More Sites for Housing
**This is the second of 4 blogs in this series related to ways we can strengthen Palo Alto’s draft Housing Element.**
California law requires all cities to make realistic plans for new housing at all income levels. This includes a duty to identify specific parcels of land where new homes can be built. Unfortunately, Palo Alto’s plan fails to do so, as Palo Alto Forward recently explained in a letter to city and state officials.
Why does Palo Alto have to identify sites for new housing?
California law requires each city to update their Housing Element every 8 years, as part of its comprehensive plan. It must include a Site Inventory, which identifies parcels of land suitable for new housing. The number of units to be built, both overall and at different income levels, is assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Palo Alto’s RHNA is 6,086 new housing units, including 1,556 for very low-income people, 896 for low-income people, and 1,103 for moderate-income people. In December 2022, Palo Alto submitted its draft Housing Element, including the Site Inventory.
Palo Alto assigned most of its required lower-income housing to sites already occupied by existing businesses and structures. Thus, under state law, the “existing use” of these sites “shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.” The state agency that oversees this process, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), provides guidance on what kinds of site-specific “substantial evidence” can overcome this presumption against the viability of non-vacant sites. For example, a city might show that “the lease for the existing use expires early within the planning period,” or that “a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses.”
What’s wrong with Palo Alto’s Site Inventory?
On its face, Palo Alto’s draft Site Inventory fails to present the requisite “substantial evidence” that, on the designated non-vacant sites, existing uses are likely to be discontinued. Thus, under state law, existing uses will presumptively impede construction of new housing. Unlike the examples of substantial evidence in the HCD guidance, Palo Alto provides no site-specific information, but only general factors like the strength of the overall real estate market. Further, the city concedes that its entire outreach to current owners consisted of a form letter, giving owners an opportunity to opt-out. Obviously, an owner’s silence cannot be taken as “substantial evidence” of a plan to discontinue a parcel’s current use.
Palo Alto Forward has presented substantial evidence that current uses of the designated parcels will not be discontinued. One of our volunteers reached out to a sample of site owners, and was able to communicate with six. Two did not remember receiving the city’s letter. All six thought their site was unlikely to redevelop as housing due to long-term leases, specialized installations, or continuing use by their own business. If the city had adequately consulted these six owners, then the city could not have designated these sites for new housing.
Palo Alto Forward’s volunteers also served as “groundtruthers,” meaning we examined parcels on the city’s Site Inventory to assess whether it is actually feasible to build housing there. We issued 15 reports in 2022 concentrating on sites designated for lower-income units. Our most recent letter shows that new housing is not feasible on scores of these parcels. For example, Google owns four sites in the southern part of the city and adjacent sites are almost certain to develop into new Google offices, rather than new housing. Likewise, ten parcels identified at multi-parcel sites would be difficult to develop as housing, for example and existing parking lot owned by the adjacent auto dealership and used to store its cars.
Why does this matter?
An adequate site inventory is the foundation of a Housing Element that can meet Palo Alto’s housing goals. Sites must be available and feasible to attract housing proposals to meet our RHNA allocation. But Palo Alto’s draft Site Inventory simply does not have enough feasible sites. To have a realistic chance of meeting our housing goals, Palo Alto must identify more housing sites.
The city must also remove unreasonable limits on new construction, and affirmatively further fair housing, as we’ll explain in two upcoming blog posts!