City eyes industrial areas and transit corridors for more housing | January 14, 2022 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - January 14, 2022

City eyes industrial areas and transit corridors for more housing

Some planning commissioners express concern about lack of schools, amenities in proposed residential areas

by Gennady Sheyner

Facing a regional mandate to plan for more than 6,000 units, Palo Alto is taking a closer look at the commercial and industrial area in the city's southeastern corner as a promising location for future housing.

But as members of the Planning and Transportation Commission noted on Wednesday, this strategy would face major challenges, given the area's current lack of schools and subpar transportation options.

The Housing Element Working Group, a group of residents and commissioners that is helping the city draft its new housing vision, is proposing zone changes to allow housing in the area around East Meadow Circle and San Antonio Avenue. Currently, the land is zoned for "general manufacturing" (GM) and "research, office and light manufacturing" (ROLM), which prohibit housing.

The city's planning staff estimated that if rezoned to allow 40 dwellings per acre, the area could become home to more than 1,500 residences. If approved by the City Council, the strategy would represent one of the largest components of the city's plan to identify sites for 6,086 housing units between 2023 and 2031, as required by state law.

Major residential growth isn't new to this area. About 20 years ago, new apartment and condominium complexes went up in and around East Meadow Circle. The city then responded by banning residential space and by spearheading an area plan to explore the addition of new amenities to the area — a vision document that was never officially adopted.

Now, with the area once again seen as ripe for housing, some are questioning whether it can absorb more than 1,500 new residents without major investments in infrastructure.

Commissioner Bryna Chang said the last time new housing developments went up on East Meadow Circle, they created a "massive problem with neighborhood schools." About 30% of the students who would normally go to Palo Verde as their neighborhood elementary school were sent to other schools because of the school's limited capacity.

"If you add 1,500 kids — that's a huge influx," Chang said, noting that most elementary schools range between 300 and 600 students. "What are we going to do with all these kids added to that one little corner of Palo Alto?"

Commissioner Doria Summa agreed and said that the city also needs to think about adding amenities such as parks and retail space to serve the area's new residents.

"It almost warrants a larger planning exercise," she said.

More strategies contemplated

In addition to targeting industrial areas, the working group members and city planners have also expressed support for allowing greater housing density in zones that already accommodate multifamily residential development. Under this strategy, zones that currently allow up to 20 dwellings per acres would be modified to allow up to 30. Similarly, R-30 zones, which allow up to 30 dwellings per acre, would be upzoned to allow 40.

According to Senior Planner Tim Wong, who is leading the Housing Element revision, this strategy can generate 1,657 housing units.

Other strategies that the city is looking at call for building housing in church parking lots, which could accommodate 148 dwellings, and on city-owned lots, which could support another 168. The council has already expressed support for the latter strategy when it voted last month to invite developers to contribute proposals for local lots that would include both parking and housing, particularly affordable housing.

"To the extent that we can have affordable housing throughout the community, I think that's a real community benefit," council member Alison Cormack said at the Dec. 6 discussion of the parking lot proposal.

Another key strategy that the working group endorsed is raising density for sites within a half-mile of Caltrain stations, which would then accommodate between 40 and 50 dwellings per acre (depending on their proximity to the station). This strategy could generate about 798 dwellings, according to staff. It explicitly excludes, however, the rezoning of any R-1 zoned properties.

Other strategies favored by the working group similarly steered growth away from single-family zones. The only strategy that includes housing in low-density zones is the approval of accessory-dwelling units. The city expects to see about 512 new accessory-dwelling units over the eight-year planning period. (The estimate is based on the city's recent three-year average of 64 new accessory-dwelling units per year.)

Altogether, the working group and staff have identified sites that could yield 7,122 dwellings, well above the target established through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process. Many of these, however, are based on speculative plans that remain a long way from becoming reality.

Stanford University, for example, has identified three of its own sites — the downtown transit center, a vacant property on Pasteur Drive and 3128 El Camino Real — that can collectively accommodate 825 new dwellings.

But as Stanford leaders have told the city at recent meetings, this would require the city to loosen zoning regulations, reduce parking requirements and support seven-story buildings with the bottom two floors devoted to parking. Though these units are included in the city's total, there's been little indication to date that the council would approve such developments.

Bart Hechtman, chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission, lauded the working group for identifying so many sites for new housing.

"It is a Herculean effort to find 6,000 potential units in Palo Alto," Hechtman said.

He also suggested, however, that by excluding single-family zones that are close to transit, members of the working group may only be delaying the eventual redevelopment of these areas.

"They get to make that initial recommendation call, but I recognize and I want to make sure that we all recognize that to the extent we have low-density areas in close proximity to our transit stations — to our Caltrain stations — those properties are by any appropriate measure underutilized," he said. "And the question is not whether they'll ever get upzoned but when.

Email Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner at [email protected]


Posted by tmp
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 13, 2022 at 10:54 am

tmp is a registered user.

The edict from Sacramento:

Let's just forget about overpopulation, pollution, lack of water, destruction of the environment, and basically a very poor quality of life and build more ugly buildings and cram people in here like bugs.

Let's make sure the work force for big corporations (Facebook, Google) is paramount by supplying workers and then they will continue to fund elected representatives who vote to destroy California with overcrowding but who want corporate donations to fund runs to move up the government food chain.

Perhaps we should sign the petition to overturn these bad laws like SB 9 and 10 and take back local control. "Our Neighborhood Voices" has an initiative to return zoning to local control. Help out with this today by finding a petition to sign and circulate.

Posted by commonsense
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 13, 2022 at 11:31 am

commonsense is a registered user.

Demolish cubberly and build new two or three story schools. It’s a huge property and can handle the size schools needed.

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 13, 2022 at 12:21 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

I totally agree with TMP on the need to sign the ballot initiative petitions on the bad state housing bills. I'm still appalled that the former city leaders managed to ignore the petition to cap downtown office growth topped the legal requirements and thus stuck us with these absurd housing targets because of the linkage between jobs and housing targets.

Shame on them.

I also think it's absurd that Palo Alto is thinking of combining a vote on instituting a business tax with an item to legitimize the city's repeated practice of ILLEGALLY over-charging utility customers $20,000,000.

Please separate the two issues!!! i want both a business tax AND for the city to STOP the over-charging and to pay us the legal settlement the judge ordered the city to pay for over-charging us.

I'm tired of paying the city to appeal this judgment. I'm tired of them continuing to approve offices which has pushed our housing "targets" to these absurd heights.

Posted by Bystander
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 13, 2022 at 1:03 pm

Bystander is a registered user.

We have 3 transit corridors, Caltrain, El Camino and Middlefield, in order of importance. Otherwise, transit is dreadful in Palo Alto and a lot worse than a decade or more ago. When the JCC was built, we were told it would be served by transit.

I can only imagine how present transit would handle large numbers of increased ridership particularly if they want to go anywhere other than north/south.

We all know this, so do those who move to any proposed new housing. They will want cars.

Posted by NeilsonBuchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 13, 2022 at 4:24 pm

NeilsonBuchanan is a registered user.

Why not locate substantial housing convenient and affordable within Stanford Research Park?

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 13, 2022 at 4:40 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

What a great idea -- Stanford Research Park and Stanford University Campus.

Posted by mjh
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 13, 2022 at 5:30 pm

mjh is a registered user.

The huge number of jobs in the Stanford Research Park makes a substantial contribution to the 6,000+ new housing units Palo Alto residents have been allocated by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments, unelected) to identify locations to build. Only fair to to rezone part of the Stanford Research Park for housing. Especially if there is any property in the Research Park that has not been developed or is not currently leased.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.