News

A modest proposal

View all sections of this cover story with photos.

When Vice Mayor Liz Kniss was campaigning for re-election last fall, one issue towered above all others among residents with whom she spoke.

"It was housing, housing and more housing," Kniss said during the City Council's March 20 meeting, as the council was deciding how many new housing units to plan for between now and 2030.

Public calls for more housing remained high after November, with hundreds of residents flocking to council hearings, signing petitions and penning emails urging the City Council to "go big" on housing. John Kelley, who is part of the growing crowd, told the council that if the city doesn't do anything "dramatic" about housing, families and friendships in Palo Alto will be torn apart.

"Are we simply going to be a community of the most wealthy of the world, or are we going to be a community that respects continuity of families, continuity of friendships and continuity of people living here?" Kelly asked on Jan. 30.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Some on the council share his view. Adrian Fine, who made housing the centerpiece of his council campaign, called it the community's "No. 1 concern." The city, he said, has not pulled its weight on housing for decades. The fact that between 2007 and 2013 the city only constructed 13 percent of the housing units that it was asked to plan for under its regional housing allocation only underscores that fact.

"I just don't think moderation is the way to go on this. ... I'd like to see Palo Alto be a leader on this," Fine said.

Councilman Cory Wolbach agreed and called the Comprehensive Plan a chance for the council to "right our wrongs" and "clean up our mess."

But as the council wrestled with the question of how much new housing to add, moderation was exactly what it settled for. Faced with six potential city-growth scenarios — ranging from 2,720 (in the scenario that continues all existing planning policies) to 6,000 housing units (the most aggressive growth scenario, added at the urging of the pro-housing crowd), the council's two wings agreed to meet somewhere the middle.

At the urging of Mayor Greg Scharff, the council chose a scenario that would produce between 3,545 and 4,442 units by 2030 — far short of the 10,000 that Kelley urged, the 8,000 that Wolbach had advocated for and the 10,225 that the City of Mountain View is including in its precise plan for the North Bayshore area.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Scharff and Councilman Eric Filseth both said that taking the middle path on housing is a "balanced" approach to growth. The city, Filseth said, has done a good job maintaining its balance between being "a purely residential suburb like Saratoga and Woodside versus a crowded urban city like downtown San Francisco.

"A lot of cities would like to be where we are," Filseth said. "Would everybody in Palo Alto like to have this and also have no traffic, easy parking everywhere, all the dog parks and playing fields you can possibly imagine and housing that everybody can afford who wants to live here? Of course. But it's not going to happen."

"I think what most people want is for us to keep this balance. I think most people don't want to be Atherton, and they don't want to be the Mission District either."

After Wolbach's bid to raise the number of housing units faltered by a 4-5 vote (with Kniss, Fine and Greg Tanaka joining him), the full council voted 8-1 to accept Scharff's more moderate proposal. Yet the council also approved by a 5-4 vote — with all four residentialist-leaning members dissenting — to add to the plan a program exploring more dense multifamily complexes in areas well-served by public transit.

There was far more consensus on the topic of new housing sites. In addition to reaffirming its often-stated preference for small housing units in transit-rich locations, the council unanimously agreed to explore multi-family housing along El Camino Real at Stanford Shopping Center, near the Stanford University Medical Center and at Stanford Research Park. (The only major disagreement came over whether housing should also be considered at Town & Country Village; the council voted 5-4 not to include it as a potential residential site.)

Tiffany Griego, manager of Stanford Research Park, indicated on March 20 that the idea of adding housing is one the park has also been considering.

"Stanford and the council have a shared vision in encouraging a mix of uses in Stanford Research Park," Griego said. "Where we see great opportunity is encouragement of housing in Stanford Research Park and in close proximity to jobs and transit."

• This article is part of a cover story on the Comprehensive Plan coming into focus. Find out what else the council is looking to change in the areas of development, building height limit, transportation and business.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

A modest proposal

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, May 19, 2017, 6:53 am

View all sections of this cover story with photos.

When Vice Mayor Liz Kniss was campaigning for re-election last fall, one issue towered above all others among residents with whom she spoke.

"It was housing, housing and more housing," Kniss said during the City Council's March 20 meeting, as the council was deciding how many new housing units to plan for between now and 2030.

Public calls for more housing remained high after November, with hundreds of residents flocking to council hearings, signing petitions and penning emails urging the City Council to "go big" on housing. John Kelley, who is part of the growing crowd, told the council that if the city doesn't do anything "dramatic" about housing, families and friendships in Palo Alto will be torn apart.

"Are we simply going to be a community of the most wealthy of the world, or are we going to be a community that respects continuity of families, continuity of friendships and continuity of people living here?" Kelly asked on Jan. 30.

Some on the council share his view. Adrian Fine, who made housing the centerpiece of his council campaign, called it the community's "No. 1 concern." The city, he said, has not pulled its weight on housing for decades. The fact that between 2007 and 2013 the city only constructed 13 percent of the housing units that it was asked to plan for under its regional housing allocation only underscores that fact.

"I just don't think moderation is the way to go on this. ... I'd like to see Palo Alto be a leader on this," Fine said.

Councilman Cory Wolbach agreed and called the Comprehensive Plan a chance for the council to "right our wrongs" and "clean up our mess."

But as the council wrestled with the question of how much new housing to add, moderation was exactly what it settled for. Faced with six potential city-growth scenarios — ranging from 2,720 (in the scenario that continues all existing planning policies) to 6,000 housing units (the most aggressive growth scenario, added at the urging of the pro-housing crowd), the council's two wings agreed to meet somewhere the middle.

At the urging of Mayor Greg Scharff, the council chose a scenario that would produce between 3,545 and 4,442 units by 2030 — far short of the 10,000 that Kelley urged, the 8,000 that Wolbach had advocated for and the 10,225 that the City of Mountain View is including in its precise plan for the North Bayshore area.

Scharff and Councilman Eric Filseth both said that taking the middle path on housing is a "balanced" approach to growth. The city, Filseth said, has done a good job maintaining its balance between being "a purely residential suburb like Saratoga and Woodside versus a crowded urban city like downtown San Francisco.

"A lot of cities would like to be where we are," Filseth said. "Would everybody in Palo Alto like to have this and also have no traffic, easy parking everywhere, all the dog parks and playing fields you can possibly imagine and housing that everybody can afford who wants to live here? Of course. But it's not going to happen."

"I think what most people want is for us to keep this balance. I think most people don't want to be Atherton, and they don't want to be the Mission District either."

After Wolbach's bid to raise the number of housing units faltered by a 4-5 vote (with Kniss, Fine and Greg Tanaka joining him), the full council voted 8-1 to accept Scharff's more moderate proposal. Yet the council also approved by a 5-4 vote — with all four residentialist-leaning members dissenting — to add to the plan a program exploring more dense multifamily complexes in areas well-served by public transit.

There was far more consensus on the topic of new housing sites. In addition to reaffirming its often-stated preference for small housing units in transit-rich locations, the council unanimously agreed to explore multi-family housing along El Camino Real at Stanford Shopping Center, near the Stanford University Medical Center and at Stanford Research Park. (The only major disagreement came over whether housing should also be considered at Town & Country Village; the council voted 5-4 not to include it as a potential residential site.)

Tiffany Griego, manager of Stanford Research Park, indicated on March 20 that the idea of adding housing is one the park has also been considering.

"Stanford and the council have a shared vision in encouraging a mix of uses in Stanford Research Park," Griego said. "Where we see great opportunity is encouragement of housing in Stanford Research Park and in close proximity to jobs and transit."

• This article is part of a cover story on the Comprehensive Plan coming into focus. Find out what else the council is looking to change in the areas of development, building height limit, transportation and business.

Comments

TrainNeighbor
Ventura
on May 19, 2017 at 10:06 am
TrainNeighbor, Ventura
on May 19, 2017 at 10:06 am

Every new housing development should be required to offer some units at significant levels below market rate. For example, per 10 new units: 7 at market rate, 2 at 30% below, and 1 at 50-70% below market. If a 2 bedroom rents for $4,000 at market, then the others would be $2,800 and $2,000-$1,200. Income eligibility determines who gets BMR units.

Developers could get a slight bump in square footage and height to pay for it.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 21, 2017 at 7:20 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 21, 2017 at 7:20 pm

The problem with adding more housing is it gives development advocates a greenlight to permit even more high-profit office spaces. The net result is that jobs/housing is even more imbalanced, traffic becomes even more of a nightmare, developers are even richer, and pro-development candidates get even more campaign contributions.


Robert
another community
on May 21, 2017 at 7:29 pm
Robert, another community
on May 21, 2017 at 7:29 pm

@Resident

Yeah the problem with allowing more housing to be built is all the high end office space that naturally comes with it...


Gridlock
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2017 at 7:55 am
Gridlock, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2017 at 7:55 am

The answer is to create the housing by converting offices to housing until they are balanced. Or move larger companies out. Facebook did so voluntarily and it was good for Palo Alto and good for Facebook.

We should be identifying office areas that could be all housing instead, or office areas that could convert half the offices to housing to create balance.

In the meantime, the traffic seriously impairs the ability of most people I know to go about their business every day. We need more sophisticated analysipes to tell us the parameters to solve such problems. Until then, no more anything should he packed in here.


Anneke
Professorville
on May 22, 2017 at 8:40 am
Anneke, Professorville
on May 22, 2017 at 8:40 am

We need a much more effective and efficient transportation system, so that housing and commuting are no longer a negative experience.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.