How to Foster Fair Housing
California law requires all cities to make realistic plans for new housing at all income levels. This includes a duty to “affirmatively further fair housing,” by overcoming old patterns of residential segregation and encouraging new affordable housing in high-resource areas.
Palo Alto’s plan, the (draft) Housing Element, proposes half of the City’s low-income units in the city’s southeastern corner where there are few residential amenities (the area is currently zoned for research, office, and manufacturing). New residents would be isolated from the things that make Palo Alto special, including its schools, parks, jobs, and transit. If we are serious about ending patterns of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, we need to make meaningful changes to the Housing Element
Why must Palo Alto affirmatively further fair housing?
California law requires each city, every eight years, to update the Housing Element in its comprehensive plan. It must plan for an amount of new housing, both overall and at different income levels, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which is set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews each city’s Housing Element.
State law requires Housing Elements to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH), defined as “meaningful actions … that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” AFFH originates in the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, and California’s AFFH laws incorporate a robust Obama-era federal rule on AFFH.
According to HCD, a Housing Element must affirmatively further fair housing by “replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” It must also “encourage[e] development of new affordable housing in high resource areas.”
How much low-income housing must Palo Alto plan for?
ABAG set Palo Alto’s RHNA at 6,086 new homes. This includes 1,556 for very low-income people, 896 for low-income people, and 1,103 for moderate-income people.
Palo Alto received an above-average allocation of low-and-moderate income residents, because it is both a “high opportunity area” and a “high job proximity area.” A high opportunity area, according to ABAG, has characteristics that “support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families and their children.” A high job proximity area is measured by a 30-minute auto commute or a 45-minute transit commute.
In other words, Palo Alto’s RHNA has important equity benefits. Our city has outstanding schools, parks, transit, jobs, and other resources. Low-and-moderate income people should be able to enjoy them, too. Our RHNA is also great news for the 44% of Palo Alto’s current residents who rent; our city’s housing shortage drives up rents and new housing will help stabilize rents. Indeed, a 2018 law (S.B. 828) revised the RHNA process to factor in low rental vacancy rates. Finally, there are environmental benefits to our RHNA: more housing in Palo Alto will help address our severe jobs-homes imbalance, and allow more people who work here to live here, instead of driving long distances to work with all the associated traffic, noise, and carbon emissions.
What is Palo Alto’s plan for low-incoming housing?
Palo Alto’s Housing Element proposes the most new housing in one small area of the city: the southeastern corner, near the intersection of the Bayshore Freeway and San Antonio Road. This is the only area (other than a few Stanford sites) where the city’s plan would allow significant density: 90 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The remainder of the city is capped far lower, at 30 to 50 du/ac.
The city plans to send to this corner about half of our RHNA for lower-income housing (1,213 of 2,452 units).
How can we improve plans for low-income housing?
We need to address our city’s existing patterns of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation. To whatever degree this strategy might change the city’s aggregate demographics, it would do so by creating a new segregated pocket that is isolated because it is encircled by Fabian, Charleston, and San Antonio Roads – all four-lane surface corridors – and the Bayshore Expressway. It has very few amenities; thus, residents would be partitioned from the city’s schools, libraries, and parks.
Some housing could absolutely be appropriate in this corner, subject to three conditions. First, not more than one-fourth of the unit allocation should be placed in this area. Second, the city should upzone all inventory sites, and not just this corner. Third, the city must commit to transit and other improvements in this area, including rezoning for residential amenities like retail and services.
In order to meet our duty to affirmatively further fair housing, and dismantle old patterns of segregation while fostering opportunity for all, the Housing Element should be amended to increase residential densities, allowed floor area ratios, and heights in other parts of the city that are closer to needed amenities and existing transit (think along El Camino and near Stanford University and Stanford Research Park). We described these zoning changes on our last blog on the subject. This would also help meet our environmental and carbon-reduction goals, an all-around win for the community.
Moving FORWARD
We hope you’ve enjoyed this four-part blog series. We will continue to meet city and state officials, and seek a Housing Element that plans a Palo Alto where everyone is welcome.
We hope you’ll join us in fulfilling our mission to innovate and expand housing and transportation choices for a more inclusive, affordable, and environmentally sustainable Palo Alto!