Seeking to ensure that recently approved housing projects actually get built, Palo Alto is preparing to extend the expiration period for planning entitlements — a move meant to give developers more time to line up financing and prepare for construction.
The immediate goal of the extension is to preserve two recently approved projects: a three-unit development at 3585 El Camino Real and a 102-apartment project at 788 San Antonio Road. The planning entitlements for the two projects are set to expire in December and in January, consistent with the 12-month timeline in the city code. The extension will give the developers another 18 months to line up their building permits.
In proposing the move, staff from the Department of Planning and Development Services cited the ongoing challenges that developers are facing as they try to build residential projects. These include high interest rates as well as high costs of labor and supplies.
These issues also came up on Nov. 13, when the council was approving a series of zone changes to allow more building height and greater density in several sections of the city, including around San Antonio Road and on a segment of El Camino Real, between Page Mill Road and Matadero Avenue. Those actions, much like the proposed extension, aim to help developers overcome regulatory barriers and help the city meet its state-mandated goal of producing 6,086 dwellings by 2031.
During the Nov. 13 discussion, Council member Pat Burt warned that some developers may have a hard time pursuing new projects given the challenging economic environment.
"Those projects that have financing are moving forward, but we are likely to see as a region a significant downturn in the next several years of new projects breaking ground until interest rates come back — not to where they were, but just off this very high level," Burt said.
City planners had initially proposed extending the entitlement period either by 18 months or until the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approves the city's Housing Element, which documents the city's strategies for producing the required housing. The state agency has twice rejected the city's submissions, including the Housing Element that the council formally adopted in May. City staff is now revising some of the policies and considering additional housing sites, including the ones along El Camino.
The council's Policy and Services Committee swiftly approved on Nov. 14 the proposal from Planning Director Jonathan Lait to grant the extension. To simplify the proposal, the committee also agreed that the extension should be for 18 months, regardless of when the HCD certifies the city's housing plans.
"The home-building environment remains somewhat volatile with interest rates and construction costs, so some of these projects have not moved to the building permit phase of the entitlement processing," Lait told the committee on Nov. 14.
He also noted in a report that the proposed ordinances to extend the planning entitlement period "further the council's goals as expressed in the city's adopted housing element and mitigates the potential loss or delay of planned housing unit production in Palo Alto."
Megan Watson, director for development at Grubb Properties, applauded the move. Grubb bought the property at 788 San Antonio Road in July 2022 and submitted a building permit application in December 2022 to construct a 102-apartment project.
The City Council had approved the planning entitlement for the housing project in November 2020, well before Grubb bought the property.
But after submitting the permit application last December, Grubb made the decision in April to put the application process on hold, Watson wrote. As the reason for the suspension, she cited "worsening economic conditions in the construction financing sector unfolding across the country."
Grubb is now working with the planning department to "find comprehensive solutions to maintain the economic viability of this housing project."
With the entitlement expiring on Jan. 6, 2024, Watson requested an extension to July 6, 2025.
"Approval of this request allows our respective parties to continue coordination efforts on the feasibility of this housing project at 788 San Antonio Road," she wrote.
She also urged the committee on Nov. 14 to remove the option of having entitlements expire when the HCD approves the city's housing plans.
"Once the HCD does certify, we would still be left in the same position of still having a project that's potentially unentitled and still having to seek a new project approval, which is specifically called out as imposing additional time and cost, which we're trying to prevent here," Watson said.
The committee acceded to her request and approved the proposal, which has a sunset date of Dec. 31, 2024. Council member Vicki Veenker also recommended a requirement showing that these extensions should only be granted at the planning director's discretion when an applicant has demonstrated "good cause."
"It seems like a little bit of a no-brainer, given our strong priority for promoting housing and the housing crisis we're facing," Veenker said.
Planning Director Jonathan Lait stressed that the extension is meant to be a short-term measure and that the city is not making any changes to the city's code that would permanently alter the approval process.
"Hopefully, folks are keeping an eye on their entitlement expiration dates and being mindful and coming in for extension if this is something that would work for them," Lait said.
Comments
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 16, 2023 at 10:23 am
Registered user
on Nov 16, 2023 at 10:23 am
Anything for our developers. Curious when "our" planning department is going to meet with residents since they couldn't be bothered to meet with various resident groups about the various housing laws even when legally required to do so.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 16, 2023 at 11:41 am
Registered user
on Nov 16, 2023 at 11:41 am
Is the State of California aware of these developer delays? Who is talking/negotiating with them about this? The city has been given only 7 years to implement an absurdly high 21% increase in housing units in Palo Alto. Is the State going to give the city a similar reprieve because these economic factors are also out of the city's control? Will these delays cause the city feel the lash of the sticks (and no carrots) built into new state housing laws?
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 16, 2023 at 12:43 pm
Registered user
on Nov 16, 2023 at 12:43 pm
WE have legislative people who are trying to make a name for themselves by continually tweaking housing laws which make the whole process more difficult. Add the state and federal government problems - insurance people are refusing to issue new policies for homes and the interest rate is too high. How did we get here? Why do we allow these people to keep hampering good government. CA is deserving all of the criticism that is heaped on it. Add New York which is also a mess. Time to challenge the organizations that are trying to muscle us.
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Nov 16, 2023 at 3:30 pm
Registered user
on Nov 16, 2023 at 3:30 pm
In California developers do come first. Ruin the cultural of lovely towns? No problem, the 'Berman Remedy' will ensure it happens.
Only those real estate developers with solid financials should be considered for any development. None of these non=profit groups should apply
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 16, 2023 at 4:33 pm
Registered user
on Nov 16, 2023 at 4:33 pm
"Is the State of California aware of these developer delays? Who is talking/negotiating with them about this? The city has been given only 7 years to implement an absurdly high 21% increase in housing units in Palo Alto. Is the State going to give the city a similar reprieve because these economic factors are also out of the city's control? Will these delays cause the city feel the lash of the sticks (and no carrots) built into new state housing laws?"
Excellent questions. State Attorney General Bonta has rejected all legal challenges and has even refused to reconsider the mandates for 8 years even in the face of glaring new economic realities -- like the state's huge surplus turning into a huge deficit, the decline of commuters, the layoffs, all the cancellation of big office projects by Big Tech, the declining use of / funding for public transit, the construction slowdowns due to high interest rates and so much more....
The laws were written to benefit big tech and big developers -- not to house poor granny, not reduce the commutes of lower-income workers who don't have access to corporate buses but DO get stuck paying higher tolls to "ease congestion" that they don't control.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2023 at 11:10 am
Registered user
on Nov 20, 2023 at 11:10 am
WE have one group that is working permits to build. We have city paid for services for water, electricity, sanitation, refuse hauling and disposal, and police force and fire to provide a safety net. Are they talking to each other? SF's water comes from Hetch Hetchy. Our water comes from Hetch Hetchy. How much water is there at Hetch Hetchy?
The 50 story building in SF has come up again. It is about 4 blocks from the beach. That is 50 stories of people going to the bathroom, taking showers, washing clothes and dishes, and putting trash down the bin for pick up. How many trucks have to come each week to pick up the trash? Where do they take the trash? That is 50 stories of people with cars - where do they park the cars?
EPA as reported in the papers has a limited sanitation problem so the County is now having to address how it is upgraded. PA is going to upgrade it's utility system. This is large amounts of money that most cities do not have. Also the land required for the facilities. No one is connecting the dots here. AG Bonta has to be able to fund cities to provide the services for all of the new housing. OH - that is you the resident taxpayer who is going to do that.