Palo Alto Weekly

News - July 13, 2012

Future Palo Alto housing: taller, smaller

City signs off on Housing Element that stresses proximity to transit hubs

by Gennady Sheyner

In a radical departure from recent trends, Palo Alto officials endorsed a new vision for housing on Monday, July 9, that prizes taller buildings with smaller units.

The vision is encoded in the city's Housing Element, a state-mandated, broad document that lays out the city's strategy for responding to regional housing mandates. Palo Alto is required by state law to plan for — though not actually build — 2,860 housing units during the planning period of 2007-14.

The City Council has consistently argued that the mandate is grossly unrealistic and impossible to attain in a built-out city with astronomical real-estate prices. But to comply with state law, the council agreed to forward the new Housing Element to the state Department of Housing and Community Development for review.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the city's new housing strategy is its break from the past. The council had previously encouraged the development of housing by allowing dense residential complexes to be built on commercially zoned sites. Over the past decade, this policy has spurred a boon in residential complexes in south Palo Alto, with major housing projects such as Vantage, Altaire and Echelon recently going up in the area of East Meadow Circle. The trend, however, has left city planners and council members concerned about the lack of amenities and transportation options to support the explosion in residential units.

The new Housing Element, by contrast, eschews major zoning changes and targets areas around major transportation hubs for growth. The vision calls for protecting single-family residential neighborhoods from additional housing and instead targeting growth at dense sites such as downtown, El Camino Real and California Avenue that are well-connected to transportation. In some cases, this could mean breaking the city's longstanding 50-foot height limit — a policy that would be explored at select sites near Caltrain stations under the new strategy.

The strategy also calls for smaller units, which are both more affordable and whose residents would require fewer city services, such as use of "roads, water, sewer and schools," according to a report from city planner Tim Wong. In particular, the housing could serve the needs of the growing elderly population.

"As Palo Alto's senior population continues to increase, the need for smaller senior units is important as many senior households have become 'empty nesters' and would prefer to downsize," Wong wrote.

The vision statement in the Housing Element also alludes to the recent trends and the council's emphasis on protecting neighborhoods and ensuring new developments are supported by nearby stores, buses and trains. The vision reads: "Our housing and neighborhoods shall enhance the livable human environment for all residents, be accessible to civic and community services and sustain our natural resources."

The new Housing Element identifies 2,976 units. Of these, 1,192 have already been either constructed since January 2007 or are in process. The remaining 1,784 are potential housing units that are scattered around major transit hubs, including the Caltrain stations near University and California avenues.

The list of potential housing units includes 1,335 that could be placed in commercial districts capable of accommodating mixed-use developments. It also includes 264 units on sites that are currently zoned for residential use.

The city had previously considered allowing residential units to be built at city-owned parking lots, provided the amount of parking spots does not get reduced. But that proposal was shot down by the council's Regional Housing Mandate Committee, which reviewed the Housing Element in June.

"We thought it was premature to turn city parking lots into multi-unit housing at this time, with so much unsettled with parking and development in those areas," said Councilman Greg Schmid, a member of the committee.

Councilwoman Gail Price disagreed and argued that the city should keep the parking-lot policy in its Housing Element. She dissented in the final vote after the rest of the council decided to scrap this proposal.

"I do feel that this particular program ... provides flexibility and opportunity, and that's what Housing Elements and Comprehensive Plans should be all about — not closing doors but opening doors to opportunity," Price said.

Local hotels are also part of the new housing plan. Turning some hotel rooms into condominiums could provide 113 housing units, Planning Director Curtis Williams said.

But even as they prepared to submit the document to the state, council members continued to criticize the housing-allocation process, which is directed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Councilman Larry Klein urged the city to include in its submission to the state a note regarding the city's opposition to the process.

Klein's colleagues shared his frustrations with the state mandates. Councilwoman Nancy Shepherd alluded to the tension inherent in the city's journey toward adopting the Housing Element. On one hand, the city is required to submit a document to remain qualified for state grants and to avoid potential litigation. On the other hand, the community wants to maintain its independent power to set its own density objectives. The document, she said, is a major source of "angst" in the community.

The council's decision to forward the Housing Element to the state will now prompt a dialogue between city and state officials about the policies in the document. Once the state signs off, the council can adopt it and integrate it into its Comprehensive Plan, the city's official land-use bible. But planners won't be able to rest for long. The planning period for the newly approved Housing Element stretches to 2014, meaning the city will have to start working on the document's next iteration, which covers the following seven years, within the next year, Williams said.

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be emailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Comments

Posted by Lee Ellak, a resident of another community
on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:28 am

Smaller square footage makes sense with the un-affordable state of housing in the bay area.

Seniors especially need affordable housing and it is sad that apartment rents are skyrocketing which will make it much more difficult for seniors to retire in the area and be near their grandchildren and other family members.

Even single college graduates could get by with smaller square-footage pads to give them time to settle in with their new jobs and to have funds to pay off student loans.

And for the folks who hate cutting their grass on Sunday, their cherished day of rest from the rat-race, smaller square footage means less maintenance and lawn care, if they even have a lawn.

In closing, one ponders, why do cities have to take dictates from the state on what housing numbers are allocated to individual cities? Can't the local politicians influence their state lawmakers to change the laws if the city thinks they should not be forced to build or overbuild? Or the state legislators influence the Congressional leaders at the federal level?

I wonder what the housing plans are for Atherton, for example, or other ritzy areas.

My big fear is that with escalating rents and home prices, seniors will become the next rank to join the homeless.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Sounds like too much government control to me.
Or - how about we get rid of the luxury-level housing allowance provided by PA taxpayers for PA city manager, etc. -- if s/he is going to join us in living in a "smaller square footage pad?"


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields