Survey:  3,505 New Palo Alto Homes

Survey launced: August 9, 2007

 

By September 25, 2007, Palo Alto and all the cities in the Bay Area will be giving feedback to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) about the number of homes that each city is expected to build in the next eight years.  Palo Alto's allocation (3,505) has been raised substantially from the last round (1999-2006), because the new allocation criteria stress job levels, job growth and transit access.  This is a very controversial subject.  This survey is designed to gather data on attitudes and ideas about this issue facing Palo Alto. 

 

The State Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department requires regions to forecast future population growth.  HCD approves each regional forecast and then requires regions to allocate the growth among individual cities.  ABAG pursues relatively laudable goals in their allocation such as minimizing traffic congestion, pollution, and global warming.  ABAG creates a rational, impartial procedure for their allocation.  ABAG is an organization that represents Bay Area city governments, so it is not valid to argue that ABAG is out to harm individual Bay Area cities.  The fact that most Bay Area cities are unhappy with ABAG’s allocation supports the idea that ABAG has a fair, if unpopular, process.   The conflict is much more basic: the region is growing but most cities do not want to grow as fast as the region.   It’s hard to find a villain in this conflict. 

 

The state Climate Action Team sets statewide climate protection policy and has influenced the allocations.  For Palo Alto, the Climate Action Team’s “smart growth” policy can be summarized as: “build lots of dense housing for Palo Alto workers by the Caltrain stations.”  Compared to the 1999-2006 allocation, Palo Alto may have been given the largest percentage increase of any city.   

 

At this stage in the ABAG process, it may be difficult for Palo Alto to reduce the 3,505 home ABAG allocation substantially.  However, the state and ABAG have very limited influence over actual homebuilding in Palo Alto.  For the 1999-2006 allocation, Menlo Park built only 6% of their allocation and Atherton built only 15%.  It is possible that Palo Alto will avoid building most of the 3,505 homes while receiving no “punishment” from ABAG or the state.   

The survey is now closed.  For the report on survey, please click here: SurveySummary.html

 

The four Palo Altans responsible for this survey are:

 

For a diversity of perspectives, please see:

 

A few facts are provided below from the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAGs) document: "A Place to Call Home, Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area," http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/aplace.html

  Allocation Produced Very low Low Moderate
Piedmont

49

2%

0%

0%

40%

Larkspur

303

3%

13%

21%

4%

Atherton

166

15%

0%

0%

0%

Burlingame

565

26%

0%

0%

0%

Menlo Park

982

6%

0%

0%

4%

Redwood City

2,544

31%

7%

27%

3%

Los Altos

261

26%

16%

125%

2%

Los Altos Hills

83

252%

220%

100%

27%

Mountain View

3,423

33%

17%

2%

13%

Palo Alto

1,397

142%

60%

74%

12%

Sunnyvale

3,836

31%

7%

16%

18%

Bay Area total

230,743

73%

35%

72%

29%

 

  • For a short commute, home prices are high.  For a long commute, home prices are low.  The price of a home drops by $5,000 for every mile you move outside the Bay Area's core (see map at right).

  • In 1999, 27% of Bay Area citizens could afford a median priced home.  By 2005, that number had dropped to 12%.

  • A wage of almost $30 per hour is needed to afford a two bedroom apartment in Palo Alto.  On average, per hour, firefighters make $28, kindergarten teachers make $13, licensed nurses make $25, and janitors make $12. 

 

Cheap homes in Manteca and Modesto

Some other articles:

A web page with the survey questions can be found here: SurveyQuestions.html

Oct 10 Letter To Council with 8 cosigners:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:18 PM
To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org'
Subject: Oct. 15 City Council: ABAG Housing Allocation Study Session

 

Dear Palo Alto City Council,

 

Palo Alto is not an island, but is part of a greater regional whole.  We believe that ABAG’s updated 2,860-home 2007-2014 Palo Alto Housing Allocation has been fairly apportioned. In 2008, Palo Alto’s Housing Element should be updated to accommodate reaching the goal of 2,860 new homes.

 

At the local, Palo Alto city level, adding homes near jobs is critical if the region is to meet global warming reductions called for in AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. As a result of Palo Alto’s jobs/housing imbalance, Palo Alto has the Bay Area’s highest per-capita CO2 emissions.

 

To implement the housing allocation, Palo Alto should pursue ABAG’s Priority Development Area (PDA) strategy, adding density to existing city centers to increase pedestrian activity and improve transit efficiency.  Don Weden’s 2006 "Winds of Change" talk at Hewlett Packard outlined a similar energy-efficient, reduced-driving living pattern.  

 

It is very important to balance Palo Alto’s budget, fund our world-class schools, and update our aging infrastructure.  Misinformed urban legend holds that every housing project loses money for the city.  The 2008 Housing Element Update should include a rigorous fiscal analysis to identify the types of housing projects that will improve city finances, utilizing innovative tax/mitigation strategies. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

References:

-----End Letter----- 

 

Oct 10 Steve Levy Letter To Council

CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY

 

132 HAMILTON AVENUE • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301

 

TELEPHONE:  (650) 321-8550

FAX:  (650) 321-5451

                                                                                                       www.ccsce.com   

 

Re: October 15 City Council Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Study Session

 

I am writing both as a resident of Palo Alto and as an economist whose specialty is developing long-term growth projections for California regions. I have no professional ties to ABAG.

 

Palo Alto and other cities in the region have voiced criticism about the number of housing units recommended for their city; of the criteria used to develop city by city allocations of total units; and of the allocations for housing for moderate and lower-income families. I have comments on these issues throughout the letter but my main focus is to encourage the Council and Planning Commission to also address the policy goals that underlie the RHNA allocations.

 

There is a companion ABAG document A Place to Call Home, which explains the overall goals behind the ABAG housing policy and addresses many of the concerns raised by residents in Palo Alto and elsewhere. There are five major policy and implementation goals. I encourage Palo Alto to support all of them.

 

1.  Build a Higher Share of New Housing Within the Region

 

During the past 20 years a growing number of Bay Area workers have found housing outside of the nine-county region. The ABAG regional housing goal in the RHNA is an attempt to reduce or reverse this trend. The reasons are familiar to you: 1) to reduce total commuting distances and time; 2) to reduce the need to use cars for some non-work trips; 3) a desire to economize on total infrastructure costs and 4) a variety of environmental goals relating to air quality and land use.

 

All of these goals appeal to me and seem consistent with the environmental objectives of the City and residents. Even if Palo Alto could convince neighboring cities to take some or all of our housing allocation, I don’t see why Palo Alto would want to oppose these regional goals.

 

2.  Focus on Planning for New Housing Near Downtowns and Transit Corridors

 

ABAG is not asking cities to plan for or permit high-density housing in the middle of single-family neighborhoods. And ABAG recognizes that many Bay Area cities are “built out” in the sense of not having huge amounts of vacant land. So the request of A Place to Call Home is that cities begin to envision and plan for higher density development/redevelopment of existing properties in their urban centers and along transit corridors. There is absolutely a call to think of “building up” so the region as a whole will reduce the amount of “building out” into adjoining regions. These goals also support the reduction of non-work trips and make public transportation use more likely.

 

I support these goals and encourage Palo Alto to support them even if, as I said earlier, we could persuade neighboring cities to take our housing allocation.

 

3.  All Cities Share in the Location of Lower-Priced and Subsidized Housing

 

There is an explicit “equalization” component to the allocations by city of housing for lower income households. Palo Alto and other more affluent cities are asked to plan for a slightly higher share of below market rate housing than they currently have.

 

As a resident of Palo Alto I support this regional social policy.

 

4.  Use Housing Element Updates to Plan for Meeting the RHNA Goals

 

From A Place to Call Home

 

“..ensuring that development can occur is a first key step in meeting housing needs. Thus, despite the limitations of the RHNA process, many cities acknowledge that Housing Element updates spur them to focus attention on the housing needs in their communities and to develop creative solutions for addressing them”.

 

We are being asked to actively plan for more housing so that it “can occur”.

 

Cities can’t force private or non-profit agencies to build housing and can’t force people to live in Palo Alto. Nor can we prevent people from freely choosing to live in Stockton or Salinas. What is being asked is that we put our active intention into making it possible for more housing to be located in selected areas of Palo Alto—housing which meets regional goals and for which there appears to be strong demand.

 

I encourage Palo Alto to embrace the concept of “priority development areas” and to use the Housing Element update to actively pursue this concept.

 

5.  City Housing Allocation Criteria Emphasize Jobs and Transit Accessibility

 

As you know the allocation criteria include 1) housing growth (45%) as determined by ABAG’s Projections 2007 long-term projections, 2) employment growth (22½%), 3) existing employment (22 1/2%) and accessibility of housing and jobs to transit (each 5%). Those criteria seem reasonable to me and consistent with the objectives of trying meet the regional housing goals while reducing overall travel. I am aware that Palo Alto and many other cities are criticizing the actual numbers used in applying these criteria but in the end any changes are likely to be minor as all neighboring cities can make a case similar to Palo Alto’s and the regional total goal is set.

 

I do long-term projection analysis professionally (not for ABAG) and can tell you three facts in relation to the Bay Area projections: 1) they represent a growth rate slightly faster than the national growth rate over the next 30 years; 2) the Bay Area’s projected growth rate by ABAG is below that for other large regions in California and 3) CCSCE’s analysis is that the Bay Area growth rate could be even higher than projected by ABAG. The Bay Area economy is strong enough to lend credibility to the ABAG projections or even higher growth levels.

 

Conclusion

 

Besides addressing the city’s housing allocation, I would like Council and the Planning Commission to address the ABAG goals and take a position.

 

Does Palo Alto support the goal of having more of the regional workforce have opportunities to live within the region?

 

Does Palo Alto support the goal of focusing planning for future housing within the region on higher-density housing in urban centers and along transit corridors?

 

Does Palo Alto favor a policy of trying to equalize the location of below market rate housing units?

 

Is Palo Alto willing to use the Housing Element update to plan so that more housing “can occur” in PA?

 

I expect that many residents will support these goals. At the same time some residents do not like the amount of new housing the criteria imply for Palo Alto. But it we truly support these regional goals we must face the fact that new housing will be built either in “our backyard” or in our neighbors’ “backyard”.

 

New housing will bring both benefits and challenges. I hope that Palo Alto can play a leadership role in planning to embrace the benefits and find solutions to the challenges that come with being part of a leading center for innovation—a regional economy that will continue to grow and provide opportunities for our community and the world.

 

 

Stephen Levy

 

 

Director

-----End Letter----- 

 

October 10 Sierra Club Letter to Council

 

October 10, 2007

 

Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto and Palo Alto City Council

250 Hamilton Ave

Palo Alto, CA  94301

 

Via Facsimile: 650-329-2154

 

Re: ABAG Housing Allocation

 

Dear Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members:

 

The Sierra Club views the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process undertaken by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as an ideal time to emphasize the importance of sustainable planning for all cities and counties within the Bay Area, including those within the Loma Prieta chapter area.  Growth will continue to occur in the Bay Area by virtue of the projected population increase of 24 million additional California residents by 2050. Therefore, it is vital that all sectors of government – local, regional, and state, work together to address this growth in a way that is sustainable for people and the environment alike.  For that to happen, individual cities must not shirk their planning responsibilities.

 

The Sierra Club was supportive of the Bay Area’s blueprint planning process completed in 2002 called the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project. While the workshops encountered difficulties, clearly the goal was a practical and timely one.  We are very pleased that ABAG’s Executive Board adopted the smart growth policies from that process, and that they are the basis for the region’s housing allocations.

 

For example, shifting the growth from the region’s agricultural areas to its urbanized areas not only preserves open space but also reduces global warming emissions from the largest source in the region – transportation, by lessening commute distances.

 

We recognize that increasing density can be difficult, but it also can be rewarding. Mixed-use planning, when designed well, adds to the walkability of neighborhoods and can allow small retail to flourish further reducing vehicle trips.  In addition, added density allows public transit to service both new and existing residents and workers.

 

Thus, we were also pleased to see that ABAG added transit corridors to its methodology for determining the allocations so as to encourage transit-oriented-development.

 

We understand that Palo Alto has requested an adjustment of the initial allocation of 3,505 units in order to shift some responsibility to Santa Clara County resulting from issues associated with Stanford University lands not within the city’s jurisdiction.

 

While we hope the negotiations will be successful, it also shows a downside should each jurisdiction try to reduce their allocation by shifting some of it to a neighbor.  For that reason, we are impressed that the cities within San Mateo County chose a different approach to meeting their allocations – by pooling their resources to create what ABAG calls the “San Mateo Subregion” under the leadership of the county’s congestion management agency.

 

The Sierra Club believes that all cities and counties within the Bay Area must strive to plan for a sustainable future for the region.  We urge Palo Alto to not only contribute to that effort, but to demonstrate its leadership by connecting transportation, housing and jobs locally to ensure a livable future for its current and future residents.

 

Sincerely,

 

Irvin Dawid, former chair, Sustainable Land Use committee.

 

Cc: Daniel Furtado, Mayor, Campbell

Kris Wang, Mayor, Cupertino

Al Pinheiro, Mayor, Gilroy

Curtis Cole, Mayor, Los Altos

Dean Warshawsky, Mayor, Los Altos Hills

Joe Pirzynski, Mayor, Los Gatos

Jose Esteves, Mayor, Milpitas

David Baxter, Mayor, Monte Sereno

Steve Tate, Mayor, Morgan Hill

Laura Macias, Mayor, Mountain View

Chuck Reed, Mayor, San Jose

Patricia Mahan, Mayor, Santa Clara

Aileen Kao, Mayor, Saratoga

Otto Oswald Lee, Mayor, Sunnyvale

Don Gage, Chair, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Juliet Lamont, chair, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club

Margaret Pennington, chair, Redwood Chapter, Sierra Club

Henry Gardner, Executive Director, ABAG

 -----End Letter----- 

 

October 16 web post to Palo Alto Online

"Mike from College Terrace" makes an interesting post, in response to the Weekly article.  See: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=6065 

In this, I disagree with most members of the City Council.

Larry Klein's argument is especially puzzling, because he's always presented himself as a large-scenario environmentalist, but ends up creating an abstract assumption (the worry that growth will continue elsewhere, no matter what we do) to support his prior conclusion. It's a politically astute move, but not at all forward-looking, and absent anything that one might label as visionary. I could say "said just like a lawyer", (Klein is an attorney) but I won't, because I have a lot of attorney friends. :)

Beecham's authenticity is appreciated. Yes,, we have a problem, a vexing problem - and, it's very frustrating - but at least he leaves the door open to possibilities, and correctly states the case that we must try to *lead* the fight against pollution.

Cordell and Morton? What can I say, other than these two otherwise intelligent people are too "short-term-pragmatic" on this issue. That's often the case with these two.

Morton's argument, that "The whole thing seems designed to punish those who succeed economically" is just cynical, and out of character of the intent for ABAG's numbers. Mr. Morton's statement might be construed as pandering to citizens in a way that divides relative "haves" from "have nots". Why can't this be seen as helping *everyone*, instead of punishing those who have the economic power to comfortably agree with Council member Morton's convenient cynicism on this issue.

Judy Kleinberg's statements was also disappointing. Ms. Kleinberg is a sterling member (and employee) of a regional development group (Joint Venture Silicon Valley). Yet she "worries" that we don't have sufficient public transport to deal with housing growth, and conveniently moves away from commitments necessary to deal with growth *that will happen anyway!*. Council member Kleinberg should be talking to her peer, our Mayor (who sits on a public transportation board - the VTA) about LEADING a DETERMINED fight to get this region moving toward more and better public and mass transportation - that, instead of using "worries" as a safe haven for coping out on the housing issue. I'm disappointed.

Mayor Kishimoto, another intelligent and thoughtful person, regrettably continues to deploy her penchant for wringing every last concession from Stanford University, uses the ABAG conflict to reinforce her argument that Stanford (the engine that drives a lot of our region's economy) should underwrite housing costs for their medical expansion. And then we wonder why Stanford only looks at Palo Alto as "that neighbor down the road", instead of a true partner in co-development.

Among the firm dissenters (mentioned above), I heard not one iota of vision, or leadership on this issue.

Yes, Palo Allto should be concerned about housing growth - and yes, Palo Altans should rightfully be concerned about the quality of future life in our city.

That said, we also MUST come to realize that we are not going to stop growth in Silicon Valley. We MUST also realize that we cannot solve this housing problem all by ourselves.

So why aren't our policy makers going out AGGRESSIVELY after regional solutions that *compliment* the ABAG requirements. SOMEONE has to lead this effort. Why not Palo Alto?

This is a perfect opportunity for the policy makers in neighboring cities to be brought together to *publicly* wrestle with this issue. We have to frame the conversation about housing growth and mass transport as a *shared* responsibility (Palo Alto has been doing it's part, compared to some of its neighbors), and forcing that frame into the conversation.

We need LEADERSHIP and VISION to tackle this issue, not backpedaling.

Instead, what we are getting is short-term tactical preferences that pander to parochial interests, and that will do NOTHING to help lead this city, and our region, out of the housing, transportation, and associated growth challenges that we're facing.

As for the "family jewels". Please, spare us metaphors that make it seem as if we somehow aren't part of something larger than ourselves. Right now, we may be - relative to some of our neighbors - somewhat more gifted, and "jewel-like", but we sit in a tarnished setting.

The fact is that growth WILL continue to happen in Silicon Valley. It is a fact that growth will present enormous challenges. So, rather than backpedaling away from those challenges in fear, perhaps we should consider meeting fear head-on, and coming through that with a regional bond that makes us stronger, instead of trying to deny reality and closing ourselves off to a diminished future, where we have lost *regional hegemony*, because the parts of the Silicon valley whole couldn't find a way to make themselves bigger than they are.

It's our choice.


 Posted by Mike, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, 6 hours ago

-----End Palo Alto Online post ----- 

 

Nov 6, Irvin Dawid Letter to Editor, PA Daily News: http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2007-11-6-11-05-07-letters   2nd letter:

Subject: City housing allocation

Dear Editor: A letter Friday criticized the Sierra Club's support for the regional housing allocation assigned to Palo Alto.

As a leading environmental organization, the Sierra Club indeed supports these housing allocations - not only for Palo Alto, but all the 110 cities and counties in the nine-county Bay Area.

Palo Alto, with its high jobs-to-housing imbalance ratio, must rely disproportionately on other communities to provide homes for its work force. The 3,500-housing-unit allocation assigned to Palo Alto partly reflects that imbalance.

The Sierra Club letter to the council, found on the home page of our sustainable land use committee, lomaprieta. sierraclub.org/slu/, acknowledges that the region's housing allocations were based on a regional planning project conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments in 2002, known as the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint.

Consequently, the policy behind the housing allocations was to shift growth from the region's agricultural areas and undeveloped, open spaces to those areas where development has already taken place. This policy is generally known as "infill," as opposed to "green field" development. The goal is not only to preserve farmland and open space but also to reduce global warming emissions from the largest sector in the region, transportation, by lessening commute distances.

We urge all Palo Altans to understand not only the regional aspect of the housing allocations, but the global implications as well.

Irvin Dawid, Sierra Club-Loma Prieta chapter, Palo Alto
 

-----End Palo Alto Daily Letter to Editor -----