Although I understand the desire to avoid the penalties under State Law (loss of grants, builder remedy, etc.), the lack of holistic thinking is troubling.
* how do we deal with affordability? It's naive to think that more supply will reduce prices
* what about the environmental impacts of traffic, noise, view shed, trees and landscaping, wastewater?
* what about the sourcing of additional power and water and needed infrastructure for the expanded population?
* what about the cost of additional services for police, fire, education, recreation, etc.

In light of population decline and remote work, there is the whole question of the number of units,. Perhaps the 6086 new dwelling mandate is wrong.

And with so many office vacancies, why not consider transforming some of them into housing? And why not engage Stanford to provide housing within the industrial park to complement the office space they control?

There this is there is the community aspect. Will the dwellings be suitable for families or will they be dormitories to house tech workers for a few years until they move away or move up to single family housing. I hope that we draw long-term residents to build our community.

And then there is the challenge of dwelling unit utilization. A walk through our neighborhoods reveals that many dwellings are now ghost houses. And there are many units used for short-term rentals (Air BNB etc.) rather than providing housing.

And what of existing multi-family units? Could these be upgraded, perhaps from one or two-story to three-story, with improved energy efficiency and seismic characteristics.

Our City has initiatives that envision the climate future, but when it comes to our community, it's all about the numbers, without a vision.

I agree with Mayor Kuo that this new Housing Element is flawed. I don't predict unintended consequences, because I don't think any intent has truly been identified -- just some aspirational goals that are uncoupled from implementation.

This is a great article about the substance of the meeting. I was in the room, and there was some fun drama worth recounting.

Maybe a dozen pro-housing folks showed up to the meeting and we were all sitting on one side of the room. It was conspicuous. Very early in the meeting, Mayor Kou announced that instead of the normal 3 minutes of comment, commenters would be allowed one minute. Groups of five could have 5 minutes.

Palo Alto Forward had five speaker cards for a ten minute presentation ready, and Robert Chun, the presenter, started scrambling to get more.

During discussion, CM Tanaka asked Mayor to reconsider. She let the decision stand. Later, CM Lythcott-Haims moved to appeal the decision. (A full vote of the Council can override the presiding officer's ruling. This never happens.) CM Burt defused the situation by noting the original ruling was out of order, because the decision needs to happen after the speakers are counted. The Mayor's decision was effectively voided by consensus, without a vote.

When it came time for public comment, Palo Alto Forward had ten speaker cards (!!) and there were maybe a half dozen other comments. We were given our ten minutes --one minute per person-- and everyone else got three minutes.

Many commenters hammered on the confusion. One person had crossed out her three minute comment to adjust, and couldn't read her original prepared remarks anymore. A few said they felt disrespected by the one minute limit.

I know three PAF people who would have liked to have spoken as individuals, but couldn't --so the Mayor's gambit did work. Robert really nailed the presentation, though.

There is heavy discussion now and today in SF Chronicle article about stopping the ‘doom cycle’ the city is suffering with 300+ comments worth reading about why such a wonderful place is being ruined. SF is on the verge. PA should take notice. Good intentions can ruin PA. The article is ‘ Downtown SF exodus: Here’s the inconvenient truth about what’s next’. The people and policies that ruined SF - Scott Weiner, etc. are driving the mandates from the state that will ruin PA. The West is big. We need better planning and more good communities - not a plan to cram everyone into the BA.

The article states that “the Department of Housing and Community Development, is the ultimate arbiter of the document's legitimacy…” which I believe overstates the facts. The city now has a substantially compliant housing element which should end further builder’s remedy applications. HCD has held up reviews of hundreds of cities across the state and the idea that cities are subject to loss of zoning control while waiting for HCD to get through its work load is morally corrupt and inherently unfair.

While HCD may not certify this version and come back with even more requests for changes, Palo Alto needs to take the position that it is substantially compliant and has adopted its housing element. The city will continue to amend and update its housing policy over time - we made many updates not contemplated during the previous housing element. This cycles element will be the same.

The effort and investment by the City over more than two years that has gone into this eight year plan is enormous. We need to finish and let our planning department focus on other activities for the health of the city. Many cities have taken the position that they are compliant prior to HCD’s final verification. It would be great if the reporting on this issue acknowledges that it is a legal gray area that many cities waiting on an backlogged HCD have used. Palo Alto should do the same and assert that it is now substantially compliant.

It's so illogical for the state to force localities to increase housing based on outmoded jobs numbers for 8 years and, even worse, to refuse to hear any appeals based on the new realities.

As wmconlon notes above, much has changed that's being ignored. The state has gone from having a $28 BILLION surplus to a deficit of more than $100 Billion reflecting the mass layoffs, the stock market crash and the loss of more than 1 million people and a congressional seat.

SO, now who's going to pay for affordable housing? Who's going to deal with the environmental changes --- floods, drought, etc. -- that all the new people will use WHILE we waste money narrowing the roads and raising tolls to reduce congestion -- as if the new people don't contribute to congestion!!

And then there's the COUNTY deficit of $128,000,000 and its planned layoffs!
Web Link

It would be special if our "leaders" recognized the new reality and got out their calculators instead endlessly repeating the their backers' talking points.

The perfect storm. The State of CA (Weiner) and cronies have established an usupportable set of goals that if not met will result in lack of funding and the cities rights to control are usurped. The burden is totally on the city - the state has no funding to support it's programs. What the state does have is a growing amount of land that it owns and the ability to take land away from people where convenient - HSR is that boondoggle example.

We need a listing of both state and federal owned land that the state should be using to to support it's programs on housing. Cities typically do not have a lot of land - but school systems do have land.

So the "Squeeze" is on and unless push-back occurs you will be taken to the cleaners. Residents who own their property are not going to fold their tents and go unless it is conveninet for them and they have a better option. THE BETTER OPTIONS ARE GROWING OUT THERE.

The Mayor Kuo speaker limiting stunt was very emblematic of how she approaches housing. Her action to limit speakers to one minute before the meeting even started demonstrates a strong preference to not hear opposing views and a desire to avoid giving the public an opportunity to engage in the process when the public present doesn't share her opinion. Kudos to Tanaka and Lythcott-Haims for having the courage to stand against such abuses of power.

I didn't speak at the meeting, but after hearing many of the Council Members and Commissioners speak, falling over each other thanking everyone involved for the work product, I wondered to myself - if the Council & Commission isn't going to resolve the imperfections in the document now, can we hold them responsible if the document is rejected again?

I'm very worried that the Chair of the Commission, the Mayor and the Vice Mayor are not invested in the document's legitimacy; they made that clear in their numerous disparaging comments about HCD's intent and relative expertise and knowledge of the housing challenges in our community. At the end of the night it felt like the whole review had been very perfunctory; it's no surprise that the State Agencies have begun to view local control with a high degree of distrust.

We also need to talk about how problematic it is that some of the Council members believe that adding housing reduces affordability. Maybe a quick supply and demand overview would help. The avg. cost of housing is rising because demand is increasing faster than supply. Would increasing supply result in lower costs for housing in such a scenario? No sir, not if demand was still increasing at a faster pace. That's a big part of why prices are still rising in the Bay Area and the Vice Mayor's comments about Redwood City and Mountain View at the conclusion of the night demonstrate some serious gaps in understanding the fundamentals at play here.

As councilmembers have pointed out, the Housing Element will be revised over the eight-year period as more is learned about the match between housing demand and further identification of developable sites. However, they do not seem to recognize the importance of getting going on the building. Leaders like Kuo, Stone, Summa, and Reckdahl are putting their energy into fighting the state rather than supporting projects that are ready for development now. Priming the pump will help inform changes that are needed to continue to make progress. Nobody knows for sure what will work and what won't until various types of projects are undertaken.

Kudos to the City Council for proceeding with the Element. Yes the plan is flawed, but dithering would have been worse.

The biggest flaw of the State Plan is that doesn’t work: its single focus on zoning-deregulation produces density, but not affordability. After almost 100 state mandates, housing costs, inequality and homelessness have done nothing but rise. Pursuing policy that doesn’t work is an issue of competence, not ideology. Yet it’s the Law of the Land, so the proper action is to comply. Council’s action was one of grownups acting responsibly in the best interests of the community.

Tom DuBois is correct: establishing HCD as the granular reviewer of all residential zoning in the state was always destined to create a bottleneck. Palo Alto’s Element is now close enough, and there are so many other factors than zoning, that it’s hard to see more Element refinements making much difference in the total number of new housing units that actually get built by 2030, either Market-rate or Affordable. The Council should formally adopt the Element and get on with the other issues (… funding …), and make any remaining adjustments in parallel.

Palo Alto with its leafy streets, its single family homes in attractive lots, its parks where families can send the children to play alone with friends, it's safe routes to school, it's small grocery stores and it's suburban ambience will be eroded by this. Every single amenity will be affected by too many residents with too little space to relax and enjoy some space. The quietness will be lost and street parking by any park, school or coffee shop will disappear. In fact, we will have to wait longer at coffee shops for our order and actually find a place to sit and drink a coffee while catching up with a friend will be impossible.

This is supposed to be suburbs, but we are in danger of becoming urban jungle!

Bystander,

You must specialize in over-the-top sarcasm. My hat is off to you.

According to my research, the city of Palo Alto NEVER HAD ANY REDLINING GUIDELINES WHATSOEVER!!! I’d love to hear from anyone who can cite actual facts to the contrary. San Francisco and San Jose had redlining areas, but not Palo Alto. Also, while some 1920’s era developments in Palo Alto had racial covenants, not all did. My property in Crescent Park never had them (I traced my deeds back to the original 1902 deed). This is just to observe that some of the rhetoric that assumes past discrimination is not totally accurate.

@Norman Beamer, and re current racism, it's worth remembering that Palo Alto's population is around 50% non-white -- much higher than nearby communities and rising every year.

@Norman Beamer, it's been my experience as a realtor in Palo Alto that most homes here *do* have a racially motivated restrictive covenant... though this does not deter in the slightest the significant amount of non-white buyers moving in.

These covenants typically come from the 1900-1930 period, and say "you cannot sell this house to a non-white person, though domestic servants are allowed". These clauses are of course invalidated today, but it really did happen.

This is not technically redlining per se (which refers to banks refusing to lend), but the effect is similar and probably people are casually conflating the two ideas.

As a parent of elementary school kids at Addison, I can vouch for the riotous racial diversity in current kids, which is increased but not defined by the program to invite EPA kids in. It is stunningly diverse rainbow of cultures and skin colors, so I'd like to think this historical problem is working itself out.... if only the next generation could afford to live here.

This article by Harvard University presaged our current calamity about housing in 2015. Web Link So it's no surprise that when the baby boomer generation starts dying off en masse in 2034, there will be a surplus of housing. If anybody learned from the mortgage crisis that began in 2008, Web Link it's that what goes up must come down. I'm not a financial expert. Just a person sitting here with a calculator adding 2023+8 and that equals 2031, which puts us perilously close to the die-off years. If this city waits 8 years to fulfill its 2023 promise, they won't have to fulfill it at all. And sad to say, I think they are counting on it. Leland's legacy will prevail, and Palo Alto will never be Manhattanized. It will always have just slightly less than enough room to accommodate the working class. There will never be "affordable housing" that homeless people could ever get in to. But that's not the goal, is it. Nobody ever talks about 6k housing units to build for people with zero income. Unless they're talking about cramming it all up at San Antonio Road. Out of sight and out of mind. I appreciate reading some very insightful and informative comments here. This topic will dominate the news all the way into 2031.

Robert Chung for President!!

Re: "Burt lauded a program that commits the city to exploring affordable-housing preferences for historically disadvantaged populations."

Isn't this banned by prop 209? (as "public contracting")

I’m almost speechless, but not quite!
@wmconlon…Thanks for the spot on assessment of the situation and questions that haven’t been seriously addressed. I think the votes to approve this version of the Housing Element were made as a convenience to get it out of the way and behind us. Strip away all the previously identified constraints and what do we get? Please don’t say more affordable housing. Convince the property owners, the developers, and in the end, the building contractors, to build it cheaper, and to build for families, not just studio and 1 bedroom apartments for tech workers. To think that people who work for minimum wages, or any who fit into the very low, low, or medium income categories…those who commute long distances to serve us every day, will someday be our neighbors, is a fantasy. And I think those who voted to approve this version of the Housing Element know that.

Nu? So, Our Town will become Queens? Yes, convert empty office spaces — how about Cambridge & Birch, and up along Cambridge street? And 123 Sherman — do we need offices there too? And with yet another, two-level, underground parking? Why there’s already a five story parking garage at Sherman & Birch! We can applaud the latest housing element proposal – it is a good beginning. And don’t forget, we need to entertain all the new troops – how about resurrecting Antonio‘s nuthouse? California Ave., Harley needs another high class restaurant or wine bar
; better would be a place where community could hang out, play chess and watch sports, as in the good old days. Change is coming; take heart friends - I heard even Rome fell. Once.

@MyFeelz @Calamity” which has turned 2 a County wide, travesty To hear CC Burt talk about mid Century Sunnyvale buy in, Kuo, Lauing and PTC Recdahl, Templeton speak like they understand poverty, exclusion, discrimination — city staff act dumbfounded by a really simple census equation, HUD & fair housing AMI’s. Burt “shocked” about gross income to rent ratio!? Wong: S8 voucher holders apply by right, yet r immediately denied based on much higher asking prices for rents. Even when PTC commissioner Wreck-it-all for us, pushed “is it legal?” ... to enforce luxury multi family homes accept a subsidized housing vouchers — Planning & dev. dept act dumb, sheepish or coy about rents to wage disparities. Say little about Federal fair housing rules. The best Lait could do is admit the HE plan could bring in more money 4 city revenue 4 condos at 1200 sqft 2 purchase. Yet the working, multi family renters must settle on 800sqft for family of 5. the fact that CC & PTC continued 2 laud the inventory list, while voicing pipe dreams of future Stanford buy-in or better locations 4 homes in transit rich, climate friendly, commerce & city & school centered services was all clipped away, falling to the cutting room floor—into a rubbish bin. Mayor Kuo is a licensed, working realtor . Why she is not recused from land planning transactions & votes 2 do w property or building on non-vacant sites... The current HE, a fools errand. The current 6 cycle HE — a pied piper in which the CC is dancing the piped in in Muzac (also invented here). They are is melodically in a hypnotic parade. And the people r silenced (Quoting Kuo 2 ago “For the people, by the people!” Huh?!). May 8, 2023, Kuo 1 minute public comment period was water on our public grease. [Portion removed.] Like JLH voiced last night about historic, ingrained, generation systemic racism . If we cannot name it. We cannot tame it. The gargantuan unchecked lion.

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

RE the name calling [portion removed] by put upon Palo Alto Forward people because they might have had to shorten their comments at the meeting (the horror, the horror) -

You lack institutional memory. While 1 minute is not much (I don’t endorse it), it is hardly the first time various PA Councils (with various political make-ups) have limited comments to 1 minute. Comment times vary from 1, 2 or 3 minutes, with the last 2 the most common unless you arranged to make an extended comment.

Commenters constantly must adjust their content on the spot to fit the time imposed - one never knows till the last moment.

For perspective - our County Board of Supervisors always limits public comment to 1 minute.

[Portion removed.] You're embarrassing yourselves about something that didn’t even happen. Everyone got 3, and one commenter got 10 minutes.

"those who commute long distances to serve us every day, will someday be our neighbors, is a fantasy." -- too sad but true.
"Build it cheaper" -- earthquakes be damned.
"Convert empty office space ... into high class restaurant or wine bar" -- another county heard from.

CC and PTC "Shocked" and awed, "is it legal?" a constant refrain. Where's the city attorney on this? Was she there? For $500k+ annual salary, she should be there. But she may not take a group of volunteer council people seriously enough to warrant her time.

"Mayor Kuo is a licensed, working realtor" and only allowing 3 minutes to voice any opinion that might oppose her -- is there any reasonable accommodation for anyone with a disability? Doesn't sound like it. I have a speech impediment, so does our President. Kuo wouldn't give either of us an extra minute to grant an accommodation.

Everyone knows PA was built to serve the University, not the other way around. It was always meant to be a bedroom community. No big box stores, no fast food, no convenience stores. As if to say, "If we live here we can afford to have our goods brought to us by our servants, and our servants, if they want convenience shopping or fast food eating, can do that after or before work. We sleep at night, so we don't need any business to stay open 24 hours."

Unless the PHA is sitting there, nobody knows how housing vouchers work. Yes, CC/PTC members, there is a FORMULA that HUD uses to determine eligibility. What clever landlords do to openly discriminate against voucher holders is to set the rent just above the allowance. Then they can evade looking like they're discriminating against the poor, the marginalized, the POC, the elders, the disabled -- they can just say "the median rent here is this and I won't go under it to accommodate anyone who can't pay it."

@Native, PA is more Mary Poppins-ish than Cal. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. TKMB is my all time fave book. Everybody should read it.

Stanford will buy in to providing more housing once Palo Alto shows it has its act together. With so much micro meddling by the City Council and PTC, Stanford has every right to be skeptical now. With Mayor Kou providing negative leadership, why would Stanford expose themself to this micro meddling.

I have never understood the reasoning behind throwing posts in the trash because a writer had more thoughts than they could fit in the character limit. Sometimes it's enforced, and sometimes it's not. I guess that's known as censorship of a kind. @Native had valid points about a book that is a Classic, and then juxtaposed the situation in the book against our current societal conundrum. The title of this article starts with "With Mixed Emotions" and then critiques the measure, and any comments that are reflective of the situation should be allowed even if there are more comments written by the same poster. The removal of @Native's post is a stark reminder of who's in charge here. And it isn't the people who are powerless against an unknown person who unceremoniously deletes well-thought out comments. I'm definitely having mixed emotions about the city's housing plan, and the way comments about it are moderated.

In the SFC today 05/10/23 - "Saratoga project tests union-hiring law." In one of Mr. Weiner's non-stop housing legislation efforts the topic of union workers vs non-union workers is somewhat ill defined. Saratoga in Santa Clara County is subject to all of fhe same requirements as the other cities in the bay area. A project started by Sand Hill Properties (local) and now Pulte Group (out-of-state) is mired in the confusion conerning the amount of low cost units within the 94 unit developemnt. Somehow this hinges on the number of people in the high cost city - the population number of 225,000 being the breakpoint.

I have no idea of what the population of PA is but the amount of union vs non-union workers on the project changes up the cost of building. When people say that the project does not "pencil out" the use of unionized labor may be the breakpoint at which developers back out.

It is like an onion with unfolding requirements that do not typically surface in reporting of individual projects. A lot of moving parts here. We do not see any reporting on the progress on the Fry's site which would be subject to the requirements based on size of the city population.

The other problem is ownership of land by the city, county, or state. People's Park in Berkley was bought over 20 years ago by UC for student housing. No housing yet - UC has the lowest amount of housing for students in the whole UC system. In SF many projects discussed - none started. The state has to foot the bill for housing on it's property and is not able to do that. Yet they keep coming after cities to provide housing - where is the money?

My feeling on PAF and it's clacking minions they only see the top level concerns but have no knowledge of the constraints that exist which hem everyone in to get to completion. They do not add to the subject in a positive way. This city is not fruit bowl with everyone picking out what they want. It is a planned community.

I don't get Fred's post. SU owns it's land and is free to produce as much housing as it wants. That could also be said of UC Berkley - People's Park which it owns - and has the lowest amount of student housing within the UC System. UC is government owned property - the state is loathed to use it's own property for housing.

SU is building a second campus in RWC which is now complete as well as housing - now complete. The huge apartment complex - The Cardinal - is located next to the Seqouia Station. It is using existing elecrical and sewage systems. If SU had to build more on it's PA campus it would have to install sewage, roads, electrical all on union wages.

SU is looking to offset the cost of upgrading the campus capability by using the PA utility systems which are now being pushed to their limit. I have street tree roots which are now upending the sewer connection - what to expect of a system that is over 70 yers old.

Please do not use SU as an example of laxity on the part of the city of PA. Try SU being manipulative regarding the building of housing on it's own property and installing the now very expensive underground utility systems which will require union laber at union rates.

Is that allowed? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ two posts in a row?

@YentaThe Renter Queens, like the analogy. Sure beats those scare stories we often see here about that island to the west, which only houses 20% of NYC anyway.

Looking forward to that first Guyanese restaurant.

Good points @ Resident1 - Adobe Meadows. It’s inconvenient but at a high level, when we pull back to wonder how we got here there is a long list of problems caused - as still causing - the current housing issues.
1. Insufficient building as workers arrived to support tech build out. We built the offices but not the housing.
2. Politicians proclaimed the sanctuary cities and sanctuary State, and millions came (many illegally) and no one among our good citizens thought about the competition for the existing scarce housing that those who were already here were already having a hard time getting. We opened the border and the homeless crisis got worse.
3. Politicians put the mentally ill out on the streets. They opened the jails and the prisons and let out tens of thousands more and continue to do so with no bail, no jail policies. Even murderers.
4. Politicians have repeatedly reduced drug penalties and sentencing while doing very little to stop drugs like fentanyl while promoting the State’s pot business and handing out free needles - creating the human tragedies you see lying in the streets. More homeless. They did that, we voted for them.
5. Politicians have made it hard on those who create and maintain rental properties which, in full flower, will mean far fewer units available. Renters rights first is a big problem if you hope to expand the supply.
We created the politicians. We keep voting for them. We are not getting good policy or good solutions we are getting social activism (which eventually kills the host). We as a nation have spent over $22 TRILLION dollars on the War on Poverty and it’s hard to see much benefit. The State mandates - pushed by activist Weiner and co - will ruin PA. PA, we should remember, has been an excellent community that has propelled thousands of lives and so much industry. We should do everything to preserve it.

M.Alchek was worked up Monday night preaching that height limits are bogus and density needs to be increased. He is a developer. His arguments were delivered IMO in a superior ‘I know better’ lather. He actually sees himself as a morally superior agent for affordable housing. The public and many on the city council remember his reputation for disrespecting colleagues and the public. He scolded a member of the public from the dais at a PTC meeting and the chair had to admonish M. Alchek for verbally attacking a ninety year old woman. The public also stood up and said, “Stop, Stop.”

My Feetz - you are runnibng rampant throughout all of the subjects. Some are good comments - others are some take on your sense of humor which have no merit. I provide a lot of comments based on what is printed in the local papers. They do not print them in a timely manner as to relevence to subject. So I got lucky this time. You are lucky most of the time.

I keep wondering what the editor thinks when they read these posts. Do they check in with Mr. Berman? A Weiner co-hort? No one is discussing what he is doing here and how he is voting.

If you disagree with what I said then point out the topic and discuss the errors. You need to discuss points and what exactly you disgree with.

Interesting OpEd in the Mercury News yesterday, from the UC Berkeley Terner Center, basically acknowledging what many already suspected:


“Are California’s new laws actually producing more housing here? The short answer is no. In the aggregate, despite the deluge of legislation, annual building permits have remained stubbornly stagnant … meanwhile, homelessness has only increased statewide, and rents and home prices remain at historic highs.
Web Link


Sacramento’s Grand Bargain to Californians has been that Sacramento would seize local zoning, and in exchange Californians would get lower housing costs and homelessness. That promise was made and remade by every State official from Governor Newsom to our local Assemblypeople, who justified every one of their 100 bills on the basis of Affordability. They then kept the first half of the Bargain; but not the second.

Of course the flaw is that Sacramento won’t use any tool except Deregulation, and local regulation simply isn’t the bottleneck --- even the Terner OpEd grudgingly starts to admit that. To actually solve this will take money (including from Tech), smart use of geography, actual Demand consideration (including high-wage jobs-related policies), and some tradeoffs not everyone will like. Sacramento abhors those things, so we are where we are today. But the deal was Affordability, so now it’s time.

The Terner Center goes on to claim that actual housing production isn’t important (!), it’s the principle that counts. Uh-huh. But Principle wasn’t the promise. A few more ADU’s wasn’t the promise. Affordability was the promise; whoever’s rent has fallen, raise your hand.

Cities need to adopt their Housing Elements as required by State law, and then Sacramento needs to actually deliver Affordability as promised --- and Californians need to start holding their State Electeds accountable for it.

Not sure the remarks about PAF hold any water. Palo Alto Forward has clearly done the homework. I read the 10+ pager they put together and it seems that this group of locals has really made a sincere effort to understand the issue and inform the public, the Commission and the Council. Suggesting otherwise sounds willfully ignorant.

More telling is that the City has found itself in the familiar situation of not having enough time to make something right. "If we don't pass this, we are exposed to liability, so while its not exactly what we had hoped for, we must move forward with it." Thus the headline of this article...

How often this play is used to absolve themselves of their poor leadership is grotesque. The fact that former Mayor Filseth and Dubois have opined here further supports this idea. But why? Why can't we start holding these "leaders" accountable? A citizen's advisory group, chosen by the former mayors and their allies, and led by Lauing, produced a housing element that was then endorsed by Lauing and Chair of the Commission Summa and Vice Chair Chang. That document was rejected and for good reason. Now this same group who mismanaged the first effort is in charge of the revision. And they just ran out of time to do it right? Mixed emotions?

Each of these Palo Alto Elected's (for sensible zoning, mind you) on the Commission, on the Council and now formerly on the Council, have said on the record a version of "Palo Alto doesn't have to build these units, we just have to make it possible for them to be built." Then also on the record, they made every effort to reduce the feasibility of what's possible; so that while theoretically possible, such development is highly unlikely.

This is why the State is getting more involved. They see through this charade and don't trust us anymore. Are there some on the Commission and Council who would support real change, yes of course. But they're not the many currently wielding any power. And that's on us, the voters.

1) I don't get all the criticism of the mayor for initially attempting to limit public comments to 1 minute which the CC ROUTINELY does when they have lots of speakers. As she said, she thought there were 25 speakers -- a number that would have been expected for just a contentious topic.

2) @ALB makes a good point about M Alchek being a developer. Just this week he bought up 2 large apartment complexes on Middlefield Road for $32,900,000. Web Link

3) Again the question remains about who's going to pay for the affordable housing now that both the state of California and Santa Clara County are running huge budget deficits and when our public transit systems are going broke -- changes that weren't anticipated when the housing targets were set and that obviously no longer reflect current economic realities.

Why is the state so pig-headed about not revisiting ANY of the targets for 8 long years>?> Why is the pro-density crowd so insistent on ignoring reality?

Before making these grandiose promises for increased housing, and especially affordable housing, I think it would be prudent to check in with all those parties involved in the supply chain who make it happen (property owners, developers, building contractors, and the realty companies who market/advertise, and eventually rent or sell the units). They produce the housing. Ask them what the rent would be for a 3 bdrm unit for a family of 4-5. Then work back down for smaller family units (1 or 2 bdrm units), for couples with one child, or a couple with no children, and all the way down to singles where a micro-unit, a studio, or 1 bdrm apartment would suffice. Let's have a good look at those numbers and compare them with affordability for everyone who works in Palo Alto...all income levels. It shouldn't be a shock and I suspect the wealthy housing advocates who live in their gated enclaves, wearing YIMBY masks, will never have an ADU built on their property to rent out to lower income workers to help alleviate the housing affordability problem. They probably wouldn't have one built under any circumstances, because they don't need the money and they want their privacy, just like the rest of us do. If they had one built I think it would really be for 'granny', just to get her out of the main house.

And please, please, stop bringing up and moving forward to today, the redlining that existed 4-5 generations ago. It's gone except for the myth that it still exists and is racially motivated. I will not say "I'm sorry" because I had nothing to do with it then and I've lived in a very racially and ethnically integrated and diverse neighborhood ever since we moved into our home in 1963. The current confusion about affordability exists because it isn't recognized that certain groups just don't have the income levels to be able to afford a home in Palo Alto. On the other hand, what I've heard and read, is that 40-50% of Palo Alto residents, renters and homeowners, are non-white.

Why would we want more people? It will just increase noise, pollution, crime

For data heads:

Per the 2020 census, nonwhites represent a very slight majority (50.1%) of Palo Alto residents.

Palo Alto’s white population peaked in the late 1960’s at just over 50,000 and has fallen steadily since then, to 36,013 in 2020. In the Mid-Peninsula and South Bay, nearly every city’s white population fell continuously over that time period, while its nonwhite population grew faster than its white population fell; in other words, all local population growth has been nonwhite since the 1960’s. This dynamic has been fastest farther south (Cupertino, San Jose, Santa Clara) and slowest farther north (Atherton, San Carlos). These shifts have also been more rapid than changes in housing supply, indicating they have largely taken place in existing housing.

For Santa Clara County overall, the largest demographic is currently Asian-American/Pacific Islander. After 1960, Palo Alto’s white population fell at slightly less than 1% per year, while its AAPI population grew at roughly 4.7% per year; both trends continue.

All this data can be found on ACS Web Link (recent data), or at Bay Area Census Web Link (older data).

My clear take is Sacramento (state) “leaders” have always hated Palo Alto and wish to destroy it. It really is odd.
I have the impression Marin County (wealthy) is being given much more leeway!?
Meanwhile….
Curious: do Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades need to subsidize and install high density housing? How much and where? I never see them mentioned.
Oh, they’re not “jobs rich.” I suppose it’s that. An invented term/definition.
The determination to punish so-called jobs rich cities is idiotic and illogical.
Many people do not live and work in the same community!!
California is truly killing the golden goose.
Sacramento and San Francisco “government leaders” are the reason.
And look at San Francisco!!

Anonymous,

Beverly Hills has a state housing requirement of 3,104 units. With a population less than half of Palo Alto's, its requirement is more than proportional.

The state is not persecuting you because you are fortunate to live in Duveneck/St Francis. Who do you think should pick up Palo Alto's share?

Let's remember that Palo Alto commuters used to outnumber residents 4:1 as more offices were built and more workers were shoved into tinier spaces in those offices. Now due to record layoffs and office vacancies, many of those commmuters/jobs are gone.

So it only seems logical that our share should be reduced as well to reflect reality.

A friend of mine bought a town home in one of the new developments in Palo Alto a few years ago. She worked in another city and although she had never lived in Palo Alto she liked the location for various reasons, one being the fact that she was so close to the 101 on ramp as well as walking distance to the Baylands, at the time she didn't realise the tunnel closed in winter.

People choose to live in Palo Alto for reasons other than they work here. In my own neighborhood people drive out of town to work. Most people are driving out of town for social and recreational activities, as well as shopping in big box stores.

Let's remember that commuting is a two way practice. Our onramps and Caltrain stations are very busy with people leaving town on any given morning commute time.

No water - No new hookups. Simple.

My wife and I recently completed 35 years living in Palo Alto. Our lives there were somewhat of a dream- a home and neighborhood such as we earlier imagined and then realized. And access to a downtown and Stanford community that only further enhanced the experience of living here. We had/have friends and acquaintances in virtually every other neighborhood in Palo Alto. Almost without exception they have also been living in homes and neighborhoods that enhanced their lives and careers as suitable to them. They also were living their dreams. Almost every one of them worked long and hard to get there. Now all this is at risk because apparently a vast majority of California’s state government doesnt share any of those dreams and aspirations. They apparently are happy to see that destroyed to pursue goals that won’t ever be achieved. An experiment for them. But cities like Palo Alto will be destroyed in a failed attempt to socially engineer our state, towns and communities. Scott Weiner is on record stating the he believes single family zoning is an obscenity!

In my 35 years in Palo Alto I worked for a number of tech companies-most successful. Only once did I work in Palo Alto where I also lived and that for a year only. Maybe the correct answer is for those towns creating jobs to provide the housing to go with it. I’m happy I have 35 years of very happy memories about our life in Palo Alto, because I think had we remained it would be downhill from there.

Best wishes for getting this solved without destroying the essence that has made Palo Alto the very special place it became. Long live Palo Alto!

@ Mike-Crescent Park.
I agree with you about the Palo Alto that we once knew when we moved here in 1961, and bought our house on Ross Rd in 1963. It a totally different town now and it's heading in the wrong direction. But please clarify for us, are you leaving Palo Alto? It sounds like it from your references to the past...but if you are leaving, where are you going? I'm staying because I'm 86, and this is where my remaining friends and neighbors live...and where my dentists and doctors practice. Is it West Virginia?...take me home...ala John Denver.

Sacramento needs to resume funding mandates. Until it does, the mess our legislators (including past PA Councils that essentially fertilized the shortage) have created is only going to worsen.

Please note that the person who is the Captain of the legislative team that keeps pushing CA housing legislation - Mr. Weiner - was born and raised in New Jersey. He arrived here as an adult. His home base is San Francisco. AS far as I can see we are being outfoxed by New Jersey rules. San Francisco is falling further behind in livability. Everyone is fleeing the place.

Why does Newsome keep him in tow? The continuation of this housing issue is going to kill any Presidential aspirations of the current Governor. This is like the "Sopranos" are running around threatening cities and towns and it is working. The rules they keep making up keep the ball in continuation with no resolution. ALL Planned. The companies that are buying up the distressed properties are out of state.

@GaleJohnson as the HOH from 1961-1963 did you rent? Congrats that you had the education, job and maybe equity to purchase a house on Ross Rd in 1963. Tell us about your gap year? Maybe you lived w other family or lived in a rental Alma. Inquiring minds would like to understand such residential stories. Two years between one house address to another seems like decades to our children. Was there a housing struggle a jobs to security conundrum? My pint Gale. When there is a gap of two years, even in the early 1960’s can be eons to our children. It was recently I realized O was unhoused “couch surfing” from 15 1/5 to 17 1/2. It was a incredible female mentor who offered me a room to rent in Petaluma, which not only legitimized me yet also gave me a responsibly. From there, I am here. 30 years late. My own teenage children in which I am returning the favor. Share you story of the struggle, Gale. Which ever decade. Fill us in.

I’m lost as to why @Fred above singles me out as fortunate to live in Duveneck/St. Francis. Yeah? This is similar to most PA neighborhoods as well as many other Bay Area neighborhoods - parking is tight…small streets…it’s nice but certainly not equivalent to Beverly Hills. We have a small lot. It is a lifestyle choice. We don’t drive expensive cars.
I’ve lived in several other places, too. Some actually were quite different. It’s called freedom of movement and choices -
Our area is single family zoning but is deemed “transit rich” (make me laugh) & etc. by the state of CA under their odd invented notions and therefore deemed appropriate for dense unparked housing that can be tall and shade others’ existing solar panels, not require developers to pay for hookups, add to water demand, etc. and not necessarily cheap.
My parents paid 3x for a house here compared to the one we sold back East many years ago, even in a local recession…Is that unfair!? Some will make other choices (like have cheaper housing costs!) or live more cheaply but choose to drive fancy cars and have boats, etc.
People choose to spend their money in many different ways -
What I do see is PA is built up. Yes, there are opportunities for higher density housing on El Camino Real, for example, but I disagree with TAKING owned property even there and forcing this.
San Jose, for an obvious nearby example, is spread out, cheaper cost of living and has available land and cpuld easily manage greater densification. If land owners agree, that may better suit for dense projects.
The idea that people demand to be given subsidized brand new housing in a particular city doesn’t even make sense.
We have freedom of choice, options, most change jobs - so demanding that cities arbitrarily labeled “jobs rich” by CA state bureaucrats must provide some number of subsidized brand new housing paid for by us taxpayers in that exact location is unreasonable in my opinion.

Comments about Beverly Hills - I grew up there and can tell you that it is bigger than PA and has a huge tax base. They are entertainment based so there is a totally different set of business related elements supporting the whole city. They are not wallowing in "Tech" issues other than that their movie screen shots are used on the techie platforms. That is their gripe.

As to PAF working to "inform the residents" note that a majority of the residents have advanced degrees and are totally capable of reading the tea leaves. PAF supports the Progressive goals which at this time appear to desire dismanteling the city structure to their own control. [Portion removed.]