posted by Art Liberman, BPA President
These are some of my thoughts following the Council’s action on the Maybell homes and Clemo affordable senior project. My views on that project, the process followed by the City Council in arriving at a decision and its consequences for the neighborhood and the City differ from those expressed by Lydia Kou in the Maybell/Clemo Rezoning article she recently posted on this topic.
BPA Board and Community Viewpoints
A wide range of opinions were expressed by community members during the weeks of heated debate leading up to the Council decision on this proposal. Many people were adamantly and absolutely opposed to any rezoning, but there were some who supported the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s (PAHC) proposal, and also those who thought the best option was one in which the senior housing building would be combined with fewer number of market rate single family houses. The debate was more focused on land use policy than about the inclusion of affordable housing in the proposal, though good arguments were presented for why this site was not suitable for affordable senior housing.
No one position captured the voice of the entire neighborhood – nor of the Barron Park Board, which was just one of the various community groups who met and debated the merits of the PAHC proposal. One group of Board members, those supporting the minority proposal that received 4 of the 10 votes at the Board meeting, coalesced around the view that the rezoning with a senior affordable housing project was acceptable provided there were many fewer market rate single family homes (a total of eight) than what PAHC had proposed (fifteen).
There is a tradeoff when comparing the PAHC project, or variants of it, with other possibilities for development of the Maybell Clemo site. If the property were developed following the existing zoning, most likely we would see a project with 35 or so multi-family units or apartments in the rear and about 8 single family or duplex homes along Maybell, with some adjustments in land lines, still with driveways for entrance and exit on Maybell and Clemo and possibly curb cuts for single family homes or duplex homes along Maybell. While there would be more people and more units and a taller building in the rear of the property, it turns out when looking at the numbers that the combination of many fewer single family homes and the senior affordable unit would likely be less disruptive in terms of traffic and would place fewer demands on schools and street parking than if the property were developed according to current zoning.
Council Action
The Council delayed its action while accepting the many hours of community input, but the debate among Council when it finally happened was shallow and disappointing. It is regrettable that the Council members backed away from asking PAHC some really hard questions about their proposal – for example requiring them to justify their claim for needing so many market rate homes on the site or by squeezing the PAHC developers and mandating many fewer than the twelve they approved. Granted, PAHC has provided affordable housing to a large number of people in Palo Alto, but there was no justification for the Council members to refuse to give this proposal the same scrutiny as one from a for-profit developer, especially given the fact that the Council had authorized a large loan of public funds (ones it obtains from developers in lieu of providing affordable housing in their projects – not tax dollars) to PAHC to purchase the land.
Traffic
Traffic was the source of much of the initial opposition to the project, and this point of view was passionately argued by many of the residents who live along the Maybell corridor. They know that the traffic has significantly increased along Maybell and on other neighborhood streets in the past few years. This was the fuel that had spread throughout the neighborhood – the Maybell-Clemo rezoning proposal was the match that set the neighborhood ablaze (figuratively speaking of course).
Resolving the traffic problems may not be easy. Councilman Klein recognized that the school district and City must work together on this, but it is clear it will only happen if there is strong and ongoing community involvement. Progress could be made if the capabilities of the energetic group of Greenacres and Barron Park residents who mobilized so effectively to challenge the PC rezoning could be harnessed to make sure City staff and School District staff examine all the aspects of this issue – and keep the pressure on them until they come up with some solutions and improvements that we in the neighborhood want to see happen.
Development Pressures
The creeping densification we see around us is the price we are paying for rapidly escalating land and housing prices combined with vigorous job growth. The City is besieged with proposals, including hotels and multi-family housing projects along El Camino from Page Mill to the Mountain View/Los Altos border. Some of these proposals are within the current zoning, which favors higher density along traffic corridors such as El Camino and around Caltrain stations, but others are requesting modifications and exceptions – as was requested by PAHC for their site for Maybell/Clemo site – through the PC (Planned Community) zoning. It is absolutely true that the PC zoning classification has been misused (a polite way of saying ‘abused’) for some time, and it is necessary for our policy makers to come to grips with this fact, and then come forward with a clearer, more specific and much tighter definition of the ‘community benefit’ or discard the PC zoning category completely. That’s another area where citizens should make policy makers focus their efforts.