News

New housing proposals meet with resistance from their neighbors

Council feedback boosts 70-apartment downtown project, but loss of south Palo Alto cottage cluster raises concerns

The development proposed for 660 University Ave. would include 70 dwellings and office space on the ground floor. Rendering by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects.

The two housing proposals that the Palo Alto City Council reviewed on Monday night reflect in many ways the city's recent success in encouraging new applications to build residential developments — even ones that fail to conform to local zoning laws.

But they're also engendering opposition from nearby property owners who argue that these projects will degrade neighborhood character and worsen the traffic and parking conditions on their blocks.

The tension between the city's desire to add housing and residents' wishes to see local zoning laws respected was fully evident during the council's review of 660 University Ave., a blocklong, four-story development that would include 70 apartments and 9,115 square feet of office space, and 1033 Amarillo Ave., a proposal to demolish a cluster of cottages that have occupied the site since the 1940s and to construct four single-family homes and four accessory-dwelling units.

The council didn't take action on either proposal during Monday's hearings, though council members made it clear during the discussion that they are far more inclined to support the larger downtown project proposed by Smith Development than the eight-dwelling proposal that APIC Amarillo LLC is looking to build just west of Greer Park in south Palo Alto.

The biggest selling point for the council when it came to 660 University Ave. was its location. The city's attempts to lure residential developers to downtown — mostly notably through the creation of a "housing incentive program" that loosens development standards and increases density limits — have thus far been fruitless. Vice Mayor Pat Burt and Council member Alison Cormack both pointed to its location as a major selling point.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"We've had very little progress in the two downtowns to date, and yet as we're seeing this transformation in the retail environment, we recognize that not only do we need to provide housing in a place where we have transit and services but we also need to support our existing businesses and residents in that area," Burt said. "In principle, I support a project roughly along these lines."

The project would entail the demolition of two one-story office buildings, including the medical office that houses Palo Alto Dental, which has made plans to relocate to another location within the city.

The proposal for 1033 Amarillo Ave. calls for splitting the single-family lot into four parcels and building a home and an accessory-dwelling unit at each parcel. Rendering by Studio S Squared Architects

One change that Burt and some of his colleagues said they want to see is more affordable housing. Smith Development has proposed designating 14 of the 70 apartments in the development as affordable housing, though four of these would fall into the highest category of affordability, "workforce housing," which applies to those who make up to 120% of area median income. The city's only "workforce housing" development, the recently completed AltaLocale complex at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, is charging between $3,368 and $4,858 for rent for its small studios and one-bedroom apartments. For critics of the Smith project, having these units count as "affordable" makes a mockery of the term.

Council member Greer Stone was among those who encouraged Smith to provide more below-market-rate units. He noted that the project is advancing under the zoning called "planned home," a designation that allows the city to negotiate zoning concessions with residential developers that provide affordable housing.

"I do think the project is requesting several variances and exceptions for the city, which under 'planned-home zoning' we have allowed for affordable housing as a community benefit," Stone said. "If we're going to provide those variances, I think the community benefit should be real and not illusory."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Neighbors similarly posited that the developer is requesting too much and offering too little. That was the argument advanced by residents from The Hamilton, a condominium community at 511 Byron St. Several of them addressed the council on Monday and submitted letters of opposition to the project. Leigh Prince, an attorney with the firm Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, which is representing the residents, noted that the developer is requesting to build at a density that is roughly seven times what the underlying zoning typically allows.

"Respectful of the city's need for housing, shoehorning seven times the maximum permitted number of units on this site is unreasonable," Prince wrote. "The Hamilton community will experience this unprecedented density daily in significantly increased traffic and congestion, raising concerns for senior safety as well as a loss of peace in their golden years. This level of density and intensity in this location burdens, not benefits, the community and should not be encouraged to proceed."

Chris Ream, president of The Hamilton Homeowners Association, also addressed the council and expressed concerns about the project's potential traffic problems, particularly given the proposed underground garage with an exit on Middlefield Road. He suggested that this would create a dangerous situation and cause traffic backups on Middlefield. He also told the council Monday that the development would exacerbate the neighborhood's existing parking problems.

"Downtown parking has been a problem for years in Palo Alto, and this project is going to make it much, much worse," Ream said.

Others argued that the project would, by and large, benefit the downtown area and observed that The Hamilton was itself approved under a "planned community" zone, which is used for projects that exceed zoning requirements. Cormack also cautioned against increasing the affordable housing requirement for the developer, noting that this may jeopardize the entire project.

"We get this or we get nothing," Cormack said. "If we want these 70 homes and we want 14 of them to work for the people who work downtown and have to drive from far away — this is what it's going to take.

"I think this is a thoughtful proposal. I think it's in the right place. It fits in with the other four-story multifamily buildings that are nearby and it does represent some change."

Could subdivision of eight homes grow to 16?

But even as the council welcomed change on University, it showed little appetite for the subdivision proposal pitched by APIC Amarillo LLC for a single-family lot in Midtown. The project calls for demolishing a cluster of four cottages that today serve as rental units, splitting the lot into four parcels and constructing four single-family homes and four accessory-dwelling units.

Much like 660 University, the Amarillo project galvanized opposition from close neighbors, with numerous residents petitioning the council not to advance the project. Brad Stripling, who lives next to the property, argued that the block doesn't have enough parking to accommodate the project.

"Often there are cars blocking my driveway entrance, and even parked in my driveway. This is unacceptable at this time, and significantly adding to the vehicular load next door compounds the problem enormously," Stripling wrote to the council. "This street of only a few blocks, bounded by a community park at one end and an elementary school at the other, is becoming choked, and adding to this becomes a hazard and safety issue."

Others suggested that by demolishing the four existing cottages, the project would create more problems than it would solve.

"When it comes to affordable housing, I'm of the view that we first must do no harm," said Sarah Longstreth, an Amarillo Avenue resident. "There's so little affordable housing in our community; we cannot allow what little there is to be razed for yet more high-value homes."

Cara Silver, who also lives on Amarillo Avenue, said that she believes her block can accommodate more building density but noted that the proposal on the table would replace existing rental units to make way for four multimillion-dollar homes. For Palo Alto, this would be a step backwards.

"What concerns us most about this project is that it does nothing to replace the four affordable rental units and so nothing to ensure that the four ADUs will actually be rented to low-income households," Silver said.

Ted O'Hanlon, the project consultant representing APIC, told the council that the project was designed to offer a variety of price points, with accessory-dwelling units replacing the relatively affordable cottages at the site today.

"This is an opportunity to work closely and implement local control, and do it the way Palo Alto would like to do it, if Palo Alto would have the opportunity and appetite to do so," O'Hanlon said.

Council members indicated that they do not, in fact, have the appetite. Part of this has to do with recent state laws, most notably Senate Bill 9, which allows property to split lots and build up to four units: two main houses and two accessory-dwelling units.

While the law wouldn't be immediately applicable to the Amarillo project (it cannot be used for projects that eliminate existing rental units), its implications for the future of 1033 Amarillo may be significant. Planning staff warned that if the city allows the splitting of the property into four lots, and the owners of each of these lots later rely on the provision of SB 9 to further divide their properties, the property could ultimately have as many as 16 dwellings.

Given the recent changes in housing laws, council members were reluctant to provide additional concessions. Mayor Tom DuBois suggested that the developer return with a zone-compliant project.

Burt and Stone both argued that the new accessory-dwelling units would fetch far more in rent than the existing cottages. Burt cited the high rents at AltaLocale and predicted that the accessory dwelling units at the Amarillo development would be similarly unaffordable for most service employees.

"I think we should assume that unless any of the new units are deed-restricted, they're going to be in that kind of price range," Burt said.

He and council member Eric Filseth both urged the developer to offer below-market-rate residences.

"Affordable housing is what we're missing most in this town," Filseth said. "Nine percent of our housing stock in town is deed-restricted affordable housing, which is high for the county, but we're still well short of what the demand is. If there's some way that some of this kind of stuff could produce affordable housing, that would be a good thing."

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

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.

Get uninterrupted access to important local city government news. Become a member today.

New housing proposals meet with resistance from their neighbors

Council feedback boosts 70-apartment downtown project, but loss of south Palo Alto cottage cluster raises concerns

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 11:58 pm

The two housing proposals that the Palo Alto City Council reviewed on Monday night reflect in many ways the city's recent success in encouraging new applications to build residential developments — even ones that fail to conform to local zoning laws.

But they're also engendering opposition from nearby property owners who argue that these projects will degrade neighborhood character and worsen the traffic and parking conditions on their blocks.

The tension between the city's desire to add housing and residents' wishes to see local zoning laws respected was fully evident during the council's review of 660 University Ave., a blocklong, four-story development that would include 70 apartments and 9,115 square feet of office space, and 1033 Amarillo Ave., a proposal to demolish a cluster of cottages that have occupied the site since the 1940s and to construct four single-family homes and four accessory-dwelling units.

The council didn't take action on either proposal during Monday's hearings, though council members made it clear during the discussion that they are far more inclined to support the larger downtown project proposed by Smith Development than the eight-dwelling proposal that APIC Amarillo LLC is looking to build just west of Greer Park in south Palo Alto.

The biggest selling point for the council when it came to 660 University Ave. was its location. The city's attempts to lure residential developers to downtown — mostly notably through the creation of a "housing incentive program" that loosens development standards and increases density limits — have thus far been fruitless. Vice Mayor Pat Burt and Council member Alison Cormack both pointed to its location as a major selling point.

"We've had very little progress in the two downtowns to date, and yet as we're seeing this transformation in the retail environment, we recognize that not only do we need to provide housing in a place where we have transit and services but we also need to support our existing businesses and residents in that area," Burt said. "In principle, I support a project roughly along these lines."

The project would entail the demolition of two one-story office buildings, including the medical office that houses Palo Alto Dental, which has made plans to relocate to another location within the city.

One change that Burt and some of his colleagues said they want to see is more affordable housing. Smith Development has proposed designating 14 of the 70 apartments in the development as affordable housing, though four of these would fall into the highest category of affordability, "workforce housing," which applies to those who make up to 120% of area median income. The city's only "workforce housing" development, the recently completed AltaLocale complex at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, is charging between $3,368 and $4,858 for rent for its small studios and one-bedroom apartments. For critics of the Smith project, having these units count as "affordable" makes a mockery of the term.

Council member Greer Stone was among those who encouraged Smith to provide more below-market-rate units. He noted that the project is advancing under the zoning called "planned home," a designation that allows the city to negotiate zoning concessions with residential developers that provide affordable housing.

"I do think the project is requesting several variances and exceptions for the city, which under 'planned-home zoning' we have allowed for affordable housing as a community benefit," Stone said. "If we're going to provide those variances, I think the community benefit should be real and not illusory."

Neighbors similarly posited that the developer is requesting too much and offering too little. That was the argument advanced by residents from The Hamilton, a condominium community at 511 Byron St. Several of them addressed the council on Monday and submitted letters of opposition to the project. Leigh Prince, an attorney with the firm Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, which is representing the residents, noted that the developer is requesting to build at a density that is roughly seven times what the underlying zoning typically allows.

"Respectful of the city's need for housing, shoehorning seven times the maximum permitted number of units on this site is unreasonable," Prince wrote. "The Hamilton community will experience this unprecedented density daily in significantly increased traffic and congestion, raising concerns for senior safety as well as a loss of peace in their golden years. This level of density and intensity in this location burdens, not benefits, the community and should not be encouraged to proceed."

Chris Ream, president of The Hamilton Homeowners Association, also addressed the council and expressed concerns about the project's potential traffic problems, particularly given the proposed underground garage with an exit on Middlefield Road. He suggested that this would create a dangerous situation and cause traffic backups on Middlefield. He also told the council Monday that the development would exacerbate the neighborhood's existing parking problems.

"Downtown parking has been a problem for years in Palo Alto, and this project is going to make it much, much worse," Ream said.

Others argued that the project would, by and large, benefit the downtown area and observed that The Hamilton was itself approved under a "planned community" zone, which is used for projects that exceed zoning requirements. Cormack also cautioned against increasing the affordable housing requirement for the developer, noting that this may jeopardize the entire project.

"We get this or we get nothing," Cormack said. "If we want these 70 homes and we want 14 of them to work for the people who work downtown and have to drive from far away — this is what it's going to take.

"I think this is a thoughtful proposal. I think it's in the right place. It fits in with the other four-story multifamily buildings that are nearby and it does represent some change."

But even as the council welcomed change on University, it showed little appetite for the subdivision proposal pitched by APIC Amarillo LLC for a single-family lot in Midtown. The project calls for demolishing a cluster of four cottages that today serve as rental units, splitting the lot into four parcels and constructing four single-family homes and four accessory-dwelling units.

Much like 660 University, the Amarillo project galvanized opposition from close neighbors, with numerous residents petitioning the council not to advance the project. Brad Stripling, who lives next to the property, argued that the block doesn't have enough parking to accommodate the project.

"Often there are cars blocking my driveway entrance, and even parked in my driveway. This is unacceptable at this time, and significantly adding to the vehicular load next door compounds the problem enormously," Stripling wrote to the council. "This street of only a few blocks, bounded by a community park at one end and an elementary school at the other, is becoming choked, and adding to this becomes a hazard and safety issue."

Others suggested that by demolishing the four existing cottages, the project would create more problems than it would solve.

"When it comes to affordable housing, I'm of the view that we first must do no harm," said Sarah Longstreth, an Amarillo Avenue resident. "There's so little affordable housing in our community; we cannot allow what little there is to be razed for yet more high-value homes."

Cara Silver, who also lives on Amarillo Avenue, said that she believes her block can accommodate more building density but noted that the proposal on the table would replace existing rental units to make way for four multimillion-dollar homes. For Palo Alto, this would be a step backwards.

"What concerns us most about this project is that it does nothing to replace the four affordable rental units and so nothing to ensure that the four ADUs will actually be rented to low-income households," Silver said.

Ted O'Hanlon, the project consultant representing APIC, told the council that the project was designed to offer a variety of price points, with accessory-dwelling units replacing the relatively affordable cottages at the site today.

"This is an opportunity to work closely and implement local control, and do it the way Palo Alto would like to do it, if Palo Alto would have the opportunity and appetite to do so," O'Hanlon said.

Council members indicated that they do not, in fact, have the appetite. Part of this has to do with recent state laws, most notably Senate Bill 9, which allows property to split lots and build up to four units: two main houses and two accessory-dwelling units.

While the law wouldn't be immediately applicable to the Amarillo project (it cannot be used for projects that eliminate existing rental units), its implications for the future of 1033 Amarillo may be significant. Planning staff warned that if the city allows the splitting of the property into four lots, and the owners of each of these lots later rely on the provision of SB 9 to further divide their properties, the property could ultimately have as many as 16 dwellings.

Given the recent changes in housing laws, council members were reluctant to provide additional concessions. Mayor Tom DuBois suggested that the developer return with a zone-compliant project.

Burt and Stone both argued that the new accessory-dwelling units would fetch far more in rent than the existing cottages. Burt cited the high rents at AltaLocale and predicted that the accessory dwelling units at the Amarillo development would be similarly unaffordable for most service employees.

"I think we should assume that unless any of the new units are deed-restricted, they're going to be in that kind of price range," Burt said.

He and council member Eric Filseth both urged the developer to offer below-market-rate residences.

"Affordable housing is what we're missing most in this town," Filseth said. "Nine percent of our housing stock in town is deed-restricted affordable housing, which is high for the county, but we're still well short of what the demand is. If there's some way that some of this kind of stuff could produce affordable housing, that would be a good thing."

Comments

Jay
Registered user
Mountain View
on Oct 26, 2021 at 10:58 am
Jay, Mountain View
Registered user
on Oct 26, 2021 at 10:58 am

I don't think Nimby's will every allow better housing in Palo Alto. Why does the City Council even bother with all this is beyond me. People should stay away from this toxic place.


Gale Johnson
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 26, 2021 at 4:38 pm
Gale Johnson, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Oct 26, 2021 at 4:38 pm

@ Jay
Better housing for whom? Just stop talking about affordable housing unless you share what that term means to you. Former CC members were duped/conned by developers who disguised themselves as having a tinge of altruism in them. The CC at that time covered for the developers by creating “workforce housing”. I detected a bad smell when it was introduced. It had a loose, but intriguing, definition. I knew it was for the techie dreamers, coding elbow to elbow all day with the hope their company would go public and they would become instant millionaires. So here we are today. The AltaLocale units (studios and 1 bdrm apartments) renting in the range of $3,368-$4,858 per month. That translates into $40,416-$58,296 per year. Apparently elementary school teachers in PA weren’t considered as part of the workforce. The current average base salary of those teachers is $70,346 per year. After taxes that comes out to $52,090 per year.

So, my big question to you, smart guy, “What do you think the rents for those units in the University Ave proposal or the Amarillo Ave teardown and build back up proposal will be?” C’mon admit it, you don’t have a clue, but my guess is that it will be out of the range of the teachers I mentioned above or any of our faithful day workers who serve us everyday and in so many ways…restaurant workers, gardeners, house cleaners, salon workers, and home care providers.

It’s always interesting how we get advice from residents of our neighbor city to the south of us.


Carol Scott
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 26, 2021 at 5:36 pm
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Oct 26, 2021 at 5:36 pm

I would like to inform Council Member Burt that Palo Alto does not have "two downtowns." It has one downtown area and a 3 block commercial area along California Ave that used to be a neighborhood shopping area. Now, the latter is a food court for the affluent office workers that may or may not return to the area.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 27, 2021 at 7:25 am
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2021 at 7:25 am

Gale Johnson: if the option still existed I would LIKE your comment.

Editor: please revive the LIKE button. If abuse of the feature contributed to the decision to remove it, surely in the birthplace of Silicon Valley there's a tech genius who can write a code that disallows multiple likes from the same user. There are some very thoughtful, knowledgeable contributors to this forum (Gale Johnson, Allen Akin, and Pat Burt come immediately to mind) and I think it helpful to the discussion of thorny issues to see which comments and positions are well supported.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 27, 2021 at 9:51 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2021 at 9:51 am

I LIKE what Annette said above.


Amie
Registered user
Downtown North
on Oct 27, 2021 at 1:34 pm
Amie, Downtown North
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2021 at 1:34 pm

Hooray for 660 University Avenue. I would support doubling the units and halving the parking -- and I can say that since I live two blocks away. I want more neighbors in apartment housing that will use services and transit downtown and support our local retail to make it strong and thriving again.


Joe
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 27, 2021 at 2:51 pm
Joe, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2021 at 2:51 pm

"Because housing demand exceeds supply, the rent is too damn high. Therefore if you build new housing, it will just have high rent too, defeating the purpose!" - boomer economics apparently


merry
Registered user
Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 27, 2021 at 7:49 pm
merry, Palo Alto Hills
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2021 at 7:49 pm

Yes please reinstall like button!


eileen
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 27, 2021 at 9:16 pm
eileen, College Terrace
Registered user
on Oct 27, 2021 at 9:16 pm

I agree with Annette. The like button is an important feature on Nextdoor. All the brilliant engineers at Nextdoor should be able to find a solution!


Andy
Registered user
Stanford
on Oct 28, 2021 at 7:39 am
Andy, Stanford
Registered user
on Oct 28, 2021 at 7:39 am

these developments should be taller, more housing, more interior or underground parking and more mixed use.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 29, 2021 at 9:10 am
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Oct 29, 2021 at 9:10 am

Joe: I'm not en economist, but I am certain it wasn't a Boomer who originated the law of supply and demand. Gale Johnson is right about the pricing of so-called workforce housing. And the paucity of affordable housing for people with community-serving jobs. We (as in past development-friendly City Councils) skewered ourselves on this issue when we over-approved commercial development without mitigating that development with a housing requirement or at least a significant contribution. The likelihood that supply will ever match demand is slim. The new work-from-home dynamic helps, but we were so far out of whack before Covid that even with the work-from-home shift we will likely be having this discussion for decades. Meanwhile, we have to figure out a way to behave like a community.


JB
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 30, 2021 at 7:08 pm
JB, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Oct 30, 2021 at 7:08 pm

I know that developers say that they need to include office space to offset housing in these developments, but we sure don't need more than 9000 square feet of new office space in Palo Alto, just to build 70 housing units. This office space may not even be needed. If it's filled, it will only bring more office workers and their cars to Palo Alto. Will the parking lot be big enough? I see some pretty big traffic problems with cars from the parking lot exiting onto already busy Middlefield Road at this busy intersection. So, no, I don't support this building plan.

I don't see why Palo Alto needs to destroy four rental cottages for the Amarillo development. I'm pretty sure that the new rental units will cost much more than the cottages do now.

I can't believe that the Alta Locale complex at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino will charge between $3368 and $4858 for studios and one bedroom apartments. This is in no way an example of affordable housing. I thought this was supposed to be tiny units for people who don't need cars to get to California Avenue. This is such a disappointing outcome.


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

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.