|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto is still likely months from having a compliant plan for adding more than 6,000 housing units over the next eight years, but city officials indicated Wednesday that they could adopt their new Housing Element even before they get a green light from California.
Like all but a handful of Bay Area cities, Palo Alto failed to have its new Housing Element certified by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by the Jan. 31 deadline. While the city submitted its draft to the HCD on Dec. 23, it has not yet received a response from the state agency.
The only part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan that requires state approval, the Housing Element lays out the city’s vision for meeting its regional allocation of 6,086 new dwellings between 2023 and 2031. Palo Alto was one of the last cities in Santa Clara County to submit its draft to the state, and city officials expect the HCD to require various revisions as part of its review, which means it will take months to get the final stamp of approval.
This leaves the city in a legally precarious position. Last month, Palo Alto was one of several cities — along with Belvedere, Burlingame, Cupertino, Daly City, Fairfax, Martinez, Novato, Pinole, Pleasant Hill and Richmond — to get hit with a lawsuit from housing advocacy groups that were called out for failing to get their Housing Elements certified by the Jan. 31 deadline.
The lawsuit from the groups Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Action and California Housing Defense Fund requests that the courts, among other actions, require the city to rezone sites on an accelerated schedule to accommodate more housing and to bar the city from relying on code provisions to disapprove of housing projects or make such projects infeasible. This week, the groups announced another lawsuit against Sausalito, where the council voted to adopt its Housing Element despite HCD findings that its list of future housing sites fails to comply with state law.
Some housing advocates argued Wednesday that the city should not take any action on the Housing Element until the state agency weighs in. Scott O’Neil, a board member at the group Palo Alto Forward, suggested that by pursuing what he called “self-certification,” the city will put itself into greater legal jeopardy.
“Self-certification will give the transient false sense of security of having ‘done something’ faster. But it’s ultimately setting the city up for a judge to be the final arbiter of substantial compliance in the case of a developer lawsuit. This is a waste of money, when a relatively transparent and speedy administrative path to compliance is readily available,” O’Neil, who was speaking for himself and not Palo Alto Forward, wrote to the commission.
He also suggested that the risk of lawsuits from developers will increase as other cities adopt compliant Housing Elements, leaving fewer targets for legal action.
“Execute well, and we can get certification early this summer with almost zero chance of Housing Element going before a judge,” O’Neil told the commission Wednesday.
Resident Michael Quinn, a volunteer with Palo Alto Forward, also urged city officials and the commission to wait for the HCD and to avoid throwing what he called a “self-certification Hail Mary,” which could be interpreted as a bad-faith move by the state.
“Palo Alto, be it from the media, the state, other cities with an eye on us … we’re already under a magnifying glass,” Quinn said.
Palo Alto officials strongly rejected that characterization. By asking the Planning and Transportation Commission to adopt the new Housing Element, they are seeking to speed up the ultimate approval of the document, they maintained. The commission’s approval, they noted, will be followed by further revisions to the document, based on HCD comments, before the document is finalized.
“We can’t certify. We don’t have the ability to do that,” Planning Director Jonathan Lait said. “Only HCD has the ability to certify our Housing Element. What we can do is adopt a Housing Element that we believe, based on findings that we would make, that it’s compliant with state law.”
Tim Wong, a senior city planner who is leading the effort to adopt the new housing vision, suggested that bringing the Housing Element to the commission “streamlines” the adoption process while allowing commission to weigh in on a document, which he noted has been modified by the City Council since the commission’s last discussion on the plan. This, Wong said, allows the commission to focus all its energies in future reviews on responding to HCD comments.
“We are out of compliance. The deadline for a compliant Housing Element was the end of January of this year, so there is a strong interest in getting the Housing Element adopted as soon as possible,” Wong said.
The commission broadly supported the staff approach and voted 5-0, with Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar absent, to recommend adoption of the new Housing Element. Some commissioners expressed frustration with the slow pace of the adoption process, particularly after Lait suggested that the city expects a “robust comment letter” from the HCD followed by at least one and possibly more rounds of revisions — each of which could take months.
“This is sobering,” Commissioner Keith Reckdahl said. “Because then if they come back and don’t accept that, then we have another round and it could be the end of the year before we get a Housing Element approved.”
The city did, however, receive one hopeful sign this week. Palo Alto’s plan for building housing relies on a combination of programs, including “upzoning” existing multifamily zones such that those that currently allow up to 30 dwellings per acre would now allow up to 40 while those that allow up to 40 will see that number rise to 50. The city is also planning to see more than 500 accessory dwelling units as well as new housing developments on Stanford University-owned sites on Welch Road and El Camino Real.
The most ambitious proposal, however, is the rezoning of industrial and commercial zones around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way to allow multifamily residential use. The Housing Element estimates that this could generate 2,141 new dwellings, more than a third of the city’s total allocation.
Palo Alto Forward had previously suggested that this strategy is unrealistic because it relies too much on sites that are currently not vacant and are thus unlikely to see redevelopment. However the strategy received a boost this week, when one major property owner submitted a letter to the city indicating that he is willing to explore construction of housing.
Far Western Land and Investment Company, which owns the property in the 3900 block of Fabian Way that used to house Space Systems/Loral and then Maxar, filed a request this week urging the city to include additional parcels from its Fabian Way site in the Housing Element. Jeff Farrar, the company’s president, pitched a project two years ago to build 290 apartments at the site. In their February 2021 discussion, council members generally supported the idea of converting commercial use to residential but agreed that the proposed 68-foot building would be too massive for the area.
“I’m not close-minded to a significant project here, but I think it needs to be not breaking the bank,” Burt said at the time.
But now that the area is seen as the city’s best shot at meeting California’s aggressive housing targets, Farrar is once again requesting that the city consider the site for housing. A March 6 letter from his attorneys cites a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment” of the Fabian Way site and urges the city to include all six parcels in its list of “opportunity sites” for housing. Currently, the city only lists three of them.
“Redevelopment of the Property’s parcels, which are all contiguous to one another, would require the demolition of existing structures that currently straddle parcel lines, including some structures that are partially on listed sites and partially on unlisted sites,” the letter from Far Western’s attorneys Chelsea MacLean and Genna Yarkin states. “Especially because any redevelopment would require demolition of these structures, it would be illogical for the Housing Element not to include the intervening parcels.”
They noted that the property owner has a “dedicated interest in providing affordable housing as part of a project.”
“The Property is surrounded by nearby residential development, and is steps away from high-quality transit. It would therefore be entirely appropriate to list the entire Property,” they wrote.
Wong said the city will look at updating the city’s list to include the Fabian Way properties. The HCD, he noted, is always interested in seeing which parcels have owner interest in development. Even as the city is moving toward adoption, Wong noted that the Housing Element and its list of potential housing sites remains “fluid.”
“Our pipeline keeps on changing and the number of units we need to plan for is always changing,” Wong said. “This would be a good opportunity to include these in our inventory sites.”
Interesting to note that there is no mention of how these residential units will get power, water and other utilities, parking problems, traffic and public transportation.
Are these units for people who will sleep, work, hibernate and never leave their homes? Actually, if they never leave their homes it would add to the water/electricity usage!
Can we have a better power supply for the residents already here before increasing the number of homes? Until our electricity is improved in efficiency and reliability, we don’t need any more drains on it.
I am glad these lawsuits are coming. No city should be allowed to “Self-Certify” themselves. Its like a criminal “Self-Certifying” himself of any wrongdoings. Hopefully we will see more housing in the Bay Area sooner
Maybe the people who are building the gigantic houses in Palo Alto on the 8,000 square foot lots should take in some who want to live in this town. There is one behind me on Channing, two on Walnut, and another on Walter Hays. They build them to show that they have the money not because they have large families.
That was very disingenuous of the 2 members of Palo Alto Forward who said they were speaking as individuals, not for their group Palo Alto Forward. I knew something was wrong when they claimed that Palo Alto was “self-certifying “ their housing element instead of waiting for the response from the state on the city housing element’s plans already sent to the state. The Planning Commission was confused by the term “self-certified “ and asked the planning staff to explain this. The staff said there is no such thing as self-certification and that Palo Alto was not trying to get around state housing requirements by “self-certifying “. I resent this underhanded way that public commenters Scott and Mike tried to paint the city council and its housing element as a rogue “self-certifying” group. When you comment, be clear that you are speaking for Palo Alto Forward. Thank you.
The YIMBY lawsuits are suing cities because the state is still reviewing their housing elements. What a joke.
High density housing is bad for both our mental and physical well-being.
Palo Alto Forward is destroying the quality of life and community that is and has been Palo Alto for over 100 years.
Instead of capitulating to these special interests we should be pushing back.
“The most ambitious proposal, however, is the rezoning of industrial and commercial zones around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way to allow multifamily residential use. The Housing Element estimates that this could generate 2,141 new dwellings, more than a third of the city’s total allocation.” This grossly understates what’s proposed for south Palo Alto because the vast majority of proposed housing sites (beyond those mentioned here) are in south Palo Alto.
The city and PAUSD have completely neglected community service/school facilities at Cubberley for this area. The accumulative maintenance failures are so severe, Cubberley gym is closed due to water intrusion that caused the floor to buckle. Pavement and slabs are heaving, roofs leak, mold and rats intrude. —not only in the parking lot, but inside the campus. The buildings have not been painted in decades, so wood throughout the campus is peppered with dry rot. Randomly scattered prefab junk buildings accumulate to replace permanent space that no longer functions. The bathrooms are disgusting and unheated and so open to the public they feel unsafe. Fewer and fewer programs are offered in this part of town. No wonder. This year, only 31% (64) of total 204 city summer camp programs are planned south of Oregon Expressway. (That was before the gym closed and some programs were planned for the gym, so that number may now be less.) The city commits to add thousands of smaller, denser housing units in the vicinity of Cubberley with NO feasible plan that the public can see to make this community center functional again. We are already underserved. Where will the new residents in teeny tiny living spaces recreate? How will they safely walk or bike across San Antonio Road, a multi-lane, fast, major arterial, to nearby shopping and community services, schools and parks? It is a terrible place to walk or bike. What is being done to plan comprehensively for this growth, as the city did for SoFA and Ventura?
Both Palo Alto Forward and the various YIMBY groups and their candidates have always had a distant relationship from the truth, claims cities are in violation when the deadlines haven’t even happened, claiming to be College Terrace residents who support a huge apartment complex when they live elsewhere… ALL so they can continue to raise campaign funds and membership fees to continue their lobbying efforts and then claim their candidates got the most votes — all because people aren’t paying attention to the details.
Maybe they could also mention that are barred for 8 — EIGHT — years from contesting the housing targets on the grounds that the economy has changed, that the jobs on which the housing targets are based aren’t there any more, that the tech layoffs continue in the 6 figures in just the first 3 months of the year…. We’re not even ALLOWED to consider factors like density that impedes emergency vehicles or drought where we don’t have the water to serve all the new residents forget about existing residents.
And who benefits? Not the people who need truly affordable housing which is LEGALLY capped but highly paid folks who want more MARKET RATE housing. Note there’s only a few hundred dollars rent difference between “affordable” units and market rate ones.
They sold us a bill of goods to finance their political aspirations while cynically virtue-signalling that they want a Peninsula For Everyone. Let them be honest about their goals.
“Palo Alto Forward had previously suggested that this strategy is unrealistic because it relies too much on sites that are currently not vacant”
Obviously there aren’t thousands of housing units’ worth of currently-vacant sites anywhere in Palo Alto; everybody knows that, including the activist groups. It seems more likely the Libertarian contingents of some of these groups are simply hoping to obstruct the entire process long enough for “Builder’s Remedy” — eliminate zoning codes entirely, and turn over all development standards to private developers — to kick in. However, infinite-deregulation, even in zoning, is likely a minority aspiration in Palo Alto.
Furthermore, deregulation and social benefit don’t necessarily go together. As the Mercury News reported this week, nearly 100 Sacramento housing laws over the past decade have not delivered any measurable overall impact on housing affordability, homelessness or inequality https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/05/california-has-nearly-100-new-housing-laws-are-they-fixing-the-affordability-crisis/ .
The 2/3 of sites that =aren’t= in the San Antonio/Fabian corridor, even by themselves, represent nearly triple the housing growth rate that Palo Alto has experienced for decades, and that includes a step function in Year 1. To hit an even higher rate without sweeping action in that area is farfetched. In fact, the San Antonio rezone is the opposite of obstruction: it’s an indication that the City really means to hit the State Mandates. The yimby lawsuits only show that activist groups can be just as silly as “mountain lion refuge” etc.
I love how we always have a dedicated group hemming and hawing about utilities whenever housing is built. I guarantee you that they’d be doing the same thing if the city tried to improve those utilities because they don’t need it/it’s a waste of money/etc. Just be honest and admit it’s because you don’t want housing to be built.
There’s a battle ahead, and unfortunately, and sadly, i live on the front lines of that battlefield. We moved into our home in a quiet, peaceful, friendly neighborhood on Ross Road in 1963. The neighborhood of those days doesn’t exist here anymore. I’ve written stories about it for my Life Stories writing class. I’ll be happy to share them, upon requests.
I’ve been watching PACC meetings for many years and I’ve always had the feeling that any decisions they made that affected certain areas and neighborhoods in town, always. favored the Northenders, over us commoners and middle class citizens living in SPA. I might have been wrong, but the current movement to push all (okay…most) of the new housing to meet our Housing Element requirement, is focused in my area. I think Online Name got it right. Fake
Sorry, I clicked “send” too soon! I meant to add…YIMBIES, wolves hiding under sheep’s clothes/skins. Let’s hear it from the Northenders who were in favor of ADU’s. How many of them built them on their half or one acre properties and rented them out at below market rates? And how many of those who did build ADU’s on their property build them for ‘granny’ or any other family members?
If the pro-density folks really cared more about housing than their deep-pocketed backers they’d be supporting all of the proposals now surfacing to convert empty offices and hotels into housing, esp. since the State has proposed that they’ll kick in some money for the conversion.
Let’s hear it for our “leaders” who rushed to put all our economic eggs in the Business Travel and Office Commuter basket as if they’ve never experienced economic downturn.
And let’s hear it for our newly elected City Council member gloating on the front page o the other newspaper that housing prices are declining “because no one “deserves” to live in multi-million-dollar homes while being seemingly oblivious to the fact that housing COST rose because interest rates have almost doubled!
Let’s hear it for the compassion shown for the pain suffered by all the tech workers who’ve been laid off and/or seen their stock options and all of us who’ve seen our portfolios decimated.
I think high-density housing is the answer to our biggest problems.
– Declining enrollment and looming school closures
– Lack of housing for the folks that make our community GREAT (teachers, firefighters, nurses, retail and service workers, police)
– Poor performance of our Cal Ave and University retail corridorrs (the City’s own report said more residents and foot traffic is the solution)
– Climate change as CO2 emissions are reduced when you have more residents in smaller units near jobs, Caltrain, and services
– Park and utility fees are like $50,000 a unit, so with 6,000 new units = $300 million in fees, plus the increase in property tax revinue would go a long way in infrastructure upgrades and improvements at our parks, community centers, and bike trails
I just don’t see the gloom and doom of more housing. Most of the recent high-density projects near me look pretty nice. To me it is more fine folks and neighbors making our community stronger and better.
I oppose the state destroying single family housing. It is bizarre. Palo Alto is punished for being a successful jobs center. Ridiculous.
Coherent planning and zoning makes a lot of sense. The El Camino Real corridor does make sense for adding density and vibrancy.
I don’t agree with Palo Alto Forward.
Hey Anonymous,
I think you actually do agree with Palo Alto Forward, who wants smart planning to put the density we need where it should be (near transit, jobs, businesses, and services – El Camino is an ideal place for this). It is our lack of planning that results in haphazard, one-off development in places where it isn’t smart.
You should join and make your voice heard that you want smart, coordinated planning with housing where it makes sense! Only by working together can we make Palo Alto the best it can be. There are great ideas everywhere, we just need to come together and plan. Let’s tell developers what we want and where with specific plans – before the state does it for us…..
Does anyone read the Real Estate Section of the Sunday papers? It tells you what the local homes are being sold for by address. Then there is the new housing section of where the major builders in this state are providing “planned communities”. People can move to a planned community – get a new home for less than $1M, have a community center with all of the toys. Does any of this apply to them?
We live in a community where the homes start at $2M and the SF legal people want to break down and destroy the community structure and organizations. And their own city of SF is not meeting any goals. The SF Chronicle tells every day that they – the city of SF is failing to reach any goals. The state is failing to reach any goals in managing the infrastructure. Why are we being roped into these crazy schemes? Because they are not going to fund us? They have no money to fund us. Can we please get real here.
All of those low cost homes in south PA are being torn down and replaced with new two story homes that have every bell and whistle. That is putting new county property tax into the system. There is more turn over in the South PA locations than the North PA section. The property tax is based on the last turn over in ownership and the sales price. Do not believe that the owners who paid $3M+ are going to roll over in this situation.
Again – the Fabien location of former Ford Aerospace / Loral Space Systems/ Maxor should be used for a community asset – a substation for the police, a small urgent care faciltiy, and community rooms for rental to groups. Maybe a fire station can also be added. City Hall in downtown has limitations in parking and does not have a lot of space. Is the courthouse even used now?
There is plenty of residential housing in this area and East Meadow Circle. We need support systems in place to support the current population. That location has a huge amount of traffic so some police substation location can be a positive element.