Palo Alto's efforts to encourage more housing should primarily focus on maintaining diversity and addressing the needs of low-income residents, two members of the City Council are arguing in a new memo.
The memo, penned by Councilman Tom DuBois and Councilwoman Lydia Kou, seeks to recalibrate the council's work plan for producing new housing — an effort that has been the subject of much debate and only modest success. The city has adopted a goal of adding 300 housing units per year, though it is likely to fall well short of the goal for the second year in a row. The only significant housing project that the council has approved this year is a 59-unit apartment complex known as Wilton Court on El Camino Real.
In the memo, DuBois and Kou propose an "affordable housing plan to advance housing goals that address socio-economic diversity and affordability." They cite the city's history of "affordable and diverse housing programs," including its long-standing inclusionary-housing program that requires housing developers to designate 15% of their units as below-market rate.
"We recommend prioritizing actions consistent with previously adopted housing goals to address diversity in housing options," the memo states.
To date, the city's inclusionary-housing (also known as inclusionary zoning) program only applied to ownership units. This is largely because of a 2009 court decision, Palmer v. the City of Los Angeles, in which a state appeals court deemed it illegal for cities to apply inclusionary-housing laws to rental units.
In 2017, the state Assembly adopted what's known as the "Palmer fix," a law that allows cities to extend inclusionary-housing laws to rental units. Doing so should be Palo Alto's highest housing priority, DuBois and Kou argue in the new memo. They propose that the percentage of units that should be designated as below-market rate in rental properties be set between 15% and 25%.
Under the proposal, the units would be set aside for residents with incomes in the "extremely low" (between 0 and 30% of area median income), "very low" (31% to 50%) and "low" (51 to 80%) categories.
The memo also proposes updating the city's zoning ordinance to ensure that when density bonuses are applied to a mixed-use project, these bonuses get devoted to the project's housing component to the extent legally possible. When such a bonus is applied, about 20% to 25% of the bonus units should be dedicated to affordable housing.
While affordable housing is the main focus of the memo, some of its other suggestions are broader in scope. The memo proposes, for example, that the city increase its development impact fees for commercial projects — a policy change that the council approved in December 2016 and then significantly scaled back three months later when new council members were sworn in.
The city's current development impact fee, which the council approved in March 2017, is $35 per square foot, up from the pre-2017 level of $20.37. A nexus study in 2016 concluded that the city could feasibly charge $60 per square foot.
Since the council reversed its direction and adopted a $35 fee, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors hiked its own development-impact fees for Stanford University from $36.22 to $68.50 per square foot.
The memo recommends increasing Palo Alto's fee to a comparable level: $64 per square foot.
Other proposals in the memo pertain to preserving existing units. One calls for exploring a law that would require property owners who remove housing units to either replace them on another site or pay an in-lieu fee.
Another proposal calls for new "protections and regulations" for cottage-cluster developments and duplexes in low-density residential neighborhoods and in commercial districts to preserve "missing middle housing," which targets residents whose incomes are too high to qualify them for below-market-rate programs but too low to allow them to afford Palo Alto's famously high rents.
The broadest and potentially most complex and contentious proposal calls for exploring "citywide protections and regulations to prevent existing housing to be converted to commercial/hotel use." The memo acknowledges that such a law would need much more exploration before it could be implicated and, as such, sets it as the lowest priority on the list of proposals.
"Establishing regulations to prevent housing units from converting to commercial or hotel uses requires some study, including legal analysis, and would likely require some form of waiver process where required to comply with state or federal law," the memo states. "Advancing either of these items now may delay other policy initiatives currently underway or planned."
DuBois and Kou state in the memo that many of the recommendations have already been discussed by the council and that staff is already working on. This includes the "Palmer fix," which the memo marks as the highest priority. Under their proposal, this policy change would return to the council in the near future for adoption, while the rest of the proposals would be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review.
The council is scheduled to discuss the memo on Monday, Sept. 23.
Comments
Crescent Park
on Sep 17, 2019 at 2:16 pm
on Sep 17, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Thank you Kou and DuBois for focusing on the true needs of our town. I pray the rest of the Council stops their endless giveaways to office and luxury condo developers and instead prioritizes below-market rate housing. The County Grand Jury recently cited Palo Alto for doing a terrible job at this - and they're right.
Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2019 at 9:45 am
on Sep 18, 2019 at 9:45 am
Wow. This article applauds the authors of this memo without once acknowledging that they are the two council members most often reluctant to approve housing developments among their peers.
Honestly what a joke. Ask them how they felt about the 100% affordable senior project they both campaigned against.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2019 at 10:29 am
on Sep 18, 2019 at 10:29 am
Posted by Skeptical is an understatement., a resident of Barron Park
>> Wow. This article applauds the authors of this memo without once acknowledging that they are the two council members most often reluctant to approve housing developments among their peers.
This is about -affordable- housing. The unaffordable housing is taking care of itself. PACC should stop bending the rules and allowing zoning-busting developments that are actually making housing less affordable.
>> Honestly what a joke. Ask them how they felt about the 100% affordable senior project they both campaigned against.
Dead horse? Red herring? That project that all yall keep griping about was badly conceived. Period. But, while we are on the subject, we don't need large projects that will dump more auto traffic onto small residential streets with massive kids-on-bikes already present. We don't need projects that depend on upper-income people riding the 22 bus because it is the transit available on a "transit corridor".
How about we build affordable housing on the Fry's site, which is reasonably close to Caltrain and Cal Ave shopping? Already zoned, no zoning-busting required. Already in the plan, no city-plan-busting required. Oh wait-- Sobrato says it won't pencil out. As was pointed out in another thread, "“There are only two markets, ultraluxury and subsidized housing,” said Rafael Viñoly, the architect who designed the tower on Park Avenue at 56th Street, which is called 432 Park." Sobrato has stated that it has no interest in developing affordable housing on that site. So, you're skeptical? Me, too-- but, in a different way.
Registered user
Midtown
on Sep 18, 2019 at 10:59 am
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2019 at 10:59 am
Kou, affordable housing champion, now that she eliminated any such developments near here house. Ha!
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 18, 2019 at 11:00 am
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2019 at 11:00 am
Sadly, I think Viñoly is right. Historically, all low cost housing has been either subsidized or directly built by the government. When the state budget had a problem, they tried to solve it by eliminating redevelopment agencies, which were a big source of low cost housing. Nothing has taken its place.
The city of Palo Alto has NO methodology for building anything except public buildings. The only thing it can do is get out of the way of the non-profits that want to, and keep the NIMBYs out of the process.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 18, 2019 at 11:10 am
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2019 at 11:10 am
Butler Construction in Redwood City is producing beautiful buildings with a lot of style. I hope we are not stuck with specific builders who already have their hooks in our planning department.
The Federal Government is going to provide funding for BMR housing and the CA Gov is already working on that so the door is open to pursue new building that meets the requirements of the new funding. Suggest that "the city" check in with the CA gov and get his attention for funding. The CA Gov attended an event written up in the papers in which Sobrato was mentioned along with Pelosi. It is all there in front of you so go put the pressure on to get the Fry's site scheduled for development. No excuses. Every thing we read in the papers is about housing so make that happen. It checks a lot of boxes for the required funding and cuts down on street traffic if we are renting to teachers and local city staff. And no tax-free finagling here - we need the tax money to pay for the city staff and teachers.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 18, 2019 at 12:46 pm
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2019 at 12:46 pm
Why does everyone keep calling it "affordable housing" when it should be "low-income housing." There is no such thing as "affordable housing" in the Bay Area.
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:11 pm
Registered user
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:11 pm
Solution to prevent housing from becoming commercial or hotel use:
-Enact a business tax on property owners who allow their property to be used commercially or for hotel use.
Solution to assist community-based workers (PAUSD/City employees/Police/Fire) to reside in Palo Alto:
-Enact a property tax waiver for community-based workers who live in and work in Palo Alto. Employment and residency to be verified yearly. This alone should be worth $25k or more, yearly, which would incentivize community-based workers who work in Palo Alto to live in Palo Alto.
-Increase development fees for commercial projects.
-Reduce development fees for residential projects.
Crescent Park
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:18 pm
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:18 pm
Talk is CHEAP.
As Bob Dylan once wrote..."Don't follow leaders. Watch your parking meters."
60+ years ago, he must have had Palo Alto in mind.
Midtown
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:23 pm
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:23 pm
What do we really think the 2 most anti-development council members are attempting with these concepts? Find ways to further obstruct new development, or even interest in doing so. Sacramento is watching and it is maneuvers to ultimately deter housing development, that will lead to state and regional oversight to create the paths to make it happen.
Crescent Park
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:50 pm
on Sep 18, 2019 at 5:50 pm
Some people just don't get it.
There will NEVER be affordable housing in Palo Alto.
It's too late for that.
Evergreen Park
on Sep 19, 2019 at 7:43 am
on Sep 19, 2019 at 7:43 am
Same ole city hall BS.....
You are wrong. Subsidized below market rate housing will always be more affordable as it available only to those who make a certain percentage of the area median income.
It is the housing we need most in Palo Alto.
Our market rate housing production is almost in keeping with the regional assessment, But we are way behind in true BMR housing
The two council members are trying to urge their colleagues to focus on that real need over market rate housing and unwanted new commercial /office development that drives up housing prices and increases our jobs housing imbalance.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 19, 2019 at 8:09 am
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2019 at 8:09 am
Somehow there is never any mention of the large amount of property at the Palo Alto Business Park off San Antonio and 101 which has empty buildings and a huge wandering parking lot in the back side. It borders one of the prospective locations of RV's which at this time is not developed with any usable parking space. I can see Google signage popping up on the buildings. So question is who in the "city" is managing that land. There is a Palo Alto City office on one of the streets. We have people there so what is going on? Land and buildings were sold on the Embarcadero side of the baylands.
Someone in this city is appropriating usable land with no obvious discussion as to who is either leasing or buying that land.
If we need low cost land for building then that is a great location for some housing. One building has buses for an old people's home but no signage as to who is occupying that land and buildings. So you have transportation in the form of buses and open space for RV's.
Request that the PAW send their "reporters" to the city to find out how available land is being managed, by who, and what the plans area. The "city' keeps focusing on R-1 residential property owners to solve their problems. They need to lay out how available space is going to be used which is not zones as R-1 space.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2019 at 10:09 am
on Sep 19, 2019 at 10:09 am
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow
>> Somehow there is never any mention of the large amount of property at the Palo Alto Business Park off San Antonio and 101 which has empty buildings and a huge wandering parking lot in the back side.
IMHO, a bad place for housing, since it is cut off from transit, from shopping, and requires driving to get anywhere and do anything-- except bike/walk in the adjacent park. But, still bad for housing most people, except bird photographers.
OTOH, it would be a fantastic place for a private school to locate. Just the right size for a middle school/high school combo. Easy freeway access for all the people who drive their daughters to Palo Alto to drop them off on the way to work. Beautiful low-stress views of the wetlands. And, a Palo Alto address. Perfect.
Perhaps the city could do some kind of acquire-and-trade, so that a certain building off Embarcadero could be turned into another community center or museum north of the slot. I'd happily contribute a few of my utility tax dollars to making it happen.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2019 at 10:45 am
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2019 at 10:45 am
There is no such thing as 'affordable housing' in Palo Alto. It's just as intellectually dishonest as saying 'affordable Lamborghini'. Why not be honest at least and call it what it actually is-subsidized housing for those who can't afford Palo Alto.
Charleston Meadows
on Sep 19, 2019 at 1:14 pm
on Sep 19, 2019 at 1:14 pm
Palo Alto is only affordable for those who can afford to live here.
At one time Palo Alto was reasonable. Not any more.
The earlier (and older) Palo Alto residents will do quite well when they decide to sell their homes as a $50K home purchased in 1970 will now list for well over $4M+.
Only wealthy Chinese & professionals drawing Google-like salaries can afford to live here now.
Affordable/subsidized residential housing will cheapen the Palo Alto image.
As Mr. mauricio stated, there is no 'affordable' housing for people who cannot not to reside in Palo Alto. That is their problem. Go live somewhere else.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2019 at 3:52 pm
Registered user
on Sep 19, 2019 at 3:52 pm
The debate should be whether ultra expensive cities should subsidize housing for those who want, but can't afford to live there. It's a debate worth having, but talking about affordable housing in Palo Alto, Woodside, Malibu or Central Park South is intellectually dishonest and frankly, demagogic. Affordable housing in Palo Alto is an oxymoron, such a thing does not exist.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2019 at 6:10 pm
on Sep 19, 2019 at 6:10 pm
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
>> The debate should be whether ultra expensive cities should subsidize housing for those who want, but can't afford to live there. It's a debate worth having, but talking about affordable housing in Palo Alto, Woodside, Malibu or Central Park South is intellectually dishonest and frankly, demagogic. Affordable housing in Palo Alto is an oxymoron, such a thing does not exist.
It exists as subsidized housing and I've had a few acquaintances over the years who lived in subsidized housing. (They have all moved on.) .
Decades ago, I read an article in some local newspaper-- the Times, the Weekly-- I forget-- that described certain towns as being "mature" -- real estate wise -- with older, established families, often inherited wealth and houses, such as Atherton, Hillsborough, and so on, with house prices 10X earned income, while Palo Alto at the time was still considered "young" -- real estate wise -- with house prices 3X earned income. Since then, Palo Alto has moved into the "mature" list. In that sense, you are correct, because you never have affordable market rate housing in a mature community.
However, since then, the entire Peninsula, including SF, has gone into (gentrification)^^2, and, combined with uncontrolled job growth, we now have a "crisis". Because of the "crisis", we have to "do something". So, let's "do something", as long as we are not adding office space and making things worse, or, building luxury-units, which also make things worse. We want the average rent to go down.
University South
on Sep 19, 2019 at 8:07 pm
on Sep 19, 2019 at 8:07 pm
[Post removed.]
University South
on Sep 19, 2019 at 8:23 pm
on Sep 19, 2019 at 8:23 pm
My comment was removed? After the trash I just had to read, MY comment was the offensive one? What a joke.
For posterity, my exact comments (I believe) were as follows:
"This comments section hurts my soul. You people are ghouls. Try therapy instead."
These 3 sentences should be read by the truly sad people writing these despicable things.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2019 at 9:56 pm
on Sep 19, 2019 at 9:56 pm
Posted by SMH@BJ
>> "This comments section hurts my soul. You people are ghouls. Try therapy instead." [...] truly sad people writing these despicable things.
Can you identify exactly which comments hurt your soul the most, and, why? Which comments in particular were despicable, and, why?
Barron Park
on Sep 19, 2019 at 10:47 pm
on Sep 19, 2019 at 10:47 pm
IMO Mr. Sheyner appears far more sympathetic to the PAF camp's definition of "affordable" housing (appropriate for a single tech worker with a 6-figure salary) than housing that would be affordedable to more financially challenged resident-serving service sector workers that Kou and DuBois are proposing.
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 20, 2019 at 7:40 am
Registered user
on Sep 20, 2019 at 7:40 am
>> The debate should be whether ultra expensive cities should subsidize housing for those who want, but can't afford to live there. It's a debate worth having, but talking about affordable housing in Palo Alto, Woodside, Malibu...Affordable housing in Palo Alto is an oxymoron, such a thing does not exist.
^^^ Besides...don't those who can actually afford to reside in the more affluent/pricier neighborhoods do so in order to avoid the elements of subsidized residential developments in their respective communities.
Lake Forest, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Atherton, Hillsborough, Tiburon et al would not be what they are (or represent) if housing 'projects' were also included in the local landscape.
Exclusivity has it privileges and its followed by the dollar sign...big ones.
Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2019 at 8:57 am
on Sep 20, 2019 at 8:57 am
Why not help subsidize housing in areas that already have large apartment complexes? Redwood City, EPA and San Jose. Best part is it would give EPA lots of new tax revenue and hopefully more spending at their local businesses. Building along the railway is also a solid way to develop the subsidized housing market without impacting Palo Altos overall feel.
Green Acres
on Sep 20, 2019 at 10:14 am
on Sep 20, 2019 at 10:14 am
I would like to see a cost/benefit analysis of typical "affordable housing" projects funded by public money. I suspect that the cost to build an "affordable" project on a cost per person basis is absurdly high in this area. In other words, affordable housing projects are "feel good" token measures that hardly make a dent in the problem and are economically unjustifiable.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 20, 2019 at 11:03 am
Registered user
on Sep 20, 2019 at 11:03 am
Since we all agree this would be subsidized housing, who is more likely to get it, an employee of the city's parks department, or a tech worker making a six figure salary with stock options?
We know the answer, so the public will be subsidizing well compensated tech workers who still don't make enough to buy a home in mega expensive Palo Alto.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Sep 20, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Registered user
on Sep 20, 2019 at 1:00 pm
"We know the answer, so the public will be subsidizing well compensated tech workers who still don't make enough to buy a home in mega expensive Palo Alto."
It seems that every time council discusses housing for those who earn less than $80,000 a year, Adrian Fine persistently argues to build "affordable" housing for tech workers who earn well over $100,000 insead. But, as a tech worker himself, his raison d'etre for running for council was to loosen R-1 zoning standards to permit denser development throughout all of Palo Alto.
The latest emergency housing bill, which is now only waiting for Governor Gavin Newsom's signature, takes particular aim at "job's rich" cities like Palo Alto. This bill will automatically remove local restrictions to permit "by right" denser development standards in all neighborhoods currently restricted to R-1 zoning. Not limited to neighborhoods in close proximity to public transit as with the less jobs rich towns. However, this "emergency" bill is only for the next five years, or at least to begin with.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2019 at 10:22 pm
on Sep 22, 2019 at 10:22 pm
@Skeptical is right. DuBois and Kou should be disqualified from putting forward affordable housing measures.
Now some would argue that Maybell was complicated, and point to DuBois and Kou’s support for the Buena Vista rescue, funding affordable housing, the Wilton Court project, the VTA Lot project, the Affordable Housing overlay, and other city housing measures. Nonsense. The only reason to oppose Maybell was that you hate all housing, period. Too many people have forgotten that.
Housing advocacy is a serious calling, and it must resist tainting by interlopers. We need statewide vetting for housing advocates: testing and licensing. Only the righteous should be allowed to even support such a measure, let alone author it. DuBois and Kou’s proposal should be disallowed, and if someone worthier should bring the same thing up again, then DuBois and Kou should be forced to vote against it - it’s the only way to preserve the Movement.
Stanford
on Sep 24, 2019 at 8:28 am
on Sep 24, 2019 at 8:28 am
So ... it's about the preservation of the Movement, which has absolutely nothing to do with affordable housing except shilling for luxury commercial developers.
Same for SV@Home and Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 pm
Registered user
on Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 pm
As to the Fry's' debacle - that is the most obvious location for mixed housing which could help us check some boxes of state requirements. Multiple towers which could house different wage groups in each tower and segregate out part for teachers and city service people. Kou rhapsodized about the Chinese roots and though that could be some type of heritage museum. We already have a heritage museum. We need housing. So we have PACC members who are waffling on the obvious locations. So where is this all going?