Please reconsider the use of the word "affirmative" since it's now associated with racist policies of the past. We don't achieve equality by putting some people ahead of others.

"Please reconsider the use of the word "affirmative" since it's now associated with racist policies of the past."

Let's not go overboard on political correctness & wokeness.

Affirmative & affirmatively means: favoring or supporting a proposition or motion.

> "We don't achieve equality by putting some people ahead of others."
^ You are correct but equality is also not achieved by promoting 'entitlement' programs that favor one group over another.

• ...higher income residents bid up the rents on formerly more affordable rentals and force low-income families to move further away to find housing they could better afford.

> Would rent control initiatives resolve this issue? It is only natural that landlords strive to get the most money they can for their rental properties and preferred location is often the key factor that impact escalating rents. How about placing a ceiling on rents...like nothing more than $2500.00 per month regardless of size or configuration?

• I think we all wish there were more Black and Hispanic residents and...

> Agreeing but Palo Alto is still a somewhat subtle racist community and there will be those who do not share the same sentiments.

Thanks for your comments.

Does anyone disagree that Palo Alto should support policies that encourage new housing for low-income residents broadly throughout the city?

This is one of the concerns of HCD looking at the large amount of new housing for low-income residents planned in the southern part of the city.

When African Americans are granted the slavery reparations advocated by Governor Newsome's task force and progressive House Democrats, we will easily be able to afford a home in Palo Alto.

Receiving $1.2M from the State of California + $5M from the federal government will be the true meaning of 'affirmative action' and it is long overdue.

When the new Police Building opens near California Avenue, lets take down the old Police Buidling next to the high rise City Hall and across the street from the Downtown Library. This downtown location would be an excellent location for low-income housing.

@Steve Levy

Thank you for highlighting the demographic data needed to ground our conversations on issues of housing, transportation, education, social justice and more that roil the politics of our city and region. Greater awareness of it would be extraordinarily helpful to our discussion of how to deal with the challenges of our times.

To some, residing in Palo Alto is a privilege and opportunity based on one's affordability to do so. It is not a Constitutional right or entitlement based on bureaucratic intervention.

Why can't the progressive liberals put 2+ 2 together? Don't they understand that certain people of means pay more for their residencies to avoid being subjected to and surrounded by those they cannot accept?

Case in point...though JFK advocated for civil rights, there is no record of the Kennedys ever inviting MLK and his family to Hyannisport for a weekend retreat.

I am originally from the Boston and the Irish population there represents some of the most racist people in the world, especially when it comes to accepting African Americans as neighbors and friends.

Of note...the Boston Red Sox previously owned by Tom Yaukey (Irish) and GM'd by Joe Cronin (an Irish San Franciscan) was the last MLB team to integrate...in 1959, 12 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

Was it because there were few gifted black baseball players? Think again.

In some ways, Palo Alto is no different than Beantown.

When we purchased our modest home in Palo Alto, the real estate agent told us that property values would remain stable and even escalate providing only whites and Asians were the predominant resident base.

She cited East Palo Alto as an example of a former white neighborhood that became devalued once other people of color started moving into the community.

We do not want our property value to go down as it is an investment and not a loss leader for a progressive cause.

Jason,

Discrimination in housing is completely illegal though it certainly may exist still in more subtle forms.

Another requirement of Palo Alto's Housing Element along with all other cities, is to develop policies to support more housing for low-and-moderate income residents who may be of any racial or ethnic group.

Palo Alto in previous decades saw a large number of new units for low-and-moderate income residents while at the same time our home values and rents remained high and increased along with prices and rents generally.

As I said in the blog, I support more such housing in my neighborhood as part of efforts to reduce long commutes, help people who provide vital services to residents up and down the peninsula and move us closer to developing a compliant Housing Element and avoid penalties and loss of local control.

@Jason Zhao
We are planning to retire and move to another locale. Our nextdoor neighbor is a despicable racist and to get even with him, we would be most amenable to selling our home to a nice black family.

Having purchased our house in the late 1950s, we could care less about bigots overly fixated with maintaining their post Prop 13 property values.

The die has been cast in Palo Alto regarding the residential accomodation of minorities and people of color.

I am from back east (Philadelphia) and like many eastern U.S. cities, the various neighborhoods are differentiated by ethnicity. We had specific Italian, Irish, Jewish, Polish, and African American communities which were inherently segregated by individual choice and convenience.

Palo Alto could have established a similar scenario but it is too late because all of the homes in Palo Alto are now very expensive and overpriced.

There has never been a true Asian neighborhood, Hispanic barrio or black ghetto in Palo Alto.

My older neighbors mentioned that at one time, Palo Alto was visibly segregated with most people of color living south of Page Mill Road while the majority of white Palo Altans resided north of California Avenue.

Kind of like north and southside Chicago where most of the white people root for the Cubs while the majority of black people support the White Sox.

I am also from back east (Queens, NY) and the neighborhoods there were also separated by ethnicity.

It was not uncommon to shop at small family businesses on the street level while the owner's family resided upstairs on the second floor.

Maybe this format is another way for Palo Alto to become more ethnically inclusive. With all of the office vacancies, why not convert the upper levels for affordable housing?

That way Palo Alto can be inclusive and borderline racist at the same time.

My family has resided in Palo Alto since the turn of the 19th century and we have always respected and appreciated the combined efforts of minority peoples who have dutifully served our family as domestic workers, gardners, and tradesmen.

That said, is it really racist to have an appreciation for an ethnically homogeneous Palo Alto where everyone has something in common?

A few facts
The median home price in East Palo Alto is around $1 million in a community that is 66% Hispanic with comparatively few White or Asian residents.
The share of Black residents in Palo Alto is similar to the average in both SC and SM counties.
Palo Alto has a mixture of White and Asian residents with the largest recent growth came from Asian and Hispanic residents while the White non Hispanic population fell between 2010 and 2020.
Apparently posters stopped reading the blog, which is on recent data and the requirement for Palo Alto to clarify how it will affirmatively further fair housing.
I will repeat my question no one has answered.
Does any disagree that our new housing for low-and- moderate income residents should be spread broadly in our city and not concentrated in one or two areas.

• I will repeat my question no one has answered.

•• Does any disagree that our new housing for low-and- moderate income residents should be spread broadly in our city and not concentrated in one or two areas.

Speaking as a from out of state developer, *hearing the boos* you have overlooked a key premise.

Low and moderate income housing should not be integrated into the more affluent neighborhoods with fancier homes because: (1) the new architectural designs will most likely clash with the existing homes resulting in discontent among the more longstanding residents, and (2) it is oftentimes questionable to build more expensive homes in a neighborhood comprised of mostly run-down homes because chances are, you may not fully recoup on your projected investment.

That is the primary reason why most developers seek multi-parcels (the more the better if the area has been zoned for gentrification/redevelopment).

Then developers can begin upgrading the entire neighborhood which leads to a higher profit margin.

To repeat and re-emphasize.

Low-middle income housing will not blend in with the more affluent and older neighborhoods as they will probably look out of place with the existing structures and the interacting demographics are potentially too diverse in terms of income, professions, education etc.

Though all Palo Alto properties are very expensive with limited availabilities, affordable housing should ideally be placed in existing Palo Alto neighborhoods that appear more reflective of low to middle income earners.

And without naming any specific ones, Palo Alto has a few of those.

"I will repeat my question no one has answered. Does any disagree that our new housing for low-and- moderate income residents should be spread broadly in our city and not concentrated in one or two areas."

This might be the wrong question. Instead, I might start by asking "Where in our city is new housing for low- and moderate-income residents financially feasible?"

"Where in our city is new housing for low- and moderate-income residents financially feasible?"
~ Given the current prices of real property in Palo Alto, perhaps nowhere.

"is it really racist to have an appreciation for an ethnically homogeneous Palo Alto where everyone has something in common?"
~ Racist is a harsh term for what amounts to an endorsement of systemic white bigotry and privilege.

"We do not want our property value to go down as it is an investment and not a loss leader for a progressive cause."
~ Spoken like a true Palo Altan who prefers to pick and choose their 'causes.'

"When African Americans are granted the slavery reparations advocated by Governor Newsome's task force and progressive House Democrats,"
~ When is a big word with no actual assurances. Besides, if a black family of five were to receive $6.2 million apiece as descendents of African slavery, there are far nicer places to live than Palo Alto. Tiberon and Sausalito immediately come to mind.

"I think we all wish there were more Black and Hispanic residents and..."
~ A huge assumption given some of the comments.

"Would rent control initiatives resolve this issue?"
~ Highly unlikely. Learn from Berkeley.

Given the current lack of space availabilities and the potential uproar if all Palo Alto neighborhoods were forced to accommodate low-mid income level housing, modular housing or an upscale trailer park might be the only alternatives.

Lastly, what is the salary range or hourly wages to be considered low-middle income in Palo Alto? If it is under $100,000.00 annually or below $40.00+ per hour, Palo Alto will have a difficult time accommodating those lower end earning groups.

Online Name,

I do not see this phrase you have posted here in quotes and in Town Square in the HCD letter responding to the city's latest Housing Element (HE) submission..

"contributing to the culture of affluence"

The HCD letter does ask the city to expand on its analysis of any factors contributing to Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence--something the city started in their last HE update.

If you can show it to me I am happy to have you repost your last post.

To Alan Akin and Review Notes

The blog asks readers to comment on the city's commitment to affirmatively further fair housing and the HCD letter asking for more clarification.

The letter and many posts on Town Square express concern that new housing for low-income residents is concentrated in the southern part of the city and TS posters frequently ask neighbors in north Palo Alto (I am one) if they support such housing in their neighborhood (I do) so I asked the question here.

To be clear I am not talking about putting 100% Below Market Rate projects in the middle of single-family home neighborhoods. There are plenty of other options including downtown and their are projects on corners already near where I live.

Alan Akin and others have raised the issue of financial feasibility.

Thank you, it is an important issue and one raised also in the HCD letter.

The key point in fact and in the HCD letter is that city actions can and should be directed to improve financial feasibility for all sites included in the Housing Element.

The city has made progress in improving the financial feasibility of 100% BMR projects such as Wilton Court by modifying height, density and other development standards such as reducing parking requirements and reducing or eliminating requirements for retail on site.

Moreover, the city has added funding for many projects.

Two projects on county land have the land donated and our city is proposing to do this for housing on downtown parking lots.

We can also raise funds through a city bond as Oakland just did in addition to the portion of the business tax devoted to 100% BMR projects and support a large regional bond for BMR housing.

We can modify height, density and other development standards more in response to the HCD letter and our consultant studies on feasibility.

What IS clear is that no city can use financial feasibility as a reason not to identify sites and develop programs to meet their RHNA goals.

Palo Alto is not as progressive as some of its more vociferous and sanctimonious residents (including certain city council members) would like others to believe.

Being a pseudo-sanctuary city, imagine the uproar if the governors of Texas and Florida decided to bus undocumented immigrants from Haiti and Central America to University Avenue.

"Get them out of here and call President Biden to intervene" would be the atypical Palo Alto mantra.

The majority of Palo Alto residents do not want to accommodate anyone who cannot afford to reside here including those who they believe do not belong here.

99% of the local real estate agents can't be wrong.

Mr. Levy...please give me one good reason why residents in Palo Alto's more affluent neighborhoods should go out of their way to accept and accommodate those who ordinarily could not afford to reside here in the first place?

If the reasons are based on humanity, unconditional love for our fellow man, and progressive wokeness, I'll pass.

Outside of service industry employment, lower income individuals contribute very little to the overall cultural enhancement of Palo Alto. And the same can be said of the homeless population.

I see comments arguing that Palo Alto residents are racially biased with respect to housing.

That is not a view that I share.

I do see residents who do not want our city to grow very much but in my experience that is for other reasons, not race.

Racial biases in Palo Alto are secondary to affordability considerations and destroying venerable neighborhood landscapes with cheesey-looking affordable housing units.

On the other hand, if you add racial biases + people who cannot afford to live here + tacky-looking apartments, it all adds up to the same thing because the only acceptable people of color in Palo Alto are those who are lighter-skinned, college educated with high-paying jobs, and who do not speak ghetto or 3rd world vernacular.

Palo Alto will not get any better by allowing more people to move here let alone those who cannot afford to including the homeless population.

It is not about race but practical realities.

Hi Mi Casa,

Thanks for your question.

There are two sets of answers--my personal ones and the legal issues.

Here are my reasons

--for our children. I thought it was good for our children to see neighbors who were teachers and city workers for example and to go to classes where not everyone looked like them. I think that reflects the real world in which children will live now and in the future.

--for the environment. Many families who cannot afford to live here without more subsidized housing commute long distances. This increases pollution and congestion as well as GHG emissions.

--for equity. Our RHNA goals ask us to provide housing that is affordable to low-and-moderate income residents. I support this goal but it is also a legal requirement to develop a compliant Housing Element and avoid all sorts of financial and legal costs and loss of control over our zoning.

I disagree strongly that having a diverse population contributes little to our cultural environment. In my opinion you have that remark backwards but I am glad you seem to support housing for low-wage workers.

45% of Palo Alto's population are renters. That's almost half and a number that's rising and is MUCH MUCH higher than in surrounding communities.

Hi Online Name,
This is a blog about the HCD letter in response to our latest housing element not anyone's opinion about politics.

I left your first sentence in to correct your misstatement.

Palo Alto's renter occupied housing share in 2021 was 46% compared to 62% in Mountain View, 54% in Sunnyvale and 45% in Redwood City and is not much much than in surrounding communities

"Palo Alto's renter occupied housing share in 2021 was 46% compared to 62% in Mountain View, 54% in Sunnyvale and 45% in Redwood City and is not much much than in surrounding communities."

And what are those numbers for Atherton, Portola Valley, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and the towns in San Mateo county?

I wish I could quote exactly the phrase about "a culture of affluence" which was cited in a recent Palo Alto Daily Post article and which, alas, isn't online.

Hi,

That quote could be in the Daily Post but it is not from HCD which is what the blog is about. You are free to research other cities, I picked the neighbors comparable to PA.

Steve

This blog is about HCD's letter to Palo Alto requesting additional information on the city's plans with regards to fair housing policy in our Housing Element.

I am going to delete posts like this that are unrelated

Steve

According to reports, only four Bay Area cities have met the housing requirements set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Which four cities?

There are many more than 4 cities though many still need to be certified. You can look them up on the HCD website.
Steve

Promoting demographic data regarding "race" is only driving a wedge between us. There is no such as race in my mind.
The problem with low income housing is that it is always paired with a disproportionate amount of market rate housing, which further exacerbates our problems. Building 20 percent subsidized housing (let's call it what it is) is not enough and only churns out more climate change while doing very little if not nothing to actually make things more livable.
Really discouraged that somehow in people's minds low income housing has anything to do with "race"
If anything, I think that allowing homeless encampments in designated areas as well as RV parking would be more helpful to alleviate poverty than subsidizing housing.
Reading the comments really I just had to stop it was so disgusting hearing people's opinions on "race" and income. At least they feel safe enough to be honest I guess
Shame on the state for forcing us to fight over such gross nonsense as what color people's skin is in our community. Who cares! Stop thinking like that!

Space limitations being what they are, it appears that the only way to create additional housing options in Palo Alto will be to build more high-rise/mixed-use
condos or to require that any new houses be built on smaller parcels of land.

In other words, we must look skyward or condensed to accommodate additional Palo Alto housing.

And despite any resident complaints, each Palo Alto neighborhood should be mandated to share in this undertaking by providing a section of its area for affordable housing.

"...despite any resident complaints, each Palo Alto neighborhood should be mandated to share in this undertaking by providing a section of its area for affordable housing."

While revised city zoning ordinances can allow for such considerations, any additional residential developer projects throughout Palo Alto will most likely be challenged with citizen complaints and potential lawsuits.

The PACC is walking on thin ice when it comes to authorizing more low income housing VS preserving the fleeting small town atmosphere that many Palo Alto residents cherish.

Will there ever be housing along Page Mill Road West of El Camino Real?

In addition to the section of Page Mill Road from ECR to Foothill Expressway, Greer Park and the Cubberley site should also be considered for low-mid income housing.

Steve , I question the data �" are u using low and free lunch number . I believe the rate of poverty in Palo Alto is much higher.

Furthering fair housing is just the tip. The Bill of rights needs a total overhaul. Also raising personal & corporate income tax' could give housing a boost forward from 1980 figures facts. Those in SFH only enclaves and running g all the powerful PANAs here are finishing fair housing forward. This includes mega real estate holders tamping down hard on the rental market. Plenty of space it's no will to work together.

To put it more clearly: Get rid of proof of 3 times income 2 rent. Proof 700 or better credit, no evictions. Or the discrimination of having a subsidy like SSI or retirement or S8'Voucher. Plenty of us r capable of paying 70% in rent to our income threshold .we did while (albeit without a trust or parents's help) attending college or fresh out. And how about transferring from 1 rental “home" to another within city limits? Opresdion is trapping us in small dwellings. This fact is preventing fair housing forward. It's no longer “driving while black" it's living while poor. Wages are grossly stagnated, cost have risen a 3rd since the Pandemic, AI (artificial intelligence) is usurping the human element, & those in ownership of “homes" & property r metaphorically sandbagging themselves in. What's failing? Our economy & the lack of equity for the poor. Unless one has a co-signer or a trust, or stocks or actual owned property we are crud out of luck. It's grossly miscalculated in Palo Alto. We want our services �" car mechanic, electric heat pump installers, grounds keeper, maids, nanny, pre-school provider as long as we don't have to consider their lives or family outside working hours - when not in front of our children, belongings, properties, livelihoods -gone. They come in care for, they go, we sleep soundly. The Kingdom of Palo Alto service help is speaking, loudly. Like a housecleaner said at the lock down." I am at home caring for my own children in EPA. Call me and I'll I tell you what to do." These rich families may give a bonus at holidays yet it's the longevity not just loyalty. Even dark ages European Kings at court threw scraps within their walls to their peasant help. The greed in this (un)real estate market is sucking out the blood of a “home" renter. Once was the day we could count on renting & now that reality is wiped. And of sweat equity income? One of two who work home & hearth as the other, goes 2 job? That too is failing. Don't forget the past.

Here is a thought. Rather than raising taxes for local homeowners, open a housing trust start up. An account to put dollars into to help poor families stay or obtain good quality rental homes. Not “life Moves" us not or the gazillions of Apple, Google or Oracle. Yet a separate funded account �" a start up for the poor. It would bypass a government mandated funded (UBI) universal basic income yet help families sustain a residency here or even ensure a an equity backed account holder. This type of guarantee would solidify “the help" necessary to keep the rich going . It would prevent mass employment gaps and keep those with money going and those without the security in knowing its employers are looking out for their own. This way those in those of the Libertarian party can grasp public good w private enterprise.

Hi Native,

The poverty data is from the Census Bureau but in practical terms you are right, those numbers underestimate poverty as they do not take housing costs into account and even if a family has income a bit above the poverty level, they are still under financial stress.

To you and NTB2

There is a $10B state bond for low-income housing for the March ballot and a $10-20 B regional bond being developed for the November ballot.

Another option Is for public agencies and churches to donate land as the county did for the teacher housing project and the city will do for housing over DTN parking lots.

Also PA voters could approve a local bond as Oakland just did.

Money is a challenge but like most things, it is a question of will. There are options.

• Another option Is for public agencies and churches to donate land...
^ This is a terrific idea but how many churches would be willing to donate valuable Palo Alto property and would it involve downsizing their parking lots?

What are some public agency areas that could be applied to this concept?

Has there been any further discussion of additional Section 8 housing vouchers being issued and will they be enough to cover housing costs throughout Palo Alto?

@Helen Morgan I crave for a here in PA to post “S8 Welcome". Not so. the proof of 3 times income to asking rent protects landlords and discriminates against prospective good paying responsible renters from rental homes. Palo Alto notoriously keeps the poor out by mandating its own “special" vetting process of triple income to rent thresholds. Regardless of the number of county wide vouchers issued this city says no to the poor, tho the poor sustain the rich by their very sweat equity. There is no pay it forward. Good luck. I've been in the non affordable housing mines for ten years and no light, still.

Helen,

My understanding is that lots of churches are interested and do not need all their current parking.

There has been interest in housing at Cubberley above current buildings or parking.

The DTN public safety building will soon be vacant. And city is interested in DTN parking lots for housing for low-income residents.

Community colleges have shown interest and built housing.

I am sure there are other opportunities.

Speaking as a landlord with a sizable number of rental properties outside of Palo Alto, there are several Section 8 applicable housing opportunities for those who wish to reside in Palo Alto.

Arastadero Park Apartments
Alma Place
Page Mill Court
Lytton Gardens IV
Adlai Stevenson House
390 Everett Avenue (studio apartments)

The rents are about $2000.00 per month and discounted via Section 8 vouchers.

Given the cost of living in Palo Alto, it would be unreasonable to expect to reside anywhere in the city below $2000.00/month.

Focusing on alternative Section 8 housing options outside of Palo Alto is also advisable as some of these venues might have waiting lists.

Since affordable housing is available in Palo Alto to a certain extent, it is unreasonable to expect conventional landlords to lower their rents just to accommodate people who ordinarily could not afford to rent their properties.

Most landlords are in business to accrue rental profits and not to provide low-cost housing at a loss of revenue.

It is up to the cities, counties, and the state to take those fiscal hits by allocating taxpayer resources to accommodate and subsidize below-market rental prices.

In Malibu, where several of my rental properties are located, a Section 8 voucher is not a viable rental supplement
and my property managers always suggest to prospective renters that if they cannot afford to reside here near the beach, consider pursuing other lesser-priced locales like San Pedro or Long Beach. There are other options as well including the coastal cities in Humboldt County.

Adding more affordable housing in Palo Alto will only increase the gridlock and lower the quality of life for current Palo Alto residents.

With gentrification and redevelopment efforts in full swing, East Palo Alto will eventually become a key residential hub for Silicon Valley professionals.

Unfortunately, many families who rent their homes and apartments in EPA will be displaced to make room for the
upwardly mobile.

Will there be room to accommodate them in Palo Alto? Will they be welcomed and accepted?

Is Palo Alto ready and willing to welcome an influx of loser-income African Americans, Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders?

Since we live very close to the EPA/PA border, Crescent Park would be an ideal neighborhood to accomodate low income affordable housing.

loser-income > lower-income

The nature of the comments sent by HCD seems to be suspect. It's as if they are trying to regulate wording of the housing element as opposed to anything that actively works to the end they espouse. I mean they are upset by what Palo Alto says and how Palo Alto says it in the the housing element, rather than by objective measures of what the housing element does.

It's basically Orwellian.

State laws regulate what type of housing is produced and who is eligible to occupy it and Palo Alto has no say in the matter anyway. Sure, more low income housing is needed and that might help the imbalances of racial distributions. But HCD seems more concerned with the idea that market rate housing needs to be regulated so as to adjust the ethnic makeup of the customers, to make up for past wrongs. I don't see how that could really be done, but HCD might help by getting more specific. They shouldn't get to tell elected officals how they THINK. They need to say what they want Palo Alto to do. It may be that they want symbolic statements as opposed to anything that will really WORK.

HCD was very specific as to what PA needed to do including

�"provide evidence that there was interest from developers for providing housing on non vacant sites under the programs proposed by PA.

�"explain how the large amount of housing for low-income residents in the GM/ROLM area contributed to the goal of fair housing,

�"remove barriers/constraints to housing such as high fees and the tree ordinance.

�"provide evidence that sites in the HE are economically feasible.

Many of their comments are prefaced by saying as we wrote in our first letter

State law sets goals for housing affordable to different income groups but does not regulate how to meet those goals.

HCD does not tell cities what to think, they tell cities what the rules are.

Some people don't like these rules just as some people do not like the tax rules or air quality rules or traffic rules that we do not vote on directly but generally we obey these rules..

The HCD might have made the whole process more streamlined by stating up front that all projects have to be exhaustively documents (so it's better to have a reasonable number of projects in the element or the whole thing is going to get bogged down). But they set Palo Alto up for making more work for itself by listing too many projects beyond the minimum that might be acceptable. The whole process for Palo Alto took this long because it worked so hard to give Palo Alto Forward something to dump on. The pot shots from comments behind the scenes to HCD made this thing a foregone conclusion. It's an example of an unworkable process.

But the Orwellian part comes from the highlight in the press on the requirements in the letter to basically work to right past wrongs. For example

"The city's adopted Housing Element describes past practices such as blockbusting, redlining and use of restrictive covenants, policies that made it difficult for Black people and other racial minorities to purchase homes in Palo Alto.

The HCD, however, indicated in its letter that the city must firm up its commitments to reversing those practices. This means adding goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. The analysis, according to the letter, "could examine past land use practices, investments and quality of life relative to the rest of the City and region and then formulate appropriate programs to promote more inclusive communities and equitable quality of life."

The HCD's letter mirrors some of the criticism that the council had received in the past from local housing advocates, including the group Palo Alto Forward, which had argued that the city's housing plan is too reliant on non-vacant sites in the commercial district."

As reported in the ALmanac and other local media.

Basically Palo Alto is hurt very much by its past restraint in growing commercial areas in the city. If three had been more development like in Mountain Views North Bayshore area in the ROLM/GM zone on either side of the freeway, there would have been more funding and more places to have added housing all along. But the imbalance and cost of housing in the city would have gone up or stayed the same, rather than having gone down. Just look at Mountain View. They have added so much housing and the prices of if all is extremely high.

Removing the tree ordinance sounds like a terrible idea.

The Housing Element does distribute BMR housing broadly. There's even a BMR site on my block in Professorville. Yes, there are more sites in some areas than others, but that's one way financial feasibility (which HCD also requires) comes into play.

BMR housing isn't profitable, because of the low return compared to the costs of materials and labor, so it has to be subsidized. There seem to be three ways this is usually done.

1. Mixed-use projects with office space. Typically these have much less housing than is needed to offset the office space, so they make the jobs/housing imbalance worse.

2. Projects with very expensive units plus the minimum of state-required BMR units. There's a 5-story project I really like (the BMR units are well-distributed and have useful sizes), but it would take 253 copies of this project to meet our RHNA BMR targets.

3. Grants (in many forms). This actually works, but the need is beyond what a city can handle. At ~$700K/unit averaged over all unit sizes, Palo Alto would need $1.9B. The Bay Area would need $180B. (I do understand these are worst-case; if you have defensible leveraged numbers, please post them.) So far I think the State, the Feds, and the tech companies haven't made realistic commitments.

Re "decrease parking and increase height": Developers know that transit isn't adequate here. Even in transit-center areas they provide parking because their units wouldn't be broadly marketable otherwise. Height above ~7 stories requires construction that makes the units more expensive. But as a thought experiment, raising that 5-story project to 7 only reduces the number of similar projects you'd need from 253 to 180. Can you find uniformly-distributed sites, plus financing and builders, to bring 180 such projects to completion in 8 years?

Financial feasibility REALLY matters. Without it, you can't achieve RHNA targets or AFFH goals.

(My personal opinions only, not representative of the PTC.)

Quote: "State law sets goals for housing affordable to different income groups but does not regulate how to meet those goals."

Mr. Levy...can we assume then that the accomodation of lower-income residents is solely up to the discretion of the individual cities providing the requisite housing numbers are met?

If so, it appears that the only option is to 'build higher' in areas with the least resident opposition or for the city to purchase various properties throughout the Palo Alto to enable low-income housing wherever it chooses.

With a current Palo Alto population at over 65,000, has any ceiling been established by the city to prevent further gridlock and overcrowding?

Louella,

There is one caveat on where BMR housing can go--new BMR housing needs to be distributed broadly throughout the city and not concentrated in one or two areas.

If by building higher you mean 4-6 stories, you are correct and that is what has been happening.

As to resident opposition, this is a political but not a legal reason to deny housing projects but the city has a lot of scope to meet the RHNA BMR goals.

portion deleted

For those who can afford to reside where they do, why should they make sacrifices which will only add more congestion and potentially lower their property values?

Allen Akin,

Thanks for your comments. I am on vacation and will respond more next week.

You are correct I believe that current BMR units are broadly throughout the city BUT that is not the issue with the Housing Element as you know. HCD's concern along with some residents is that the planned new BMR units are NOT broadly distributed

I hope you can be voice for more new BMR units in our neighborhoods.

Thank you for recognizing the importance of financial feasibility and the challenges.

But, again as you know, the city is supposed to take active steps to eliminate constraints and adopt programs that promote feasibility for new housing. The HCD letter is asking (again) for the city to add more of these positive steps. Feasibility is a challenge but not a reason that we cannot develop a compliant HE.

I think you are pessimistic on your numbers but you deserve a careful response coming when I get home.

A more concise way to express my point might be to say "The Housing Element already distributes BMR units broadly, given the constraint that their construction must be financially feasible." In practice, for the number of units we're talking about, that means fewer, larger projects, which can be financed and constructed at scale. There aren't very many places in the City where that's possible.

Just as HCD has a legitimate concern with subjective standards in cities, cities have a legitimate concern with subjective standards imposed by HCD. If HCD feels BMR units aren't distributed uniformly enough, I think it's obliged to set an objective standard which can then be met or challenged for cause. For example, "Within a jurisdiction there must be no circle of radius one-half mile containing fewer than 10 BMR units." (Just an illustration off the top of my head; obviously it's possible to do better.)

I do understand that subsidy of BMR units is more complex than can be expressed in a couple of sentences in a comment limited to 2000 characters. I'm looking forward to seeing your analysis, which (to set an objective standard) will show how much public funding is needed to guarantee achievement of Palo Alto's RHNA targets, accurate to within $100M. :-)

(These are my personal opinions; I'm not representing the PTC.)

Let's talk population v freeway exists. For example, Windsor Calif has two exits at 26000 residents. PA has only two with 68k, w a huge Stanford resident & employment force and Palo Alto population has only two freeway exists! If one misses either it's RWC or MV . Los Alto has no exit.

One of these exists is by our HE accommodate 2-4 thousand additional units of housing on flood prone Bay Lands in ROLM/COM/INDUST. Send the poo yonder a few, rather than a weak infrastructure interior.

Seriously. And u can laugh too. It's all about poo.

Stanford and it's Research park's massive employment base have done zero to support thier employment base for 50 years, nor have they improved ECR at Embarcadero or Churchill or Oregon yet added a Stanford Mall and a lot of additional “software/Virtual" engineering campus space �" all of us no matter how long we can “hold" have to go. Somewhere �" I suppose sewer to ECR was added to ensure the biological calling. Yet. Bumpy San Fransescito creek continues to flood.

Let's talk infrastructure. Power outages or fires are where the Tesla's Google or Facebook reside.

Let's talk about where the mass amount of wealth reside yet ax fraction is done to supplement or invest in the grid or the infrastructure as it stands today.

Somehow adding “homes" for humans is in the future and is sealing up what is already happening at the present.

Stanford's doctors are picketing, PAUSD labor gaps, research Park & downtown commercial properties, vacant. Obviously there is Houston like “problem" here.

Windsor has use of thier county upgraded sewage treatment plan. Yet PA's plant is 70 years decrepit. The depletion of taxation on proper planning lands us here. The electrical grid, the sewage grid, housing gridlock, economic disparity has not kept pace with the time grid. Throw in the technology explosion . A 50 year bomb in the making. And here we are. Without.

Interesting and relevant article in the Merc this morning: Web Link No apartment projects broke ground in Silicon Valley during the first half of 2023, and this threatens the possibility of meeting RHNA targets. The lack of subsidies for affordable housing is also discussed.

The reasons given are consistent with the Century|Urban study that I often recommend: Web Link That study concludes that new apartment projects with small numbers of BMR units are financially infeasible in nearly all of San José due to cost of labor, materials, and financing.

Things are not quite as dire in Palo Alto, because average rents are higher here. As a result it can be more profitable to build here than in many other parts of the Bay Area. If rents were to come down, that would no longer be true. Financial feasibility is a really tough nut to crack.