Wilton Court is great news for everyone in Palo Alto.
I like the impressive list of several more needed below-market-rate housing projects planned for our town.
Well done.

Photos would be helpful!

This is such a great example of building smart- we need more of these bmr buildings, instead of market rate multistory condos.

"Even as affordable housing has consistently topped the council's list of priorities, the city remains well below its regionally mandated target for below-market-rate units. In the current cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which stretches from 2015 to 2022, the city has issued permits for just 101 units catering to the "very low" income level and 60 at the "low" income level, according to data from the city's Department of Planning and Development Services."

Only 161 out of 6,086?? What hypocrisy. But we know the pro-density lobbyists only care about more ugly market rate housing for the highly paid techies at the companies backing them while they destroy small retailers and restaurants.

We should ONLY be building affordable housing. Plenty of For Lease signs around town, yet rents remain incredibly high.

Example: a recent posting on a local FB group to sublease a 1 BR apartment in a recently built Palo Alto building. The rent is almost $5k per month for a 1 BR apartment! PTC and city councilmembers should not be approving construction projects without knowing the projected per-unit rents.

I am thrilled with Wilton Court's opening! We need about 50 more of these developments - so let's REZONE sites for them as part of the Housing Element.

Further, if we want to support local businesses, protect the environment, and bolster our (shrinking) schools; we need a lot more condos, apartments, and microunits of all price ranges. Imagine the boost for Cal Ave businesses if 1,000 units were developed on the City-owned parking lots over there. It would be transformative for our city.

I hope they don't have major staff turnover like Related / Mayfield Place. Since 2017 open, 4 site managers, 6 maintenence (Mayfield Agreement 2005) The quality of life at Mayfield 4 very low-income, working family residents is subpar. Structural problems, broken appliances, non life threatening fire & carbon alarms going off at 4am waking entire complex. Alarm company canceling fire department, burst pipes, flooding, deep cracks in concrete walls (building shifted from Sandhill properties smashing concrete, shaking the structure for months every day) floors buckling. Counters pulling away from walls, press board crumbling into safe food areas, carpets rolling up, filthy air vents. 7 tiny washers (no extra large capacity) for 70 families, ongoing boiler/water issues. In perspective: Seque construction was the contractor and went belly up in 2016. All finishes in units were shorted by 2 - 3 inches, power surges burning out appliances. Overcrowding families in units, no safe residential parking, harassing lease violations to tenants, threatening tenants to pay for broken cheap appliances, bullying tenants to find jobs. Posting on doors three day "pay or quit" notices when tenants are knocked out by COVID, No full time manager, no posted office hours, no support job search amenities, no access 2 bulletin board 4 community, no working printer or computers 4 residents 2 upskill jobs & job search, no access to dedicated/open, working computer station(s), stolen mail & packages, stolen bikes, car break-ins. Have not seen part-time contracted resource Project Access for 2 months. No after school program, dirty ill kept - unpicked up recycling bins... rats, maggots, wasps nests. Related / Mayfield place may be in violation of their ground lease 2 Stanford & Stanford in violation of Palo Alto Mayfield agreement .

Wilton Court, Great achievement! It honors today and wonderful people like the late Anne Steinberg, Palo Alto Planning Commissioner, late Mickie Zatz, founding treasurer of Palo Alto Housing Corp board, and all the others who over 50 years inspired, advocated, recruited additional people, resources to create, maintain and carefully nurture now and future mix of housing choices that enhance Palo Alto as a great place to live.

Oh and Related owns Hudson Yard, newly built luxury apartment condo's in NYC.

"I am thrilled with Wilton Court's opening! We need about 50 more of these developments - so let's REZONE sites for them as part of the Housing Element."

Yes! And subtract them immediately from the 6.086 target by reclassifying all if the market rate developments.

"Further, if we want to support local businesses, protect the environment, and bolster our (shrinking) schools; we need a lot more condos, apartments, and microunits of all price ranges. Imagine the boost for Cal Ave businesses if 1,000 units were developed on the City-owned parking lots over there. It would be transformative for our city. "


Sure. And where would the shoppers park? Too bad most of the stores are already gone as I learned years ago when I scheduled my smog appointment, figuring I could spent the hour browsing the Cal Ave shops.

"Imagine the boost for Cal Ave businesses if 1,000 units were developed..."

Cal Ave businesses were doing better back when the local population was lower. That suggests something other than a lack of population is causing the problem, and therefore there's no reason to believe that increasing the population will solve it.

Wilton Court is good news, definitely. Congratulations to everyone involved.

I join those in being glad about this housing. More would be great! This makes more sense to me than building more market rate housing that remains vacant. Alto Locale comes immediatley to mind. Is it unappealing even to those who can afford it?

Comments by Native to the Bay warrant investigation. If found to be true, the issues should be remedied and steps should be taken to make certain that they are not repeated anywhere. Affordable should not mean sub-standard.

Also, the caption overlooks a civic detail: Lydia Kou is Vice Mayor.

Annette,

“This makes more sense to me than building more market rate housing that remains vacant. Alto Locale comes immediatley to mind. Is it unappealing even to those who can afford it?”

A market rate one bedroom and studio are the same anywhere so unappealing” (or appealing) depends on what other options there are. I personally wouldn’t pay higher prices for a cookie cutter in Palo Alto (with no parking) unless all the cookie cutter buildings that have popped up just North or South of PA have no vacancies, and I had no other choice. Work from home reduces the amount of time one needs to be near a job, so there’s that too.

@Native:

You can familiarize yourself with the whole CA tax credit website. Especially this tab: Web Link which is the main page showing all of the regulations they are tasked with overseeing at CTCAC.

It's a sticky wicket, but there is a way to get the building inspected due to habitability issues from CTCAC, rather than going through Stanford City to try to get their code enforcement to effect change. Epecially when it involves any property they are party to. But, you know, Stanford is a law school city and they specialize in the art of De Lay. That's every lawyer's forte.

Wilton Court is a great example of how, when a developer meaningfully positively engages the local community it can gain broad support. I hope this example will be followed for future projects.

This article fails to mention saving Buena Vista and preventing displacement of many low income families from Palo Alto. It also does not mention the Palo Alto has the second most below market subsidized housing per capita of any city in Santa Clara County. Nor that Palo Alto voters just approved measure K that provides 3 million each year in affordable housing. Also that when Palo Alto does add housing, its not doing it in conjunction with large office projects, which negate any affordability improvement, unlike Mountain View and Redwood City.

The Maybell project was not primarily a low-income housing project and it did not fail because of opposition to low-income housing.

It was a "planned community project" that was largely large market-rate housing with a low-income element. The community felt it was too large. Various offers were made to the developer, who wanted his large project.

It went to a vote, with many people asking the developer to reconsider the market-rate housing's size. People voted against the project and expressed their regrets for doing so.

I am usually sympathetic to developers but in this case I was not.

Isn't one of the new council members (Julie Lythcott-Haims?) against affordable housing, preferring market rate housing instead? Someone please correct if wrong.

If so, what was the reasoning behind her stance?

A few weeks ago I suggested that the community should review the impacts of the Maybell Project and place them into three categories: good, bad, and yet to be determined. I consider the relatively smooth process that has delivered this wonderful apartment complex to be a good impact of the Maybell controversy. Lessons were learned in that bruising battle about what it takes to shepherd a multi family, low- and very low-income housing project through to acceptance by the neighborhood most closely affected.

I consider the savaging of the reputation and ability to function of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to be a bad impact of the Maybell Project. PAHC had to give up on Palo Alto for several years and rebrand itself as Alta Housing before it could return to its role as the go-to support for low-income housing in the city. Unjustly characterized as a profit-seeking big developer, PAHC served as a convenient target for residents who wanted to register their dissatisfaction with the hand played in city land use decisions by actual profit-seeking big developers.

One point I haven’t seen made about the Wilton Project is that PAHC already owned the property it was built on, so acquiring the property was not a battle that needed to be fought to bring the project forward.

Congratulations to all who contributed to seeing the Wilton Project through to completion. It stands out in sharp contrast to its surroundings on El Camino Real. I wish the new council success in approving more projects to address our multiple housing needs.

Wow, I recommend that the city looks into all the problems with Mayfield Place. I would like to know if what is stated above is true!

"when voters overturned in a referendum"

Clicking on this blue text link in the article took me to the Weekly's story on the defeat of Measure D in 2013 and the Town Square discussion that followed. With the benefit of ten years of observation of how the politics of housing has evolved in Palo Alto since then, I enjoyed the chance to compare what I thought likely to happen with what in fact has taken place.

Thank you, Weekly, for the link.