is proposing in Menlo Park (they are working on 2 sites):

"At the Pierce Road site, information was presented about options for a two-,three-, or four-story building. A two-story building could accommodate up to 10 apartments, a three-story building, up to 17 apartments, and a four-story building up to 21 apartments."

"Preliminary schematic drawings show that a three-story redevelopment with ground-floor retail at the Willow Road site could accommodate up to 18 apartments and 3,500 square feet of retail space [...] if four stories were allowed, with retail on the ground floor, the site could accommodate an additional nine apartments."

"[They] presented options for nonresidential space at the Willow Road site. A cafe and shared work space were the most preferred options by those who attended the meeting."

What a world away from what we are dealing with in Palo Alto. People were presented with options! In Menlo Park retail IS possible. A 2-story building IS possible. Time to stop with the overdramatic this-is-a-crisis, nothing-else-could-possibly work proposals. If PAHC can't figure out how to build an appropriate building, and maybe they honestly can't figure it out, then it is time to find an organization that knows how to do it.

@paloaltoonline

Might want to fact check this statement:

"Things work differently in Mountain View. When Palo Alto Housing was moving ahead with the 67-apartment project currently under construction at 1701 West El Camino Real, the design process entailed one meeting with a two-member design committee."

Mountain View's process might be simpler than Palo Alto's but AFAIK this project entailed more than one city meeting. Some city review is also to be expected as such projects often involve some significant amount of city funding.

Two Simple Ideas, I don't think you get the point of the article. No affordable developer WANTS to do business in Palo Alto. It is not so easy as you say to "bring in those other organizations". The point of the whole article and the comments from Ms. Wagstaff is that the zoning and parking requirements in Palo Alto simply do not work for affordable housing. Ms Wagstaff is highly respected and was from one of the "other organizations" you refer to. Of course a developer can meet the zoning and parking requirements in Redwood City and Mt. View because those cities have the enlightened view of SUPPORTING affordable housing THROUGH their zoning (e.g, more height, reduced parking for affordable, etc.). Palo Alto effectively INHIBITS affordable housing THROUGH their zoning. That is the clear message that the Weekly was trying to get across. It is really simple, if Palo Alto TRULY wants affordable housing, then they have to do something about it besides talk: THE CITY HAS TO ADOPT ZONING AND RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. It is the old saying: “talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words.” In Palo Alto, our Planning Commission and Council are all TALK, and no ACTION.

Bonnie is the perfect example of why Palo Alto can't build any more affordable housing. Bonnie wants a two story building with retail on the first floor. Wow, that MIGHT produce 6 affordable apartments. In Mt. View or Redwood City the zoning would allow for 4-5 stories and little or no retail on the first floor, and that might product 40-50 affordable apartments. Bonnie, if you don't want density on El Camino, where do you want to put those affordable apartments?

Our zoning code is largely 40 years old, thr bulk it was passed in June of 1978. In that time land economics has changed dramatically as have community makeup and community needs.
It's me we did a full-scale review of what we actually allow (not much) and how many housing types our code is making illegal. Affordable housing developers have a tough job, they have to find funding to build something expensive on very expensive land and for people who can't pay very much. Let's be realistic about what it takes to build affordable and help find more ways to make more affordable housing available for the community members and neighbors who need it.

" In 2013, the council effectively abolished the PC zone after voters overturned the council's last PC approval — an application from the nonprofit Palo Alto Housing to build 60 apartments for low-income seniors and 12 market-rate single-family homes on a former orchard on Maybell Avenue. In freezing PCs, the council all but ensured that projects like the Maybell development won't even have a chance to go through the city's infamously grueling approval process."

Maybell was the single greatest tragedy and demonstrated lack of compassion by the local residents is recent Palo Alto history. The land has since been squandered on a few luxury homes at way below allowable zoning density (without a PC exemption!). A true example of egregious NIMBY behavior.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Midtown

The point of the whole article and the comments from Ms. Wagstaff is that the zoning and parking requirements in Palo Alto simply do not work for affordable housing. Ms Wagstaff is highly respected and was from one of the "other organizations" you refer to. Of course a developer can meet the zoning and parking requirements in Redwood City and Mt. View because those cities have the enlightened view of SUPPORTING affordable housing THROUGH their zoning (e.g, more height, reduced parking for affordable, etc.).


Posted by Mike, a resident of Midtown

>> In Mt. View or Redwood City the zoning would allow for 4-5 stories and little or no retail on the first floor, and that might product 40-50 affordable apartments. Bonnie, if you don't want density on El Camino, where do you want to put those affordable apartments?

Mike-- very interesting. So, all those new units in Redwood City don't have parking? How do they keep people from owning cars and parking them in the streets?


Posted by Outdated Zoning, a resident of Addison School

>> Affordable housing developers have a tough job, they have to find funding to build something expensive on very expensive land and for people who can't pay very much.

The land wouldn't be so very expensive if property owners and developers knew that they simply won't be allowed to build office space on that land. Supply and demand, market forces, equilibrium prices -- things that these hard-hearted capitalists around here understand very well, seems to elude "affordable housing advocates". Instead, what happens is that they fool affordable housing providers into buying into a few BMR units, while adding office space that actually digs the housing imbalance hole deeper.

No more office space.

It's misleading of the Palo Alto Weekly to present Ms Gonzalez complaining about her troubles near north Palo Alto's Oak Court Apartments. Hey, if Palo Alto Housing wanted to build a 3 story residential complex with a "garden labyrinth" and sufficient parking (http://pah.community/properties/oak-court-apartments), folks would welcome affordable housing.

Instead, we got Maybell as a five story warehouse, under-parked and half a mile from any services. Now PAH wants to build another under-parked, hulking structure from curb to curb where the disabled need to cross a 6 lane state highway to ride the bus.

The tragedy is the PAH hasn't learned that the fault doesn't lie with their neighbors, but rather with PAH's poorly thought out plans and ideas they push on impacted neighborhoods.

Posted by Lost Oportunity, a resident of Barron Park

>> Maybell was the single greatest tragedy and demonstrated lack of compassion by the local residents is recent Palo Alto history. The land has since been squandered on a few luxury homes at way below allowable zoning density (without a PC exemption!). A true example of egregious NIMBY behavior.

It was a very poorly thought out proposal from beginning to end.

According to this article, the Fry's site is about 15 acres (I've seen other numbers): Web Link

Acquire it, get it rezoned for 30 units/acre, and you could build 450 affordable units with parking and individual entrances within walking distance of Caltrain/Cal Ave transit hub.

But, of course, nobody will be able to afford it for affordable housing, because it is "worth" too much. It is time to quit playing ball with the speculators-- we, the residents, always lose. The -only- way we will ever get more affordable housing in Palo Alto is if we stop building more office space. I mean -stop-.

If most of the total 39 acre tract near Fry's could be turned into affordable housing, at 30 units/acre, that would meet a big chunk the near-term ABAG goals. I bet it isn't going to happen, though.

-No more office space.-

Beware of the Trojan horse: Zoning for housing almost always also allows office (read: more jobs, more demand for housing). Then the developers claim that the project "won't pencil" unless the maximum amount of office is built, too. All that means is that their profit is higher with a project like that.

If our cities really want housing, they would eliminate office from the zoning of areas where the housing is desired. Otherwise, more dense zoning "for housing" becomes just a Trojan horse for ever-more offices and demand for housing.

Retail is ok because that serves the community, and is almost never overbuilt, unlike offices.

First, a huge thank you to folks like Candice and the staff of PAH who tirelessly deal with the "Palo Alto Process" in their attempts to make housing available to a wider variety of residents.

Next-- the zoning issues that PAH and others have raised are critical. We are forcing units to be developed at an exorbitantly high cost. We are building too many parking spaces (despite a significant portion of parking in affordable housing complexes being unutilized); we are forcing developers to build large units (because of density maximums); we are blocking 4 story buildings from being constructed (in the name of "neighborhood transitions").

Everyone on Council and the PTC "supports" affordable housing. It doesn't mean anything if we don't _zone_for_ affordable housing.

Eric, I understand that you represent the views of your employer Palantir/PAF, which is advocating for the smallest, most affordable units to house their Millenial tech workers. OTOH Palo Alto has long been a great place for families, and family-appropriate housing is also needed. How about if Palantir/PAF follow Peter Thiel to LA, where there is a long history of overbuilding?

Eric Rosenblum's comments about are so typical of the mega development lobby. Let's all shed tears for the poor, poor harassed developers who are forced to build too many parking spaces. He is at a complete lose as to why we don't allow his employer, Palantir, which has already taken over downtown, to dictate the density and height of buildings, so more Palantir employees can be crammed into them.

Unless the Bay Area generally can devise a way to subsidize market rate housing, and make it on par with BMR housing, this problem will only escalate.

Posted by JoanneH, a resident of Downtown North

>> Unless the Bay Area generally can devise a way to subsidize market rate housing, and make it on par with BMR housing, this problem will only escalate.

What is stopping the "free" market from working, if zoning limits the amount of space devoted to jobs, and, allocates enough land area for housing? That is, the "subsidy" is simply a limitation that property zoned for housing has to be used for housing.