A developer looking to invoke the "builder's remedy" rule to build a residential complex and a new hotel building at the Creekside Inn site in Palo Alto's Barron Park neighborhood hit a roadblock Wednesday, July 19, when the city deemed its application incomplete.
The applicant, Oxford Capital, has been banking on several recently approved state laws to aid its project. After a prior attempt, which featured 389 apartments, was pilloried by neighbors and City Council members last year, Oxford returned in June with a preliminary application that leans on both Senate Bill 330 and the builder's remedy rule. SB 330 creates a streamlined process for predominantly residential projects, while the builder's remedy provision gives developers a way to overcome zoning regulations in cities that don't have a legally compliant Housing Element.
The developer's attorneys said in a letter that they are relying on the builder's remedy to move the application forward and "ensure accountability in consideration of the revised project" at 3400 El Camino Real, near Matadero Creek.
On Wednesday, however, the developers were notified by the Department of Planning and Development Services that their preliminary application for an SB 330 project fails to comply with state law — a finding that is based on a discrepancy in calculations of residential square footage.
City planner Garrett Sauls notified the project team that SB 330 requires that at least two-thirds of the development be designated for residential use. The Creekside Inn project includes 200 new hotel rooms, a component that Sauls noted takes up 34.9% of the site's square footage (or 119,834 square feet), leaving 65.1% (or 223,576 square feet) for the residential component — just shy of 66.7%.
Sauls informed Ted O'Hanlon, who is representing the developer, that the application "will need to be modified to provide the required two-thirds residential square footage in order to qualify as a Housing Development Project" under state code.
He also pushed back against assertions by Oxford Capital's legal team that the project qualifies for the builder's remedy, noting that the council adopted a Housing Element on May 8. The document, which was due on Jan. 31, lays out the city plan for accommodating 6,086 more residences in the next cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, which runs from 2023 to 2031.
While city officials believe the recently adopted document complies with state law, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has yet to approve it. The city submitted its second draft to the HCD last month and is expecting the next comment letter from the HCD in August.
Housing advocates have argued that cities remain subject to the builder's remedy until the HCD certifies their Housing Elements after deeming them "substantially compliant" with state law. While that position has the backing of Attorney General Rob Bonta, it remains legally untested, and various cities, most notably Huntington Beach, have challenged the applicability of the builder's remedy to their communities.
HCD, for its part, issued a memorandum in March notifying all California cities that they do not have the authority to determine that their Housing Elements are in compliance, a finding that can only be made by the HCD. Furthermore, the compliance period begins on the date of the HCD's letter finding "substantial compliance," the memo stated.
The question over the applicability of the builder's remedy may have significant ramifications for the Creekside Inn project. Chelsea Maclean and Genna Yarkin, attorneys at Holland & Knight, argued on behalf of Oxford that the builder's remedy applies because the application was submitted at a time when the city did not have a substantially compliant Housing Element, as determined by the HCD. They cited the March memorandum from the HCD and argued that "the time to submit a Builder's Remedy project remains open until HCD finds that the City has a housing element that is substantially compliant — substantively and procedurally."
The city does not entirely accept that argument. Sauls noted in his letter to the project team that the city believes its locally adopted Housing Element complies with state law and that "it is unclear whether the Builder's Remedy applies to this preapplication."
Sauls also noted that the project, as proposed, does not provide enough parking spaces and that some of the buildings at the existing site are more than 45 years old and would need to be evaluated for historical significance.
The project would involve the demolition of buildings that currently house Driftwood Deli and Cibo Restaurant & Bar. Cibo's shut down last month, citing "recent irreconcilable situations with the landlord," according to its posted announcement.
Comments
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 20, 2023 at 2:47 pm
Registered user
on Jul 20, 2023 at 2:47 pm
Why not turn those 200 hotel rooms into housing units since hotels vacancies have soared so dramatically that some of the biggest hotels have turned their properties back to their lenders?
Business travel is down dramatically with the tech crash, people working remotely, layoffs, etc etc.
PA's housing numbers were based on jobs numbers that have shrunk since because they were set before the pandemic, before the layoffs, before workers went remote, before companies started cutting expenses for travel, raises, etc. and before offices had a 30% vacancy rate and rising.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 21, 2023 at 3:08 pm
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2023 at 3:08 pm
Just to correct misinformation - something we are all sensitive to in the current political climate.......
Palo Alto's RHNA goal number from the state (which is what I believe is the topic of the previous post), is revised every 8 years and is absolutely not a direct jobs/housing calculation. If only it were that easy.
In the past, the RHNA goal number focused only on housing needed to match population growth, but now it must address the needs of existing residents who live in overcrowded conditions or pay more than 30% of their income for rent. As a result, roughly half of the Bay Area's housing allocation is not related to future growth but is to address challenges facing existing residents.
I hope this clarifies the issue because the calculation isn't as simple as one would think. Despite working from home and layoffs, the area is still in a horrible housing crisis. I don't think anyone would argue against that point.
Registered user
University South
on Jul 21, 2023 at 3:35 pm
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2023 at 3:35 pm
The Bay Area and Silicon Valley reached record high job levels in June as you will read about tomorrow and despite the layoffs.
Our hotel tax revenue is surging according to the recent budget report and occupancy here is up not down.
We can discuss and disagree on housing and projects but at least we should start from common facts about Palo Alto and Silicon Valley
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 21, 2023 at 3:53 pm
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2023 at 3:53 pm
"Palo Alto's RHNA goal number from the state (which is what I believe is the topic of the previous post), is revised every 8 years and is absolutely not a direct jobs/housing calculation. If only it were that easy."
The RNHNA numbers were based on the number of jobs we had here years ago when the RNHA numbers were decided on, when commuters outnumbered residents 4:1, when we had to implement permit parking for residents because the commuters wouldn't use the garages. etc.
A lot happens in during an 8-year period yet Atty Gen Bonta has refused to consider any arguments against the numbers no matter how serious -- like drought, fires, massive layoffs, like a budget surplus that became a budget deficit so there's no longer any money of affordable housing..
Not having money for affordable housing is just ducky with the developers and paid lobbyists and high tech because they only wanted to house THEIR workers, not those truly in need. -That's why they limited below market rate housing to only 15% of the RHNA numbers with only 5% for the truly low-income.
Registered user
University South
on Jul 21, 2023 at 4:34 pm
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2023 at 4:34 pm
Online Name,
What you wrote above is incorrect
1) Of Palo Alto's 6086 RHNA allocation, 1,556 units are to be affordable to very low income residents as is shown in our Housing Element. Just under 60% of the units are to be affordable for all low-and-moderate income residents
2) Following state law HCD included in the Bay Area RHNA units to mitigate the challenges facing existing residents who live in overcrowded housing or are cost-burdened. In all 50% of the regional needs determination was to help existing residents and only 50% for growth.
3) As I wrote above, job levels in the region are at an all-time high despite the layoffs. Moreover, companies and public agencies are requiring some days in the office so you can do that if you live nearby not necessarily in Palo Alto but cannot do that going forward from places like Boise unless you are granted an exception.
4) Palo Alto's current and projected job growth was one factor in the local allocation but only one factor and a good amount of job growth is anticipated in our General Plan. Other factors include being close to jobs and transit and being a good place for low-income families to live if we can provide the affordable housing.
Registered user
University South
on Jul 21, 2023 at 4:37 pm
Registered user
on Jul 21, 2023 at 4:37 pm
Online,
Palo Alto's number is an allocation of the region's housing requirement to localities. Trying to argue that Palo Alto is being treated unfairly will not get you far. Have you noticed that most cities have accepted the numbers and that it is cities with residents who feel entitled who are protesting?
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jul 22, 2023 at 6:47 am
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 6:47 am
Wasn't it reported that Palo Alto's RHNA number is as high as it is because this city is regarded as both jobs-rich and transit-rich? Both those factors have changed but the RHNA numbers challenging numerous cities have not been adjusted to reflect those changes. I also wonder if the jobs number factors in the # of jobs that require people to be on site at a Palo Alto place of work rather than WFH or the popular hybrid, on-site/at home model.
As for the builder's remedy, the process for getting the HCD seal of approval is flawed. Since there's no incentive for HCD to complete its review in a timely manner, the process has a baked-in advantage for developers. If cities that have submitted a plan in good faith (meaning it is believed to be compliant) are vulnerable to builder's remedy until HCD gets around to fully blessing that plan, all sorts of unmitigated and arguably unneeded (because of type and cost) housing could be built. Isn't the top housing goal one of quality not quantity? I think it makes sense to add first the quality we do need (affordable housing, especially for those with community-serving jobs) rather than a high quantity of what we don't really need now - and may never.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 22, 2023 at 9:00 am
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 9:00 am
Top level discussion that needs to be considered regarding the bike lanes on ECR and traffic mitigation efforts discussed in Weekly. A major problem for commuters for any reason - big games, shopping, restaurants is parking and avoidance of extreme traffic congestion. Where to park? How to get off the street where traffic is going no where. On my cul-de-sac cars rush in at high speed, spin and go back out. Frustrated drivers who endanger the residents, children and pets who are out-doors. In North PA cars are roaming around to avoid the big streets and in your neighborhood. They have no familiarity with the streets and are frustrated.
People who work here have no place to park in the garage of the business where they work so they are parking on the residential streets. Every day consuming space along with the large trucks who are dropping off your purchases - now a lot for food items.
Safety of children crossing ECR? How about the safety of the children on your own street due to commuters that have no idea where to park to get their tasks done. They are frustrated by the whole mess and put your children and pets in danger with their frustration and anger driving around looking for a place to park - or get out of a congested street.
If all of the people who have a reason to be in a location cannot get there they will be frustrated and angry because some agency has determined to thwart their efforts and make it difficult to transact what ever they are trying to do.
Is this just another piece of the larger effort to destroy common sense and good planning that we see happening all over the bay area? The larger cities are now in distress due to this onslaught of people trying to destroy the current lifestyle of the people living here.
If you want to save the children, old people and pets the get them off your street. Get them onto the large designated commuter streets which are designed to facilitate the business of the city
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2023 at 10:23 am
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 10:23 am
I've been in the BA for over 30 years, and at no point has it ever been a place where you could afford to be not cost-burdened as an ordinary person. Just getting into housing that is not unsafe or unhealthy can take years and years. Renters are subject to the whims of the economic cycle. The percent of truly affordable housing should be higher, and those who win the lottery and get into the units should be given the chance to pay half of their rent into a fund for their own future housing purchase, whether within a BMR program or not. There should be some kind of participation like Habitat for Humanity, so people contribute to their housing in whatever way they are able. We can't just give people a lifeline only to trap them in it.
That said, overbuilding isn't good for anyone. El Camino is not some kind of infinitely expandable pipeline, and the neighborhood there has seriously substandard streets. Safety considerations need to be elevated, legally, in the planning process.
Registered user
University South
on Jul 22, 2023 at 11:04 am
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 11:04 am
Annette,
The criteria used by ABAG to give PA an extra share of the region's allocation were 1) a great place for low income families to live and b) good access to jobs for car drivers and those using public transit. Both are true and also were applied to most of our neighboring cites.
Palo Alto is a job rich city and would be so compared to others in the region if we added no jobs for several years.
As I mentioned above if you look at today's news you will see that the region and Silicon Valley set all-time job records last month despite the layoffs.
Finally, PA is being treated like all of our neighbors by HCD. They respond to our submittals within three months for the first submittal and two months for succeding revisions as they do for others.
Their last letter was in March and we did not submit a revision until June so their next response should be soon--early August.
Let's see what they have to say.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 22, 2023 at 11:29 am
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 11:29 am
@Stephen Levy, who elected / appointed ABAG or any of the other NGO's pushing for increased density and primarily Market Rate Housing instead of BMR? Certainly not the voters and you yourself have published articles on the need for more -- not less -- market rate housing. Who lobbied for 85% market rate housing?
Certainly not the voters.
"As I mentioned above if you look at today's news you will see that the region and Silicon Valley set all-time job records last month despite the layoffs."
Yup, many of us read that article and your usual rosy view of the economy -- the same rosy view when all the layoffs happened and the economy was in the toilet. Miraculously and not a single "business leader" or lobbyist speaking at any of the State of The Valley forums saw a single problem. Just ignore the 30% office vacancy rate, the decline in business travel, etc. and keep chanting "Build, Baby, Build!"
Who lobbied to bar ANY reconsideration of the RHNA numbers for 8 -- EIGHT -- years? Certainly not the voters and where some communities that have filed suit to contest the numbers.
Many people are asking what happened to democracy where common sense arguments about drought, fire risks, traffic congestion, historic value (Pasadena) and tourism, power shortages etc. are totally irrelevant and can't even be discussed for 8 years.
What in your life is the same as 8 years ago? Your weight? Your family size? Your portfolio value? Your health? Whether your home withstood the floods and fires?
Maybe the most important indicator that things change is all the insurance companies cancelling California homeowners insurance due to the risk of fire, flooding, the inability of fire trucks to reach the endangered sites in a timely manner -- which is something the former Menlo Park Police chief warned about years ago when his crew railed to reach an accident on 101 in a timely manner and people died!
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 22, 2023 at 12:48 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 12:48 pm
If a 2 bedroom apartment would count as 2 housing units and if a 3 bedroom apartment would count as 3 housing units then we would end up with a more family friendly mix of new housing units!
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 22, 2023 at 1:36 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 1:36 pm
PalyGrad, you're being way too sensible. Remember Doria Summa's quote abut whether Palo Alto is a community or a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder(s).
You're also assuming the goal is to house the most people instead of creating profitable new opportunities for developers, real estate attorneys, realtors, consultants, lobbyists, planners, politicians, fundraisers, campaign managers and the whole rest of the Densification Industrial Complex.
And that's before the builders, architects and other construction trades get involved.
As always, follow the money.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 22, 2023 at 1:55 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 1:55 pm
So gross watching greedy developers and righteous leftists try and destroy Palo Alto. They actually believe that the people of Palo Alto have no right to determine what should be here. They shove mandates through Sacramento because they are not interested in democracy. They only want to make money and feel good about themselves.
[Portion removed.]
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jul 22, 2023 at 3:59 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 3:59 pm
@Stephen Levy: You wrote that "The criteria used by ABAG to give PA an extra share of the region's allocation were 1) a great place for low income families to live and b) good access to jobs for car drivers and those using public transit. Both are true and also were applied to most of our neighboring cites."
What makes Palo Alto a great place for low income families? Given the cost of housing alone I would conclude that Palo Alto is a difficult place to live without a significantly higher than "low" income.
And I think the transportation claim is a stretch. Once a person gets to Palo Alto, if their job isn't within walking or biking distance of one of the train stations - good luck. For those people, the commute is longer and costlier. And commuters seem to be choosing to not ride public transportation. Both CalTrain and Bart are seeking public subsidies.
As for record jobs, unless I am mis-remembering the data for jobs information that was shared at the State of the Valley meeting noted that the jobs # does not necessarily reflect jobs that are actually done in Silicon Valley, even if counted as a Silicon Valley position.
What I am suggesting is that ABAG up its credibility factor by acknowledging new realities.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 22, 2023 at 6:04 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 6:04 pm
"@Stephen Levy: You wrote that "The criteria used by ABAG to give PA an extra share of the region's allocation were 1) a great place for low income families to live .."
Alert the media that Palo Alto is no longer one of the most expensive places to live 9n the country so they can revise all their reports to add it to the lists of "Best Places to live on the Cheap" and lump us in with Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi etc.
Since the average price of a single-family home in the country is around $350,000 and here it's around $3,300,000 maybe one of our new math wizards can explain away that pesky last missing zero.
The editors will have lots of fun when they get to the average income section of how much you need to live in various places comfortably. And the rest of the country can continue to laugh at our "logic"
"What is low income in Silicon Valley?
By Aimee Picchi. June 28, 2023 / 2:52 PM / MoneyWatch. Study: More seniors are becoming homeless. Single people in San Francisco who earn less than $104,400 are considered low income, according to new government guidelines that determine who qualifies for some housing aid.Jun 28, 2023"
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jul 22, 2023 at 6:57 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 6:57 pm
This project is an abomination. It is absolutely terrible and should never be built as it is far too big for the site and neighborhood. The neighborhood is semi-rural and has single family homes, which is how it should remain. The motel has been there for many years and as it has been, fit perfectly with the neighborhood by having plenty of parking for the hotel. The hotel was set back from the street so it did not overwhelm homes.
The new proposal is far too large for the site. The developers are trashing all of our neighborhoods. Let them build something like this on the empty lot on Waverley Street near Santa Rita not in this area which has been and still is semi-rural.
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 22, 2023 at 7:24 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 7:24 pm
The estimated population in Palo Alto decreased 3.8% from April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022 according to the United States Census Bureau.
Web Link
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 22, 2023 at 10:34 pm
Registered user
on Jul 22, 2023 at 10:34 pm
Yup, the decline was during the pandemic when many people started working remotely. San Francisco lost 54,000 people.
Many of those who left aren't coming back which is another reason why the RNHA numbers are so inaccurate.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 23, 2023 at 12:06 pm
Registered user
on Jul 23, 2023 at 12:06 pm
In the San Francisco Sunset district which is residential single story homes they want to put a 50 level residential tower. So they can prove that they are building for many people? Where are those tower residents going to park? On the residential streets.
Same idea here with the build, build, build campaign which is going to put a massive parking problem on the streets where you keep adding additional people. These campaigns do not include sufficient parking for the residents so you have excessive overflow on to the residential streets. That is the safety of the children and pets that are out and about in the neighborhood. They cannot use the streets with cars zipping all around. Commute time in the morning is same as time to go to school - kids on bikes.
The ABAG people are deluded if they think this city is a good place for low income people. They are gaming the system - which is their "job".
Does this new residential building have sufficient parking so there is no overflow onto the residential streets? Lets take bets on that. Mo parking on ECR? More parking issues.
I think it is time for this city to have a dog and pony show of all of the special interest groups to provide a presentation on what they are doing now, what they are planning, and how many consultants they have hired to promote their special interests. A lot of these activities are single topic in their endeavors with no report on the impact to the cities bottom line, resident's concerns, and general health of this city. They keep using the "I" word - what they want to do with no regard to the overall neighborhoods in the city. We are also now dealing with elected people who are on a crusade of their special interests - even though that is not their job description. We need to get everyone in the same place to review what is going on - eyeball to eyeball. I keep wondering who all of these people are who are promoting major changes to the city.
Registered user
Portola Valley
on Jul 24, 2023 at 8:30 am
Registered user
on Jul 24, 2023 at 8:30 am
The question is why do so many people still want to live in Palo Alto especially when the quality of life in Palo Alto is declining due to congestion and overdevelopment?
This does not make sense. As Lily Tomlin once noted, "Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat."
Palo Alto has become a rat cage and there is no escaping other than to move elsewhere.
Registered user
Community Center
on Jul 24, 2023 at 9:43 am
Registered user
on Jul 24, 2023 at 9:43 am
The ABAG RHNA numbers were based on a flawed and inflated study by McKinsey. Let’s remember the reason that housing prices are high is because tech companies have grown and expanded massively in this area and proceed to pay their employees very high salaries making it difficult for other non high paid folks to afford for housing. 25 years ago Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Tesla and Palantir did not exist.
The state has not meaningfully funded and does not want to seriously fund below market housing because market rate developers and corporations fund their campaigns and below market housing does not help either of these groups. Rather than tax tech companies for the mess they created its much easier to blame home owners and tax them to subsidize the tech companies continued expansion in place whether by adding new office (thank you Redwood City, Mountain View and Menlo Park) or by packing employees in tighter to existing oofice space. And locally Stanford also continues to expand faster than the housing they build.
Registered user
Charleston Meadows
on Jul 24, 2023 at 10:14 am
Registered user
on Jul 24, 2023 at 10:14 am
I am going to state something that drives some YIMBYs up the wall: Neighborhoods have character. Barron Park has a semi-rural character, as others have stated, and any new projects should respect that. This project certainly doesn’t seem to be very respectful.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 24, 2023 at 12:12 pm
Registered user
on Jul 24, 2023 at 12:12 pm
Joe Garfoli - political pundit in the SFC - Sunday edition - "High bridge toll dings low-paid commuters". Another legal offering by "The Weiner" of SF. Joe uses the example of a janitor who does all of his work at night to get the business ready for the next day commutes in from Richmond. All of the commercial transports are closed at night - Bart. The increase in the bridge toll will directly hurt this commuter - he has to use a car.
Translate to ABAG-PA and it's supposed low income opinions - I think that is the hotel and business workers who have to come in early to clean and get the kitchens going to support the activity of the buildings residents - and the maids who clean the rooms. And the grounds keepers of the hotels to keep it spiff - pools cleaned and ready to go.
At least Joe now sees that one action by the CA legislature to produce one effect has an opposite effect which is even worse. And these efforts to "help" the disadvantage actually penalizes them.
We need to check this city to see how all of the policies are marketed to "help" one group has the opposite effect of killing all of the other groups. Marketing of ideas and slogans need to be challenged.