News

Grand jury calls for denser housing

Santa Clara County cities challenged to form 'sub-regions' to solve housing crisis

Despite a recent push to build more housing, Palo Alto and other Santa Clara County cities will have to answer to the civil grand jury in September for their collective failure to address the regional housing crisis.

The June 21 report from the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury highlights the efforts — or lack thereof — made by 15 county cities to address the shortage of affordable housing. The 45-page report also offers 39 findings and recommendations for cities to close the housing gap, including new fees on employers to pay for affordable housing; development "bonuses" allowing greater density for below-market-rate (BMR) housing near transit hubs; and the creation of "sub-regions," in which cities with high real-estate costs would subsidize housing built in adjacent cities that have lower real-estate costs.

Above all, the report is a clarion call for denser housing. Titled "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny," it makes a case for stronger state laws that will prod "flailing cities" to build more densely, particularly below-market-rate housing.

"Higher densities are a necessary solution, but cities are not fully embracing this solution in the face of resident resistance, and a lack of funding, land and urgency," the report's summary states.

The report suggests that Palo Alto is in many ways in the eye of the housing storm. Palo Alto has by far the county's highest ratio of jobs per employed residents, estimated at 3.02 (the next closest city is Santa Clara, which has a ratio of 2.08), a discrepancy that fuels the city's traffic and parking problems.

To narrow the gap, the City Council has pursued two broad strategies: hit the brakes on office developments and rev up housing construction. While the former strategy appears to have succeeded (new office developments in downtown, around California Avenue and along El Camino Real have failed to reach the city's 50,000-square-foot threshold in each of the past three years), the latter remains a struggle. The council is well short of its goal of producing 300 housing units this year; the only project to win approval so far is a 57-apartment complex at 2755 El Camino Real.

The report from the civil grand jury — a group of citizens appointed for a one-year term that launches investigations based on citizen complaints and (as in this case) of its own initiative — makes clear that the county's gaping housing shortage has been many years in the making. Palo Alto ranks close to the bottom countywide in numerous categories relating to housing production, both recent and historic.

According to the report, Palo Alto was 14th out of 15 cities when it comes to meeting its state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in the 2007-2014 cycle (the allocation process requires cities to plan for — though not actually build — housing units, a fact that the report suggested changing).

The city issued permits for 1,080 housing units during this period, which comprised 38 percent of its allocation of 2,860. Only Saratoga, which had a RHNA allocation of 292 units and issued permits for only 38, held a smaller percentage (13 percent).

Palo Alto's production of below-market-rate housing is even worse. Palo Alto issued only 293 permits for below-market-rate housing in the 2007-2014 cycle, just 16 percent of its RHNA allocation of 1,874 (it ranked 12th in this category). The city did somewhat better on "above moderate" housing, which targets those who make more than 120 percent of area median income, which in Santa Clara County amounts to about $99,225 for a one-person household. The city permitted 787 housing units in the "above moderate" price range, fulfilling 80 percent of its allocation of 986 units. Even so, it ranked 13th in this category, with only Saratoga and Campbell claiming a small percentage.

Despite a recent focus on housing, Palo Alto hasn't fared much better in the current RHNA cycle, which stretches from 2015 to 2023. In the first three years of the cycle, the city met only 15 percent of its total RHNA allocation (ranking 13th). And on below-market-rate housing, it issued 115 permits of the 1,401 units in its allocation, or 8 percent (ranking it 7th).-

Recommended: Cities should work together

To make it easier for cities to produce housing, the grand jury recommends that they form RHNA subregions — a structure already in use in San Mateo, Napa and Solano counties. Under the system, cities within a subregion collectively share the burden of building housing.

The Cities Association of Santa Clara County is considering the possibilities of this model, according to the report. Rather than following prescribed rules, cities in a subregion would "strike their own alliances depending on mutual needs." Those that build extra below-market-rate housing to compensate for their neighboring cities would get compensation from those partners, such as funding for transportation infrastructure, parks, schools, safety and social services, the report states.

The grand jury report also highlights several existing policies that it argues discourage housing production. Palo Alto is one of seven county cities, for example, that allows developers to pay "in-lieu fees" instead of actually building below-market-rate units in their residential projects. This, the report says, weakens the city's so-called "inclusionary" law because developers tend to see these fees as a bargain. And while the money is allocated for housing, the report notes that "it can be many years before the fees translate into BMR units."

"The Grand Jury believes that in-lieu fees should be avoided and that cities should incentivize developers to build BMR units within their developments," the report states. "If cities retain in-lieu fees, they should be raised above the comparable inclusionary requirement."

At the same time, the grand jury report wholeheartedly endorses several other policies that Palo Alto has in place. The city is one of five — along with Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View and Sunnyvale — that charge commercial developers "linkage fees" to pay for below-market-rate housing. Palo Alto's fee of up to $35 per square foot of new commercial space built is currently the highest in the county.

The grand jury also favors relaxing rules for residents interested in constructing accessory dwelling units (also known as granny units) on their properties and favors "residential impact fees" on new residential developments to pay for below-market-rate housing — efforts that Palo Alto has already undertaken.

NIMBYs versus YIMBYs

In putting the report together, the grand jury conducted 65 interviews, including ones with government officials, developers and leaders of nonprofits, according to the report. But while the report is chart-filled and data-heavy, it is also — as the name implies — very much an advocacy document for density.

The report strikes a particularly forceful tone when it frames the debate over housing as a tussle between the "NIMBY" mindset (a derisive acronym for "Not In My Backyard"), which calls for limiting job growth and city population to near current levels and which holds sway with many politicians, and the YIMBY ("Yes In My Backyard") movement, which is led largely by millennials and which "has started to exert influence in support of denser developments."

The document acknowledges that there are often sound reasons to limit development, which requires "acceptance of greater traffic congestion and therefore the need for modes of travel other than the automobile." It also notes that a "big piece of the puzzle is the stress that added population puts on overburdened schools."

These issues notwithstanding, the grand jury recommends that Santa Clara County lead "a unified communication campaign that aims to convert NIMBYs into YIMBYs and ease the road ahead for higher densities and more BMR housing." Such a campaign, the report states, should "analyze the need for higher densities in the context of the leadership consensus for preferred pace and limits for housing and employment growth."

The council is scheduled to discuss the report in late August, before staff submits its response. The report is already, however, generating divergent responses. Councilman Adrian Fine, a staunch housing advocate who authored a November 2017 memo advocating for more housing near public transit hubs, told the Weekly that the grand jury's decision to author the report is demonstrative of the scale of the problem.

"They point their recommendations at two obvious targets: the necessity for density and the issues with local control of housing," Fine said.

Councilwoman Karen Holman, who holds a philosophy of slower city growth and who voted against the 2755 El Camino Real development, sees things differently. Holman said the grand jury report is "curious in that it inserts itself into local land use matters in a similar fashion that the state has in imposing its housing mandates."

"While the Grand Jury has not the ability to impose regulations, the report does take a very political and partisan position (NIMBY vs. YIMBY) on how cities should solve its housing issues without also considering the other land-use impacts that such actions would drive," Holman told the Weekly.

These issues, Holman said, include how new office development exacerbates the housing shortage and the effects of an influx of new residents on local schools.

"To contemplate these other issues does not make one anti-housing but rather more rational in understanding that rarely can a single concern be addressed without also considering the practical and very real results of actions being contemplated in isolation," Holman said.

SIDEBAR: A regional approach?

One of the key recommendations of the report "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny" by the 2017-18 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is that the 15 cities in the county unite as one or more "sub-regions" of the Bay Area to address the housing shortage.

Here's how it might work:

* The cities in each "sub-region" would work collectively to build affordable housing.

* By joining together, cities would gain more control and flexibility to meet their individual housing requirements mandated by the state.

* Subregions would consist of contiguous local governments and require the approval of the Association of Bay Area Governments, which is the regional planning body for the nine Bay Area counties.

* If wealthier and less wealthy cities form a subregion, both could benefit: By building housing in the city where real estate is less expensive, more housing could be constructed for the same amount of money. Wealthier cities would contribute funds not only for housing but to ease the impacts of that housing on public transportation, roads, schools, parks, social services and retail access.

* An estimate of the cost to build the state's allocation of below-market-rate housing in each of Santa Clara County's cities is $32.5 billion; however, if — theoretically — all of the affordable housing were built in the least expensive city (Gilroy), it would cost only $20.4 billion. This, the report states, makes the case for cities to form alliances on the housing issue.

Comments

18 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm

Perhaps we should consider gated communities to protect current residents. The increased crime and traffic suppression should be included in the planning.
I have not read the report but I wonder if it includes significant infrastructure improvements and things that people use like parks, hospitals, mental health care, cemeteries.


11 people like this
Posted by MyOpinion
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:59 pm

MyOpinion is a registered user.

"Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny" Density does not = affordability. ALL of the new high density apartment complexes in Mountain View are luxury rentals 3-6K+ per month, which are excluded from rent control under current Law (Costa Hawkins). Prometheus alone has about 7 apartment complexes in Mountain View, with a huge 5 storey 471 unit project planned for E Evelyn. All of these projects are essentially transient housing for affluent tech workers passing through, when they want to settle down they will move to a real community. Mountain View is becoming like Zhengzhou known as “iPhone City” This is Mountain View's future... Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Single Family Homes are Dead
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jul 10, 2018 at 3:11 pm

Single Family Homes are Dead is a registered user.

Single Family Housing is a weird, antiquated concept that doesn't fit into a modern environment. It values the selfishness of needing a lawn, at the expense of pushing out so many other families who would *happily* raise their children in a high-density housing environment.

Let's be honest with ourselves: cities everywhere have people living happy, productive lives in high-density housing. It's time for the Bay Area to get with modern times and give up the weird sterility of 1950's suburban values.


11 people like this
Posted by Stanford at Fault
a resident of another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 4:17 pm

Apparently most of the jobs in Palo Alto are at Stanford University. They provide limited housing on their land and restrict it to high level staff and professors. This is what needs to change. There's been a lot of talk about needing more funding from Stanford for affordable housing, but I think they should be treated as a city and required to provide housing for all the new jobs they add, as well as for students.

Palo Alto has no tax income from Stanford to use to address the housing shortage. So, Stanford is a huge problem for the whole county, especially for Palo Alto.

Stanford has so much land that it could easily find some spots for additional housing. The resources are vast. Yet, Stanford has been buying still more land in the cities of Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Los Altos. What's really bad is that in many cases this new land is taken off the tax rolls and stops generating funding for school districts and cities alike.


8 people like this
Posted by Your basic HOT MESS!
a resident of North Whisman
on Jul 10, 2018 at 5:08 pm

Can you say discrimination? Low cost high density housing for people who cant afford space. There are so many things wrong with this line of f thinking.

I’m driving around town and there are plenty of “for rent” signs on older buildings- yes, the more affordable housing.

Meanwhile, the “rent stabilization act” has done it’s job as renters who’d have been long gone, stay, in hopes of hitting the rental lottery when housing prices rise fastervthsn the alliwable rent increase.

Companies are hiring contract short term employees who'd rather live in an RV or car than pay rents. No one has addressed this problem that results in very high transiency.

So by all means, keep destroying the environment and playing into the palms of developers by ignoring the real problems.

Your basic hot mess.


4 people like this
Posted by Grand Larceny
a resident of Stierlin Estates
on Jul 10, 2018 at 5:10 pm

The homeowners on the City Council are sitting pretty as they increase the number of workers in the city and bid up the price of housing (both ownership and rental).


5 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2018 at 6:21 pm

@MyOpinion

And when those tech workers settle down in a real community, where do you think that's going to be? Do you envision a typical tech worker dad, wife, and young child moving in to a detached single-family home around here? Because the only way that's going to happen is if they're incredibly wealthy. SFHs around here are unaffordable. They only realistic way to live in them is to have a large down payment already and then rent the whole place out for years in order to pay down the mortgage. If you're trying to preserve Mountain View as some low density family friendly community, it's going to be exclusively for the ultra rich.


7 people like this
Posted by So what
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:34 am

Most people get thrown by the uppity name of "grand jury".

This is just a group of volunteer citizens with no particular skills or expertise. They likely fall victim to groupthink or a couple members with agendas. And it's not a representative group, as the time/pay essentially requires members to be retired or not needing employment for a year.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2018 at 11:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to So what you said:

“This is just a group of volunteer citizens with no particular skills or expertise. They likely fall victim to groupthink or a couple members with agendas. And it's not a representative group, as the time/pay essentially requires members to be retired or not needing employment for a year.”

Please read the following from (Web Link)

“Functions

The Civil Grand Jury is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the enforcement of the law. Although the responsibilities of a juror are many and diverse, the three predominant functions include:

CIVIL WATCHDOG RESPONSIBILITIES

This is the major function of present day grand jurors, and considerable effort is devoted to these responsibilities. The Grand Jury may examine all aspects of county and city government and special districts to ensure that the best interests of Santa Clara county citizens are being served. The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods and systems utilized by county/city government to determine whether more efficient and economical programs may be employed. The Grand Jury is also authorized to:

Inspect and audit books, records and financial expenditures to ensure that public funds are properly accounted for and legally spent.

Inspect financial records of over 25 special districts in Santa Clara County.

Inquire into the conditions of jails and detention centers.

Inquire into charges of willful misconduct in office by public officials or employees.

Most Grand Jury “watchdog” findings are contained in reports describing problems encountered and making recommendations for solutions. During its term, the Grand Jury may issue final reports on the operations of Santa Clara County government. The County Board of Supervisors must comment upon the Grand Jury’s recommendations.

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS

As part of the civil function, the Grand Jury receives letters from citizens alleging mistreatment by officials, suspicions of misconduct, or governmental inefficiencies. Complaints received from citizens are acknowledged and investigated for their validity. Such complaints are kept confidential. If the situation warrants, and corrective action is under the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, appropriate action is taken.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Occasionally and under certain circumstances, the Grand Jury holds hearings to determine whether evidence presented by the district attorney is of sufficient nature to warrant persons having to stand trial in court. A minimum of 12 jurors must vote for an indictment in any criminal proceeding. The types of cases presented to the grand jury by the district attorney usually include:

Cases involving public officials, employees or police officers.

Other cases the district attorney deems appropriate.

Qualifications

Prospective grand jurors must possess the following qualifications (Penal Code Section 893): Be a citizen of the United States of the age of 18 years or older who shall have been a resident of the county for one year immediately before being sworn. Be in possession of his or her natural faculties, or ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of fair character. Possess sufficient knowledge of the English language. A Person is NOT competent to act as a grand juror if any of the following apply: The person is serving as a trial juror in any court of this state. The person has been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year. The person has been convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime. The person is serving as an elected public official. Desirable qualifications for a grand juror include the following: Open-mindedness, with concern for the views of others. Ability to work with others. Genuine interest in community affairs. Investigative skills and an ability to write reports.

Selection Process

In the spring of each year Superior Court Judges seek volunteers to apply for service on the Grand Jury. The Superior Court Judges nominate thirty prospective grand jurors from the pool of applicants, divided among the county’s supervisorial districts. These people are invited to appear before the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. At this time, with the outgoing Grand Jury in attendance, nineteen names are drawn randomly. All nineteen members are sworn in and given a description of their duties and responsibilities by the Presiding Judge. These citizens serve a one-year term.”

The public should be given information so that it can understand the context of the story. Well, here is some of that information.


Like this comment
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jul 11, 2018 at 12:29 pm

Steven Nelson is a registered user.

Thanks for the "Real Information" Business Man! I had been very aware if the Civil Grand Jury function as a watchdog, but never realized that it could work with the DA in prosecution. The CGJ had a recent watchdog report on the Alum Rock school district. They MUST (legally) formally respond to that report by a majority vote of their Board. The MVWSD had a report on fiscal activities several years ago where the President mistakenly signed a reply and sent back to the CGJ without Board discussion or approval. (that got fixed)

Now, the MV City Council must formally respond to this new report with a majority vote of the Council.


12 people like this
Posted by So what
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jul 11, 2018 at 1:34 pm

@Businessman

Thanks for validating my post. The qualifications are 18 years old and in possession of their faculties. Beautiful.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2018 at 1:46 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to So what you said:

“Thanks for validating my post. The qualifications are 18 years old and in possession of their faculties. Beautiful.”

Of course you neglected the complete sentence which is:

Be in possession of his or her natural faculties, or ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE, of SOUND JUDGMENT AND OF FAIR CHARACTER.

Given your comments, it encourages me to say many thing. The idea that you show significant disrespect to our judicial systems is one of them. The other is that you desire to use only language that supports your opinion, without the balances of the rest of the information is another problem.

It appears that maybe the fact that this information can be used as evidence for the increased requirements of Below Market Rate Housing in Mountain View is simply something you will not tolerate. Given that State laws now require such increases at the same time. Instead of trying to be a part of the solution to this problem, you propose to let it continue to threaten the economic viability of California in the long run.


11 people like this
Posted by So what
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jul 11, 2018 at 4:47 pm

@Businessman

1. You're kidding, right? Like those add-owns make them more qualified? Experience? No. Education? No. Involvement in these areas of public policy? No. Publicly vetted or elected? No. And yet they somehow are supposed to bring a respected voice and recommend public policy? I've spoken with grand jury forepeople, and know the lack of depth in those particular analyses.

2. My grand jury opinion is not at all about this particular topic. Attacks on those grounds are unwarranted. Nice try.

3. Again, not related to this topic...more in general. Successful business people use Executive Summaries. (actually not trying to be snooty...I'd love to read more of your other posts, but can't make it through)


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2018 at 5:51 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to So what you said:

“1. You're kidding, right? Like those add-owns make them more qualified? Experience? No. Education? No. Involvement in these areas of public policy? No. Publicly vetted or elected? No. And yet they somehow are supposed to bring a respected voice and recommend public policy? I've spoken with grand jury forepeople, and know the lack of depth in those particular analyses.”

Please provide the public the information necessary to establish that you “I've spoken with grand jury forepeople, and know the lack of depth in those particular analyses.”. You will need to identify who it was, who you are, when it happened and what subject you were taling about regarding the “analyses”. Simply making a claim under the guise of anonymity is simply hearsay, and in most cases are dismissed as not allowed in court. You also said:

“2. My grand jury opinion is not at all about this particular topic. Attacks on those grounds are unwarranted. Nice try.”

If you are making comments on the story in this dissuasion, it is simply expected that you are directly critical of this particular “Grand Jury”. Are you going to proclaim that this “Grand Jury” has in fact performed their work properly and accurately? You also said:

“3. Again, not related to this topic...more in general. Successful business people use Executive Summaries. (actually not trying to be snooty...I'd love to read more of your other posts, but can't make it through)”

Of course when you cannot refute an argument, you instead criticize the method of the delivery of the argument. I am very direct in my response to comments made. I make sure I discuss the information presented by anyone. That is what is called respect and dignity to the comments made. But sometimes those who make comments discover that the consequences of them are not what they expected.


8 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2018 at 8:09 am

My take away is that So What dislikes the Grand Jury functioning as it does. It does not appear that any specialized knowledge or training is required.
Also, I believe the identities of the people on the Grand Juries are confidential so So What should not publish them without the juror's permission. Of course, you can continue to criticize him/her for mentioning the conversation.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 13, 2018 at 10:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Robyn you said:

“My take away is that So What dislikes the Grand Jury functioning as it does. It does not appear that any specialized knowledge or training is required. “

Should specialized knowledge or training be required if a “Grand Juror” has:

“Be in possession of his or her natural faculties, or ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE, of SOUND JUDGMENT AND OF FAIR CHARACTER.”

Anyone with ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE, SOUND JUDGEMENT, and FAIR CHARACTER provided court approved legal argument, evidence, testimony from EXPERTS and those with SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, can and do make sound judgments. It does not take a person who has an expertise to make a fair judegment. Your approach does not seem to be indicating that you understand what it takes to present a case to a “Grand Jury”. You said:

“Also, I believe the identities of the people on the Grand Juries are confidential so So What should not publish them without the juror's permission. Of course, you can continue to criticize him/her for mentioning the conversation.”

But at the same time his comments clearly are defined as hearsay as defined here(Web Link) :

“Evidence Code 1200 EC

Under California Evidence Code 1200, hearsay evidence is not allowed in California criminal jury trials.1

The legal definition of hearsay is a statement that

Was made other than by a witness testifying at the trial, and

Is offered to prove the truth of the content of the statement.2

The reason why we have this California rule of evidence in criminal cases is that hearsay statements are simply not reliable enough to be acceptable as evidence—because they are not made under oath, and the speaker cannot be cross-examined in court.3

Testimony oath Hearsay evidence is not allowed because it is considered less reliable than sworn testimony by a witness in court.”

The simple truth is that any comment made by “So What” should not be considered a valid testimony regarding the subject being discussed here. Especially given that no “authenticity” or “chain of custody” regarding his claim cannot be established. Just understand that my writing is simply to establish to the public that just because a person makes a claim under anonymity should be evaluated based on whatever information that can be provided to prove validity and accuracy. Without said information, my responsibility as a citizen on Mountain View is to ensure that the public will take that thinking into account and not blindly believe anything told them by an anonymous person.

And before you try to criticize my comments as anonymous, I declared my identity in the City Council, the RHC, and in multiple public speaking events. The opposition of the businessman loves to site a small claims court case which revealed my identity. So before anyone attempts to claim that I have been not fair because of not living up to my standards. I have proven already that that cannot be a successful claim.


Examples

Here are some examples of evidence that would be considered hearsay evidence in California:

A witness testifies that his sister told him that the defendant in a criminal case confessed to her—but the sister herself does not testify;
In a California domestic violence case, a former girlfriend of the defendant says in a newspaper interview that she was scared of defendant when she was dating him—but the former girlfriend does not testify at his trial; and
In a California embezzlement case, the prosecution presents a letter from the defendant's accountant (who does not testify) stating that the defendant is bankrupt, in order to prove that the defendant was bankrupt.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule


10 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Jul 14, 2018 at 4:15 pm

My lawyer friend says that hearsay is an out of court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not limited to criminal cases. And not all hearsay statements are excluded from court if there is other indicia of reliability and there are exceptions. No, I am not going to name him here. It is not necessary to further this conversation.
So What is entitled to his or her opinion and we can evaluate it. Not every conversation comes with footnotes.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 14, 2018 at 5:18 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Robyn you said:

“My lawyer friend says that hearsay is an out of court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not limited to criminal cases. And not all hearsay statements are excluded from court if there is other indicia of reliability and there are exceptions.”

Yes there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but please provide which one would apply in this matter? With regards to my research there are these:

“Admissions by parties to the case that are used AGAINST THE SPEAKER—for example, A CONFESSION TO A CRIME;4”

That does not apply here, next:

“Statements, by a speaker who is unavailable as a witness, THAT ARE AGAINST HIS/HER SELF-INTEREST IN AN IMPORTANT WAY;5”

That does not apply here, next:

“Prior statements by a witness at the trial THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH HIS/HER CURRENT TESTIMONY;6”

That does not apply here, next:

“Prior statements by a witness at the trial that are consistent with his/her testimony—IF THESE ARE USED TO REBUT EVIDENCE THAT HIS/HER TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE;7”

That does not apply here, next:

“WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY A WITNESS REGARDING EVENTS THAT WERE FRESH IN HIS/HER MIND AT THE TIME THE STATEMENT WAS MADE but that s/he has forgotten by the time of the trial;8”

That does not apply here, next:

“PREVIOUS EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS by a witness that were made when the crime or other event was fresh in his/her memory;9”

That does not apply here, next:

“SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS MADE IN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE MOMENT;10”

That does not apply here, next:

“Statements made to explain the speaker's actions, WHILE S/HE WAS PERFORMING THOSE ACTIONS;11”

That does not apply here, next:

“Statements made BY A DYING PERSON ABOUT THE CAUSES OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS/HER DEATH;12”

That does not apply here, next:

“Certain statements about THE SPEAKER'S MENTAL OR PHYSICAL STATE THAT ARE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT S/HE EXPERIENCED THAT MENTAL OR PHYSICAL STATE;13”

That does not apply here, next:

“Certain statements made BY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 12 IN CALIFORNIA CHILD ABUSE CASES OR CASES INVOLVING CALIFORNIA SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN;14”

That does not apply here, next:

“CERTAIN BUSINESS OR PUBLIC RECORDS;15”

That does not apply here, next:

“Former testimony that was given in an earlier court or official proceeding, WHEN THE WITNESS IS NOW UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY;16”

That does not apply here, next:

“CERTAIN STATEMENTS ABOUT FAMILY HISTORY, COMMUNITY HISTORY, OR A PERSON'S REPUTATION IN THE COMMUNITY;17”

That does not apply here, next:

“In cases involving serious felonies, statements BY WITNESSES WHO MAY HAVE BEEN MURDERED OR KIDNAPPED BY THE DEFENDANT;18”

That does not apply here, next:

“Certain statements in which THE SPEAKER DESCRIBES OR EXPLAINS A PHYSICAL INJURY (or the threat of a physical injury) that was inflicted on him/her;19 and
Certain videotaped statements by an elderly or dependent adult in California elder abuse cases.20”

That does not apply here. Your statements do not seem to provide an exception regarding “So What” You said:

“So What is entitled to his or her opinion and we can evaluate it. Not every conversation comes with footnotes.”

But comments made without substantiation can be considered for the lack of said substantiation. The public here can be provided more than just off hand comments. Please be considerate and provide more for the public?


13 people like this
Posted by Robyn
a resident of another community
on Jul 14, 2018 at 6:35 pm

Knock yourself out with inapposite research. As I stated, not all conversations come with footnotes. You appear to be trying very hard to advance your position. I am glad you have time to do so.
So What does not appear to have a dog in the fight but you apparently do. So that factor must be considered in accessing credibility. So What seems credible. Why would he or she lie on some arbitrrary column? There is nothing to be gained.
Perhaps you could write a paper.
I am done here. Good Luck All.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jul 14, 2018 at 10:44 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Robyn,

Robyn,

Just understand that civil grand jury has this power:

What does a grand jury do?

With regard to its watchdog authority, the grand jury is well suited to the effective investigation of local governments because it is an independent body, operationally separate from the entities and officials it investigates. It conducts its investigations under the auspices of the Superior Court and has broad access to public officials, employees, records and information.

The grand jury's fact-finding efforts result in written reports which contain specific recommendations aimed at identifying problems and offering recommendations for improving government operations and enhancing responsiveness. In this way, the grand jury acts as a representative of county residents in promoting government accountability.

In some counties, the regular grand jury issues indictments. In others, the Superior Court, at the request of the District Attorney, impanels a separate "criminal grand jury" to hear evidence in support of an indictment. Accusations, which are also filed and taken to trial by the District Attorney, are filed infrequently. Overall, grand juries throughout the state spend considerably more time on investigating and reporting on local government operations than they do on criminal matters. CGJA does not get involved in the any criminal indictment matters; however, the Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to:

The local governmental entity to which a report is directed is required to answer both the Findings and Recommendations in writing and within a specified period of time after the issuance of the final report (60 days for officials or agency heads; 90 days for governing bodies).

The finding states (Web Link):

Finding 1a: Lack of housing near employment centers worsens traffic congestion in the County and increases the urgency to add such housing. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Recommendation 1a: To improve jobs-to-housing imbalances, the cities of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Mountain View and Sunnyvale should identify, by June 30, 2019, PARCELS WHERE HOUSING DENSITIES WILL BE INCREASED. The identification should include when projects are expected to be permitted and the number of BMR units anticipated for each parcel.

Finding 1b: Mass transit stations (Caltrain, VTA, BART) create opportunities for BMR units. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Recommendation 1b: CITIES SHOULD IDENTIFY PARCELS WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF A TRANSIT HUB THAT WILL HELP THEM MEET THEIR LI AND MODERATE-INCOME BMR OBJECTIVES IN THE CURRENT RHNA CYCLE, by the end of 2019. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Finding 1c: Density bonus programs are not being used aggressively enough to produce the needed BMR units within one-half mile of transit hubs. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Recommendation 1c: CITIES SHOULD REVISE THEIR DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE BONUSES FOR LI AND MODERATE INCOME BMR UNITS THAT EXCEED THE MINIMUM BONUSES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR PARCELS WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF A TRANSIT HUB, by the end of 2020. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Finding 2b: Contributions to BMR housing from employers in the County ARE NOT MANDATED NOR EVENLY SHARED. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Recommendation 2b: EVERY CITY IN THE COUNTY SHOULD ENACT HOUSING IMPACT FEES FOR EMPLOYERS TO CREATE A FUND THAT SUBSIDIZES BMR HOUSING, BY JUNE 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15 cities.

Finding 3b: DEVELOPERS ARE LESS WILLING TO CONSIDER BMR DEVELOPMENTS IN CITIES WITH THE COUNTY’S HIGHEST REAL ESTATE VALUES BECAUSE THESE DEVELOPMENTS CANNOT MEET THEIR TARGET RETURN ON INVESTMENT. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto and Saratoga.

Recommendation 3b: A RHNA sub-region should be formed including one or more low-cost cities with one or more high-cost cities, by the end of 2021. AGENCIES TO RESPOND ARE ALL 15 CITIES.

Finding 3c: More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower housing costs form RHNA subregions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs. Responding agencies are all 15 cities.

Recommendation 3c: HIGH-COST CITIES AND THE COUNTY SHOULD PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO LOW-COST CITIES FOR INCREASED PUBLIC SERVICES REQUIRED FOR TAKING ON MORE BMR UNITS IN ANY HIGH-RENT/LOW-RENT RHNA SUBREGION, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale and the County.

Finding 6: IN-LIEU FEES, WHEN OFFERED AS AN OPTION, ARE TOO LOW TO PRODUCE THE NEEDED NUMBER OF BMR UNITS AND DELAY THEIR CREATION. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Recommendation 6: CITIES WITH AN IN-LIEU OPTION SHOULD RAISE THE FEE TO AT LEAST 30% HIGHER THAN THE INCLUSIONARY BMR EQUIVALENT WHERE SUPPORTED BY FEE STUDIES, BY THE END OF 2019. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas, MOUNTAIN VIEW, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

LETS GET THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Babka bakery to open Thursday in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 7,027 views

Ten Tips for Teens and Young Adults to Survive a Dysfunctional Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,428 views

UCSB's CCS program
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,335 views

Farm Bill Passes Congress
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 962 views

What is a Life?
By Aldis Petriceks | 3 comments | 520 views