Even modest single family homes in Palo Alto are selling for a million dollars. Single family homes are 60% of Palo Alto's housing units.
| Housing Type | Number of Units in City(1) | Percent of Units | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single family homes
Condominiums Market Rental Apartments BMR Ownership Units BMR and Other Affordable Rental Housing Total Units, 2000 Census |
15,992 1,647 7,156 169 1,501 26,465 |
60% 6% 27% 1% 6% 100% |
||
It takes household income approaching $200,000 to buy a million dollar home. The Palo Alto median household income in 2000 was $90,377. It's not just teachers and firefighters who are priced out: recent searches show software engineers at a top listed salary of $119,000, and bio-medical scientists at a top listed salary of $127,000.
Rental apartments offer housing at less than half the cost of owning. However, to rent a two bedroom market rate apartment for $1500 monthly still takes a recommended income of $54,000 . Even a studio at $800 monthly takes a recommended income of about $25,000 or $12 per hour.
If Palo Alto wants to remain a place where the people who work here can afford to live, then affordable housing matters. Even if we can't solve this problem, we can make a difference.
Local government has primary control over housing policies. The policies we choose can create affordable housing, and can moderate the cost of market housing. Even though housing prices have soared, Palo Alto can continue to create opportunities to allow people of diverse income levels to be part of our community.
Council Candidates - we hope you will consider the policies described briefly below, and then let us know your thoughts by answering the questions at the end of this document, and returning them to us by email. We will let you know shortly the exact location where your responses will be posted on the web. We will publicize your responses to affordable housing supporters and to members of PIA churches in Palo Alto.
| Existing Policies to Continue | Do Not Support | Somewhat Support | Strongly Support |
| 1) Palo Alto's Below Market Rate Program. The BMR program, also called inclusionary zoning, requires a developer to set aside 15 - 20% of the housing units they build for below market rate units. From 1974 to 2005, Palo Alto's BMR program has created over 300 units of ownership and rental housing.
Palo Alto's BMR program is currently being reviewed by Palo Alto Planning staff and consultants. We look forward to their recommendations, expected later this year. |
X | ||
| >2) Impact Fees on Commercial Development. Palo Alto charges a fee of $15.70 per square foot of net new commercial development. From 1990 to 2000, over $4.6 million was collected and used to support development of affordable housing such as Alma Place or Oak Court. | X | ||
| 3) Continue to Allow Housing in All Zones. Palo Alto currently allows housing in all zoning categories, allowing housing in areas zoned for office or commercial as well as in areas zoned for housing. | X |
Response: 3) A comprehensive approach to planning and development requires the city to protect its retail sales tax base in order to provide services for residents. Palo Alto must have a balance of housing, commercial development, and public facilities to be the livable city that attracted us to it. Current zoning allows housing to replace even some of our largest sales tax generators.
| Policies to Encourage Creation of Lower Priced Market Housing (Attainable Housing) | Do Not Support | Somewhat Support | Strongly Support |
| 4) Create disincentives for luxury size condominiums. Luxury condominiums are large (over 2000 sq feet for a 2 bedroom) and can be as expensive as single family homes. More modest condominiums are smaller (around 1000 sq feet) and more modestly priced. | X | ||
| Possible disincentive: For condos which exceed maximum sizes, based on number of bedrooms, increase the BMR percentage by 15%. | X | ||
| Possible next step: A council colleagues memo to agendize this, so Council can discuss and ask staff to look further at limiting unit size. | X | ||
| 5) Encourage affordable transit oriented housing:
Possible incentive: Allow higher density and/or reduced parking space requirements for developments which are: 1) near transit, and 2) with moderate unit size 3) which provide transit passes to all residents. |
X | ||
| 6) Allow more "granny" units. This year, council voted 5 to 4 to reject staff's proposal to allow second units on lots which are 7,000 sq. feet or larger. (Current zoning only allows second units on lots 8,100 sq feet or higher.) | X |
Response: 6) See comments in response to essay question # 4 below.
| Policies To Provide Land For Affordable Housing: | Do Not Support | Somewhat Support | Strongly Support |
| 7) Direct staff to evaluate city owned property for possible affordable housing development | X | ||
| 8) Encourage Palo Alto and Stanford to move ahead with relocation of the Alma substation and with development of the proposed lower California Avenue affordable housing | X |
Response: 7) Most city-owned land I am aware of is vacant parcels. I believe the City should not sell open land unless it is to replace it with more open space. Provided funding exists, I do think the city should be proactive in pursuit of sites such as the Craig Hotel.
8) Regarding the Alma substation site, information earlier this year indicated developing it for affordable housing is an incredibly expensive proposition. While it would be good to both relocate the substation and to have the affordable housing, I am not currently convinced that to be a financially viable location.
| Policies To Increase City Funds For Affordable Housing: | Do Not Support | Somewhat Support | Strongly Support |
| 9) Increase Palo Alto's real estate transfer fee (now $3.30 per $1,000 of property value) and dedicate the additional funds to affordable housing development. This would require a vote of the people. | X | ||
| 10) When city revenues are above budget for a fiscal year, agendize possible dedication of some surplus revenue to affordable housing. | X | ||
| 11) City partnerships with non-profit developers to provide or help obtain loans for developments that are 100% affordable, or that have offer a high ratio (30% or above) of affordable vs. market rate units. | X | ||
| 12) Support further county wide fund raising for the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund. The Opportunity Center and Oak Court have both received funding from this source. | X |
Response: 9) and 11) I would need to know more about the possible unintended consequences as a result of these actions.
| Policies To Support Affordable Housing As A Priority: | Do Not Support | Somewhat Support | Strongly Support |
| 13) Keep affordable housing as a top five priority. | X | ||
| 14) Set goals for official affordable housing as a percent of total city housing units. Direct staff to report on progress towards these goals annually. | X |
1) Do you agree that Palo Alto should seek to create affordable housing to allow households with a range of income the opportunity to live in Palo Alto?
Response: Yes. A sustainable community must be diverse. Housing stock should reflect as closely as possible the diverse employment needs of a city in providing services, employees for business, and schoolteachers. Social diversity is also desirable.
2) What changes would you recommend to strengthen or weaken existing city affordable housing policies? What methods in addition to - or instead of - inclusionary zoning (when a developer must set aside 15 - 20% of the housing units they build for below market rate units) do you support in order to generate more affordable housing?
Response: The City seems to be doing better in requiring the construction of the required affordable housing units as part of development projects instead of allowing in-lieu payments. This is a step in the right direction toward integration of and timely creation of the units.
Affordable housing overlays offer an opportunity to identify locations for some more density near transit and business centers, while considering appropriate density and parking requirements in context of the location. Such overlays might include some market rate housing units as well as some small services.
I would look at conditions where owners of affordable units might be excluded from parcel taxes or bond measures.
It must be noted that affordable housing is not the only shortage of housing stock, but attainable housing is also a critical need. I have long advocated for retention of our smaller, more affordable stock such as cottage courts that are often replaced by large, far less affordable single family homes.
3) What is your response to residents who are concerned that new housing in Palo Alto will reduce their quality of life?
Response: As with anything, all things need to be considered in balance. It is true that housing has a cost to the city in providing essential services as well as community services such as parks and libraries. There are also impacts on schools and streets. In addition, most of the housing being created is market rate which does not address the real need: affordability.
4) Explain your vote, or indicate how you would have voted on the proposal to allow more granny units in Palo Alto.
Response: On the Planning & Transportation Commission, I supported the allowance of cottages on smaller lots but did not support all the recommendations that accompanied the recommendation. I did not support allowing required parking to be in the front setbacks nor did I support allowing smaller street-side setbacks. Neither of those allowances satisfies the policy of retaining neighborhood character that is referenced many time in our comprehensive plan.
I have always applied a "zone for what you want" policy at the Commission, and think it best policy. Having said that, development has not, nor do I think it will, create more cottages but rather we are losing cottages as homes are being rebuilt. I think the retention of existing cottages that are already integrated into the community would be more productive a pursuit, with far less community concern.
5) Should affordable housing continue to be a top five priority for Palo Alto?
Response: Yes, for reasons stated in response to question # 1.