The City of Mountain View City Council just voted to remove parking minimums in ~all of the densest parts of the city. This was a Housing Element program that got added to the Housing Element specifically due to advocacy from Mountain View YIMBY

​

The City of Milpitas adopted its Housing Element Update on January 24, 2023, and HCD found the adopted Housing Element Update in substantial compliance on May 17, 2023. Therefore, the City of Milpitas has 3 years from the adoption date, January 24, 2026, to complete its rezoning.

The City plans to implement this rezoning through two projects:

1. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update: We’ve completed Phase 1 of the project, which focused on bringing the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the General Plan and rezoning sites identified in the recent Housing Element Update.
2. Housing Opportunity Districts: While Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update has already implemented most of the required rezonings, there are few sites in the City’s proposed Housing Opportunity Districts (HODs), which have yet to be rezoned. The HODs proposes to rezone and upzone the City’s aging shopping centers to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment, which is a key policy outlined in the City’s General Plan. This project is still in progress and we anticipate adoption by early 2025. However, we have run into significant community opposition along the way despite the City’s attempts to educate the public on the importance and necessity of completing this project. The community is generally concerned with the potential impacts of high-density multifamily development on their single-family residential neighborhoods nearby (privacy, property value, etc.) and the City’s services overall (traffic, utilities, etc.). Please feel free to review the change.org petition for more information on their concerns. I’ve also attached the City’s response to the petition.

We welcome YIMBY’s support for the HODs, which is critical to the City completing the required rezoning for Housing Element compliance. A community workshop is scheduled for 12/9 at the Milpitas Senior Center (40 N Milpitas Blvd, Milpitas, CA 95035). You’re welcome to attend this workshop, although the discussion will be focused on the specifics of the zoning strategy rather than the project as a whole this time around. You may also draft a letter to the City, which we can share with decision makers, or participate in any adoption hearings early next year.

​

​

There are no housing related items in the agenda

Didn't happen because wrong Zoom link was provided on agenda

Discussed a proposal by some Architectural Review Board members on building housing on parking lots. Though council members want to also look at Caltrain's parking lots.

​

Working Group should be finalizing site selections in December and start policy discussions in January

​

Concurs looking at the existing northeast light-industrial sections of the city for more housing, since they're close to 101 and therefore all the new office developments in MV (North Bayshore) / SV (Moffett Park). (As well as being the furthest away from the R-1s and their amenities)

- HE Working Group provided five separate public comments -- all emphasizing the need for the WG to emphasize denser, taller housing near transit to achieve affordability. 

- Topic #1 - GM and ROLM Zones

    - Arthur and Keith have proposed adding ~150 sites near the big box stores on the 101. These are currently zoned as GM (General Manufacturing) and ROLM (Research, Office, and General Manufacturing). 

    - WG was largely supportive of this proposal, and a number of members argued that building heights should be quite high here (at least RM-50). 

    - Some skepticism due to lack of neighborhood amenities and potential noise / health issues. WG agreed that it would have to be a “real neighborhood,” not just scattered housing.

- Topic #2 - Pasteur Drive and 1100 Welch (Stanford University sites)

    - Stanford has proposed developing a site near the hospital. Would request quite a high height, as well as some reduced parking minimums. See memo for more details.

    - Basically everyone is supportive, except Kathy (who wants to hold them to the parking code) and Jessenia. Everyone wants the two sites to be developed together to achieve scale.

- Topic #3 - Transit Center

    - Stanford proposes redeveloping the transit center next to the CalTrain as housing, which would include a much better and higher-capacity transit center. Proposed three potential heights: 137’ (same as Alma tower), 105’ (same as Hoover Pavilion), and 75-85’. 

    - Shockingly, Sheryl, Aishetu, Rahsan, Jessenia, and Jennifer all support going up to the max height of 137’ - same as 101 Alma. Ed is the only one who wants 105’. Anupa, Keith, Hamilton, and Arthur say 75’ max. Kathy says they should stick to the Palo Alto code - 50 foot max. 

- Topic #4 - 3128 El Camino (McDonald’s)

    - Proposed with 75’’ heights, potentially developed with the adjacent site (Fish Market)

    - Surprisingly, Ed, Sheryl, Keith, Aishetu, Rahsan, Jennifer, Jessenia all support a 75' height. Hamilton, Kathy, Arthur, Randolph, and Anupa vote no. But most people seem to agree that it should be developed jointly with the Fish Market. 

- Running list of potential HCD objections:

    - They are still counting 400+ pipeline sites, many of which are being double-counted across the RHNA cycles. 

    - The process remains minimally diverse and inclusive of renters and low-income people. 

This was the 5th meeting of the Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group. 

​

- It would be helpful for HCD to issue guidance about SB9 and the Housing Element

    - Tim said they will know more in October; some WG members suggested that SB9 alone will provide most of the necessary sites for Palo Alto’s RHNA

- WG is conceptually interested in leasing Palo Alto’s downtown parking lots, but developments must be 100% affordable and have abundant parking

    - Sheryl and local architects reviewed a high-level concept of building affordable housing on parking lots

    - Lots of feedback that the developers are “underparked,” but a majority votes to continue considering development of housing on city parking lots

- The group exercise of reviewing proposed inventory sites was a general mess. Most of the WG members failed to vet the sites with any degree of rigor.

    - For example, Hamilton noted that he was the only member of his team to make any notes on the spreadsheet. Some sites (e.g., those with brand new commercial buildings) were not flagged as infeasible by most WG members.

- Consultant presented ~7 strategies for meeting the RHNA obligations, based on the WG’s stated preferences for higher density near arterials and transit. Most of these proposals were subject to serious criticism by the WG. 

    - Proposal #1 - Increase densities from 20 du/ac to 30 du/ac (estimated 326 units realized), and from 30 du/ac to 40 du/ac (estimated 886 units realized). Could all be put towards lower income RHNA allocation. 

        - Most WG members criticized this proposal for a lack of height / density transitions near “sensitive” R1 neighborhoods.

    - Proposal #2 - Provide 10-30 du/ac within ½ mile of Caltrain and VTA light rail stations. No estimates for # of units realized.

        - Jean / Sheryl point out that this density is too low, given proximity to transit. 

        - WG members criticized potential impact on R1 homes near Cal Ave train station. Jonathan Lait clarified that this proposal would not affect R1 sites, which massively reduces the effectiveness of this policy. 

        - Aishetu indicated serious concerns about overconcentration of lower-income housing in clusters; essentially raised concerns about city meeting its AFFH obligations

    - Proposal #3 - Locate additional residential development on high-capacity streets. Provide for residential development at densities of 20-40 du/ac along expressways and arterials, and 10-20 du/ac along residential arterials. 

        - Lots of pushback. WG made clear they do not want apartment buildings next to R1 neighborhoods. Advocated for more apartments by the big box stores near the 101. 

    - Proposal #4 - Locate additional residential development along other transit corridors. Increase residential densities within ⅓ mile along corridors with high frequency and frequent bus route service to 10-40 du/ac.

        - Some support for increasing density near the 522, and maybe the 22. But general feedback was the headways are too long and the VTA underserves Palo Alto. 

    - Proposal #5 - Locate residential development in employment centers. Allow residential as a permitted use within Business Employment Districts. 

        - Interestingly, the consultant said that this policy alone may not result in units to count against the RHNA, but would be a good step that would demonstrate Palo Alto’s commitment to enabling housing. 

        - Some WG concerns about building near flood-prone zones in Bayshore.

    - Proposal #6 - Locate additional residential development in retail, commercial, or manufacturing areas. Allow residential development as a permitted use within all retail, commercial, and manufacturing zones.

        - Some WG feedback that retail should be preserved as a ground-floor use; not allowing buildings to be all housing. Also would like to limit this to some commercial areas and not others.

    - Proposal #7 - Increase heights and other standards to allow taller buildings. Increase building height limits in mixed-use zones. 

        - Some WG concerns about sensitive R1 neighborhoods, but the group was kind of losing steam at this point.

- WG voted to have a second meeting in October. January would likely be cancelled or rescheduled to later in the month. 

    - Aisha (the only market-rate renter in group) cannot make it. 

    - Tim says they’ll soldier on w/ whatever quorum they get.

Main Discussion: 84 participants (Milpitas, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara)

-Led by Paul Peninger, Baird & Driskell

-Basic overview of Housing Element process, timeline, goals, etc.

​

Mountain View Breakout Room:

-21 participants

-Led by Ellen Yau, Senior Planner & Brandi Campbell Wood (Baird & Driskell)

​

MV 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals:

-Accommodate MV’s RHNA of ~11,000 units

-Development capacity from recent Precise Plans, ongoing R3 zoning update

-Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)

-Provide access to opportunity

-Address fair housing issues and constraints

-Coordinate with other key City housing initiatives

-Displacement strategy, R3 zoning update, federal assessment of fair housing

-Address local goals and needs

-Use data on local conditions

-Requires input from the public

​

Discussion Questions:

*What’s working in our city/town?

     -new row houses and mixed use developments       

     -Mountain View is very supportive of affordable housing 

     -The city has been getting better about funding and approving non-profit affordable housing

*What are some of our key housing needs or challenges?

     -All the recent developments have been too short and had too much parking. 

     -Restrictive Zoning and community opposition to increased density

*What ideas, policies, programs, suggestions do you have to meet our housing needs?

     -1) Follow the Los Angeles model and have data driven calculations for the likelihood of development on inventory sites. 2) Upzone Old MV to AFFH

​

Timeline:

March 2021 – March 2022: Community Outreach

March-Spring 2022: Work on Studies and Draft update

Spring 2022: Draft for Review

Fall 2022: Public Hearings with EPC and City Council

January 2023: Housing Element Adoption

​

NIMBY comments:

“Neighborhoods are being forced to accept developments on the basis of .5 mile distance to transit. But transit is really barely existent or effective. Is the East Whisman precise plan no longer in effect?”

“We are running out of open space in Mtn. View. Seeing more and more exceptions were super high condos are in planning stage. These high rise condos are invading our modest neighborhood. I'm afraid with open spaces being developed, does the city looking at using eminent domain to buy up needed land to development?”

“The city has already taken away the Hetch Hetchy trail for development. I do not see how you can create 8209 new housing units unless you build higher. Mtn View has always been a modest town. Business giants like Google have destroyed our modest town. Google transport their own employees with private buses. Our public transportation is expensive and ineffective. Addtionally, people whom live outside the area are "penalized" havinf to drive into the valley with more and more toll roads. The government tricked the voters into thinking the increased tax for infrastructure was to build and fix roads. Instead, they built more toll roads!”`

This is the "Let's Talk Housing" series that the county is doing. Including staff from Campbell, Los Gatos, and Los Altos Hills, there were 46 participants before the three breakout rooms opened. I noticed that Mike Krey from the Campbell Planning Commission and the Mayor of Campbell, Liz Gibbons, were both there. In the Q&A, someone asked a question about "Critical Race Theory", and the hosts thankfully dodged it.

​

When asked what happens if a city doesn't have enough zoned capacity, the hosts said some very handwavey things about repurposing commercial space, and danced around the idea that a city would have to make more capacity. Disappointing. It's like they don't believe that HCD will actually bring the hammer down.

​

We're also told that the county has built enough market-rate housing, but the lack of affordable housing has driven up rents. (This is not how housing works, aargh.) There is no mention of why market-rate housing isn't affordable to most people. Jobs don't pay enough to "let them compete in the housing market".

​

When asked for one word to describe our vision of the future of our city, most people wrote "affordable", "inclusive", or "diverse", but two people wrote "non-dense" and "ban on parcel splitting", and Liz Gibbons wrote "non-political", which is a pleasant aspiration. We then went into our breakout rooms, by city. (I'm in the Campbell room.)

​

The Campbell room had 11 people, of whom two were city staff (Rob Eastwood and Stephen Rose), three were city officials (myself, Mike Krey, and Liz Gibbons), and one a facilitator (Joshua Abrams), leaving five regular civilians. The City touted its updated ADU standards, the (incomplete) objective standards work, a program to educate homebuyers and getting REAP/LEAP grants. Not impressive. They point out that we should be at 75% of our RHNA 5 numbers, but we're at 4%/3%/11% for VLI/LI/MI. But 391 market-rate units is 118% of our allocation!

​

Staff points out that our allocation is larger, will require larger densities, and will make site reuse harder. Showed us some visualizations of densities from 3.5 du/ac up to 28+, which is currently illegal in Campbell. By the time they finished presenting, it was 7.

​

Things that people appreciate about housing the way it is: walkable, "family-friendly"/"safe", walkable, diverse. Gibbons: "a collection of diverse neighborhoods" with diverse housing types. Things that people don't like: expensive, hard to develop--long, arduous process to work with the city (Scott Cooley), not enough affordable housing, difficulty selling SFH homeowners on affordable housing. I actually heard someone saying that self-driving cars need less parking, so we should plan for less parking.

​

I focused on removing discretionary rules which people have to beg around, like parking. The rules that make missing middle housing illegal. When someone complained about parking shortages, I suggested residential parking permits, since we already have those in at least one neighborhood, and they're popular. People are concerned about parking, and I don't know if they think that can be solved without keeping density low.

Led by: Jason Montague, Rincon Consultants

32 participants

Kelsey Banes raised a very important point, that a key part of compliance is outreach to different communities; Asked what they are doing to connect with renters, veterans, etc. who are harder to reach; Per Tim Wong (City staffer), they are relying mostly on social media, but are open to suggestions

NIMBY comments from Judith Schwartz about lack of water, sewage resources; Wanted to know if ABAG takes this into account

Scott O’Neil raised an important point that Palo Alto reusing sites from 5th cycle into 6th cycle looks like double-counting

Kelsey Banes raised 2 important points: 1) When will the City look at sites to determine if they are viable? E.g., some are a Starbucks/Whole Foods location; 2) Only 20% of sites from last cycle were developed

Based on analysis, need to identify sites for additional 2844 units

General Meeting led by: Paul Peninger, Consultant of Baird & Driskell; 81 participants; Staff from Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Altos;

Los Altos Breakout Room led by: David Driskell, Baird & Driskell; 13 participants;

Guido Persicone (Planning Manager, Los Altos)

This was the August meeting of the Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group.

​

- Site inventory work is accelerating

    - Staff has done an initial analysis of the “low hanging” fruit. Specifically, they have identified 232 sites that were not in the 5th cycle but that may be good 6th cycle candidates under existing zoning. 

    - Criteria for these sites included: low improvement-to-land-value ratios, old structures, and discrepancies between existing and zoned use.

    - Three groups of HE Working Group members will now “sense check” these sites by going and physically visiting them. 

- Possible issues to flag around double-counting pipeline projects

    - Staff presented a list of pipeline projects. HE Working Group voted to include these pipeline projects in the 6th Cycle. (see Table 2, link) But a number of these sites appear to have been submitted to HCD earlier this year to count towards the 5th cycle. (see exhibits, link)

    - These sites include: 788 San Antonio, 635 Webster, 486 Hamilton, 3585 El Camino, 4221 Wilkie, 3225 El Camino, 3265 El Camino, 2755 El Camino, 3001 El Camino, 4115 El Camino, 190 Channing, 3705 El Camino, 565 Hamilton, and 464 Colorado

    - We need to ensure that City is not double-counting pipeline projects

- Staff and HE Working Group are arguing for higher ADU production

    - Voted to support counting 560 ADUs or 70 per year (more than HCD safe harbor which is to average the last 3 years of ADU production). ADUs are popular with the HE Working Group, which believes them to be more affordable. 

    - Staff support this 560 figure by pointing to (1) state ADU liberalization, (2) the fact that the pandemic suppressed ADU construction in 2020, and (3) the current trendline in 2021, which suggests that we may permit 70 ADUs this year.

    - We need to see if we can point to HCD documentation that requires Palo Alto to provide more rigorous support for these aggressive ADU assumptions.

- Stanford land will be difficult to use for the upcoming cycle

    - Jean Snider presented an overview of Stanford’s land in Palo Alto.

    - 93% of Stanford land in Palo Alto is ground leased. Average remaining ground lease term is 31 years; very few are expiring during the planning period

    - Jean discussed the 2005 Mayfield Development as a potential model going forward. That agreement created 250 housing units in the research park, in exchange for Stanford moving commercial capacity elsewhere

    - HE Working Group members pressed Stanford to stop renewing leases so that land can be used for housing. Jean Snider pointed out that one of their ground lessees recently proposed housing and it was denied by Palo Alto.

- Some skepticism of transit and VTA

    - City and VTA did an excellent presentation about the relationship between housing and S/CAP. Discussed how housing can reduce vehicle miles traveled and reduce congestion. 

    - Some skeptical / hostile comments (e.g., “cars are not going away,” "bike lanes should never be on Alma or El Camino")

Identified issues in this housing element: no consideration of the likelihood of development (despite mostly non-vacant sites and <20% of 5th cycle sites developed), counting 6th cycle pipeline sites that have already been reported to HCD as 5th cycle sites, overestimating ADU production (3-year average of 47 per year, but counting 70 per year), and insufficiently accounting for a no-net-loss buffer (10% instead of 15-30%).

​

In this meeting, Stanford presented on the land they own in Palo Alto. The major takeaway is that land they own will be difficult to redevelop because there are so many long-term ground leases (average remaining lease is 31 years) and Stanford will demand to retain commercial FAR (which could be shifted to another location).

This was the third official meeting of the Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group. It occurred on July 1st, 2021. 

​

- Discussion about special needs groups (e.g., police officers, elderly folks)

- Key discussion around whether to carry over sites from previous HE cycle

    - Staff explained that recycled sites will become by-right at 20% affordability

    - Staff explained need for documentation, especially when recycling small / large sites

    - While the WG is clearly uncomfortable with by-right zoning, they overwhelmingly vote to carry over the sites.

    - Only 1-2 members vote against carrying over sites from previous HE cycle

- Key discussion around site selection strategies

    - WG is open to increasing heights, FAR, density, etc. near rail and high-capacity streets.

    - WG is almost unanimously opposed to allowing greater density in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. Also opposes allowing housing in open space or on public land (e.g., parking lots, parks). 

- Various discussions around HE strategies

    - Consultant mentioned a few ways to "inflate" ADU counts -- by creating new incentives, trying to increase this year's production

    - Consultant advised a "conservative" approach to assessing feasibility, suggested speaking with developers / property owners

- This was the 2nd meeting of the Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group

- This was generally a sleepy meeting that focused on educating HEWG members on basics of zoning and permitting in Palo Alto

- Good discussion between Aishetu Dozie and staff about a “pro forma stress test” to validate feasibility of development

- Potential support from Hamilton Hitchings for raising height limit from 50’ to 55’, thereby allowing 1 flr retail + 4 flr residential in one building

- Potential support for some commercial-to-residential rezoning, but Kathy Jordan raises the potential issue of compensating landowners for the resulting depreciated land value

- Alma/Caltrain-corridor multi-floor residential got some favorable response, especially because it can act as a sound barrier (though others see it a placing a “50-story building next to a single-family home.”)

- As a matter of process, the HEWG will have 6 meetings devoted to site selection, and they may do a presentation on what worked well in the last HE cycle

- Keep an eye on the way the city council members are assuming (1) a successful appeal of the RHNA numbers, (2) the ability to trade RHNA numbers w/ other cities, and/or (3) the improper use of an HCD grace period.

- DuBois would rather develop open space than upzone “the neighborhoods.” 

- Lots of focus on the Stanford research park, which DuBois suggests developing into an entirely new neighborhood.

- Pat Burt wants to inflate the ADU numbers to reflect future increased growth. 

- Kou apparently wants to use environmentally contaminated sites for RHNA.

After 10:30pm, city council was tasked to choose 15 members and 2 alternates to staff its Housing Element Advisory Working Group, out of a pool of 80 applicants. The NIMBYest side of council started out with their proposal, which is made up 3 renters (despite them making 40% of the city and 52% of the applicants), 6 neighborhood reps (despite only making 26% of the applicants), and one unhoused as an alternate. There's no market-rate multi-family developer as "we deal with them anyway;" nor any school district reps as council didn't want to wait on them for a delegate (so the district instead would have to send a staffer into the audience).

​

The situation was perceived as unfair when the one side started the motion with their entire slate, to the point the 3 in the minority kept trying to get ways to reconsider (send individual preferences to clerk, break into separate motions, swap individuals, whittle from the 80 to something we can meaningful debate over). Unfortunately, 4 is a majority, so we got what was originally presented.

​

This new NIMBY WG will start it's work in 5/10