October 19, 2005

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

City Council: How pro-housing should Palo Alto be?

by Bill D'Agostino

Has Palo Alto reached its housing limit or does the city need more units?

That discussion -- a regular topic during most Palo Alto political seasons -- intensified recently when University South Neighborhood President Elaine Meyer distributed a list of potential housing developments. It showed a possible influx of more than 8,000 new residents into Palo Alto and raised concerns among some neighborhood leaders about resulting impacts on streets and schools and other local services.

(Meyer's report has been criticized for listing the maximum possible housing units that could be built at various sites and including projects several years away from approval.)

Meanwhile, the council made housing impossible or more difficult to approve in industrial and manufacturing areas last week, a move some candidates were recommending.

In April, the council decided not to allow more "granny units" in residential districts. When lobbying against the change, some claimed the city entered into an implicit "covenant" to preserve their neighborhoods' one-dwelling-per-acre standard.

Housing advocate Sally Probst said she is concerned about the "growing anti-housing movement" within Palo Alto. She noted that middle-class workers are being priced out of Palo Alto and that many workers in the city commute from far distances.

"The more we bring employees here, the more we're adding to ... pollution on the highways and eating up the farmland and open space instead of adding some density here in the city," Probst said. She noted that Palo Alto has a job/housing imbalance. According to a recent city report, there are 2.77 jobs in the city for every employed Palo Alto resident.

To get a handle on how the 10 City Council candidates think about this issue, the Weekly asked them whether they favored a "slow growth" or "pro-growth" approach to real estate development. They expressed a range of views on the issue.

Danielle Martell shared the most extreme view when she expressed a desire to put a stop to nearly all housing developments.

"I believe that we have nearly grown to our city's limit," said Martell, who writes educational software. "We have enough people here."

Two council candidates -- Larry Klein and Yoriko Kishimoto -- said they favored a "slow growth" approach. During a recent forum, held by the League of Women Voters, Klein called the demand for housing in Palo Alto "insatiable."

"We can't solve all those problems of housing without really making severe damage to our community, not only the city but also the school district," said Klein, a former mayor.

He later added: "I don't think we should feel guilty ... about the jobs/housing imbalance."

During the same forum, Kishimoto, one of only two incumbents in the race, pointed out that more than 40 percent of Palo Alto's housing units are rentals.

"In some ways, we're not doing so badly," she said.

Jack Morton, the other incumbent, said he wanted "considerate growth."

"I want planned growth," he said. "I want growth that fits in with the character of our community."

Both Morton and Kishimoto voted last week voted to make housing impossible or more difficult to approve in manufacturing and industrial zones. But they split on the granny-unit issue, with Kishimoto voting to allow more second dwellings and Morton voting against them.

No candidate told the Weekly he or she was "pro-growth."

Unlike prior races, only a few candidates are making the need for more affordable housing part of their platform. One exception is John Barton, a school board member who said he was for "modest growth." He said adding affordable housing to Palo Alto "is almost a moral issue."

"We do need to build higher-density, affordable housing," Barton said. "I know there are those folks in the community who have problems with higher density. I respectfully disagree with their view."

Peter Drekmeier, an environmental activist, said he favored "smart growth." The need for more affordable housing is an environmental issue, he said, because local workers with long commutes cause air pollution.

Drekmeier said he supported "infill" housing -- projects on already developed plots -- and affordable housing "close to transportation corridors." He cited Alma Place, a 106-unit apartment complex in downtown Palo Alto, as a commendable example.

Norman Carroll, an activist for the un-housed, also stated at a recent forum that he supported infill development.

Three candidates -- Harold "Skip" Justman, Victor Frost and Karen Holman -- did not state where on the spectrum (from "slow-growth" to "pro-growth") they land. All three said proposed projects needed to be weighed individually.

Holman, a member of the city's Planning and Transportation Commission, said the council should follow the city's planning documents, including the Comprehensive Plan, which lays out where housing and other developments go.

When the Weekly asked his view, Frost, a panhandler, said: "We cannot generalize. We must go after, what are the repercussions now, what are repercussions in 10 years?"

Responding to the same question, Justman said: "Planning has to be done on a case-by-case basis. The minute you have an ideological position that is going to fudge your decision one way or the other, I think you are doing a disservice to the community."

When pressed, Justman noted he favored 800 High St., a 61-unit condominium project that was approved by voters in 2003. The project is now under construction.

"If you have a project that is a well-planned project near a train station, I would be inclined to think we need that as a community," said Justman, a real-estate lawyer.

Staff Writer Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.