PALO ALTO — As Santa Clara County struggles to meet state-mandated goals for housing construction, a Civil Grand Jury report released this week spotlights two next-door Peninsula cities — one for taking the right approach and the other for slacking.
In its report, “Affordable Housing: A Tale of Two Cities,” the grand jury praises Mountain View, saying the home of Google is on track to meet the housing targets through planning, political will and creative financing.
But Palo Alto, the home of Stanford, comes up well short, according to the grand jury. The city needs to step it up and produce more housing to meet the state’s goals and put an end to its “Palo Alto Process,” a planning approach notorious for putting building proposals on a time-consuming path of red tape.
In comparing Mountain View and Palo Alto, the 19-member grand jury gauged political and community support for affordable housing, proactive planning, effective reporting, supportive practices and affordable housing financing.
It found that over the years, Mountain View has “built up strong community support for affordable housing,” fostering and maintaining the “political will over several years to advance on its goals and meet its mandates.”
Palo Alto, on the other hand, “lacks a cohesive and effective way to communicate with its citizens and, as a result, has continually struggled to garner community support for the value of and need for affordable housing.”
While Palo Alto City Council members continue to say they support affordable housing, the city’s actions “have not matched policies,” the grand jury said.
“Rather than relying on staff to educate Palo Alto residents about the complexities involved in building affordable housing and hear resident concerns, Palo Alto councilmembers should be the point-persons in working with and listening to residents,” the report adds.
Strong planning also made Mountain View a model city for housing construction, the report says.
The city currently has 25 precise plans for development in 24 of its neighborhoods, and the report notes city leaders have taken a “proactive role” in creating those plans over the years. Mountain View also has actively stepped in to help when property owners struggle to resolve development conflicts.
In making a deal with Google to build a massive urban village project in the North Bayshore, for example, Mountain View drew up precise plans years in advance, defining all the land uses, building heights, parking requirements and other details that guide development. It also helped resolve a conflict between Google and SyWest, owners of land adjacent to the development site.
“Mountain View has systematically planned to achieve AH (affordable housing) targets through well-coordinated regional housing plans and straightforward near-term planning,” the report says. “Once the plans were in place, they were continually monitored and effectively communicated to the citizens.”
Because Palo Alto has long been resistant in accepting the state’s affordable housing goals and building the kind of developments seen in Mountain View, it has “separate plans and policies but few outcomes,” the report says.
Mountain View’s coordinated plans lead to much shorter approval timeframes than does the “Palo Alto Process,” according to the report.
The controversial North Ventura Coordinated Area near the former Fry’s site was cited as one example of city officials’ lack of a clear vision. Affordable housing advocates see the area as an opportunity to build needed homes, but other residents don’t want to see their neighborhood change.
As a result of the political division, in four years the 14-person panel tasked with creating alternative plans for the area has “not reached a consensus on goals, let alone ways to reach those goals.”
According to the report, few people were satisfied by the three alternatives presented to the Palo Alto City Council. The alternatives were “deemed unfeasible by the city’s consultants and unappealing by the property owners and residents.”
“North Ventura residents felt that the City’s staff and consultants controlled the process and did not listen to community concerns,” the report says. “The outcome of this four-year planning process has been characterized as ‘a terrible, disappointing and unfortunate failure.’ ”
In response to the report’s finding, Palo Alto Mayor Tom DuBois said Friday that the report “appears designed to criticize Palo Alto while ignoring basic facts.”
He said Palo Alto actually has one of the highest affordable housing rates in the county, with over 1,000 more below-market-rate units than Mountain View even though it is a smaller city. He also notes that 9% of the city’s housing stock is affordable compared to Mountain View’s 3.9%.
“Many cities are sticking to old tactics of approving both commercial development and housing,” he added. “Palo Alto thinks that makes the problem worse, not better, because more housing demand is generated by the commercial development than the new housing provides. Palo Alto is trying a new tactic of constraining commercial growth while continuing to focus efforts on housing. We think we see it starting to pay off.”
Still, DuBois acknowledged the report did get some things right.
“We need to tackle the ‘Palo Alto Process,’ the length of time it takes is something we should look at,” DuBois said.
Mountain View Mayor Ellen Kamei welcomed the report’s positive assessment of her city’s approach. “Personally, I appreciate the Grand Jury recognizing all our City efforts and leadership on this important issue in our region and County’s.”
She said Mountain View currently has 1,500 affordable housing units and approximately 1,000 more in the pipeline, and there are plans to build affordable housing on a former VTA park-and-ride lot near the Mountain View Transit Center.
Source: www.mercurynews.com