Palo Alto releases plan to add more than 6,000 dwellings | November 11, 2022 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - November 11, 2022

Palo Alto releases plan to add more than 6,000 dwellings

Proposed Housing Element banks on industrial zones, transit corridors to meet state mandate

by Gennady Sheyner

Palo Alto released on Monday its plan for adding more than 6,000 dwellings by 2031, a strategy that banks on backyard cottages, transit corridors and the conversion of industrial zones in the south end of the city into residential communities.

The city's Housing Element, which is now going through a 30-day public review period, will ultimately be submitted to the state Department of Housing and Community Development. It lays out the city's strategies for adding its regional mandate of 6,086 housing units by 2031 — a target was developed through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The 329-page document also lists strategies for preserving existing housing, streamlining the development approval process and promoting affordable housing.

Getting the state to approve the city's Housing Element will be a key priority in the coming months for the City Council, which will see three seats turn over to new members. All council candidates and sitting members have named housing as a top priority item, though there is some disagreement over how aggressively the city should strive to meet the state goals.

The newly released Housing Element proposes dozens of strategies to stimulate housing production, none more ambitious than the plan to rezone industrial and commercial zones around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way for residential use. The plan projects that this strategy will net 2,141 new dwellings, or 35% of the city's total allocation.

In adopting this strategy last August, council members agreed that it will require them to relax development standards such as height and density limits to encourage residential developments. The Housing Element pegs the density limits for residential development in general manufacturing (GM) and ROLM zones at 81.25 dwellings per acre, which is roughly twice as dense as the city currently allows in most of its multi-family residential districts.

But the strategy is also a gamble. The Housing Element assumes that many property owners will actually move ahead with the conversion. To back up that assertion, it points to broad market trends which support "redevelopment of office space at densities much higher than 65 dwelling units per acre." The document notes that the city had an office vacancy rate of 10.5% in the second quarter of 2022, while vacancy rates for industrial and research-and-development spaces is 5.9%. Both of these are higher than the regional averages of 10.1% and 4.6%, respectively.

The document also cites several recent examples of housing developments that took over commercial sites. This includes the newly constructed affordable-housing development at 3703 El Camino Real known as Wilton Court, which includes 59 apartments; the 129-apartment development that was proposed by Charities Housing for 2001 El Camino Real, the former site of Mike's Bikes; and a teacher-housing development spearheaded by Santa Clara County for a site next to the Palo Alto Courthouse. Once completed, it would include 110 apartments.

"Recent reports indicate a slowing of demand for new office and industrial space, which may bolster the desire for residential or mixed-use development on sites in GM and ROLM zones," the Housing Element states.

But while the city has recently received two applications for residential developments on San Antonio Road, it remains to be seen whether property owners in the area will actually move ahead with the types of conversions that the Housing Element envisions. And it's not clear whether the Department of Housing and Community Development agrees with the city's assessment that the strategy will actually spur construction of more than 2,000 new dwellings.

Furthermore, council members also acknowledged in recent meetings that the area lacks critical amenities and that some of the sites may not be suitable for housing, particularly if they are located near industries with high uses of hazardous materials.

"I'm not opposed to significant housing in these areas, but I think we are not yet informed and realistic about certainly the adjacency to true industrial processes next door and that are not compatible to having housing immediately adjacent," Burt said during the council's Aug. 22 discussion, just before the council adopted the strategy.

"I think we're having discussions about what we wish were the case, as opposed to what is the case."

He and others also noted that the area is currently deficient in public transportation, biking amenities and neighborhood-serving retail. Council member Eric Filseth said he supports "doubling down" on housing around San Antonio but noted that the plan would require significant infrastructure upgrades.

"I think we're going to have to go aggressive here on the development standards," he said. "The worst case is that we put a little bit here and it's not enough to bring in all the other stuff that we want to have happen, the transportation and retail and so forth over time So I think we've got to have enough density here so that it drives the other stuff."

Other strategies in the Housing Element include increasing density for new housing developments in transit corridors, allowing residential projects on city-owned parking lots and church lots and revising the zoning code to increase the number of dwelling units allowed in existing multi-family zones.

The upzoning strategy, which is expected to net about 1,017 new dwellings over the eight year period, would turn existing RM-20 zones (which allow 20 units per acre) into RM-30 zones and turn current RM-30 zones into RM-40 zones. Areas within a quarter mile of Caltrain stations would be upzoned to allow up to 50 dwelling units per acre.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) also play a key part in the city's strategy. The small backyard dwellings have recently been proliferating in greater numbers around town thanks to new state laws and the Housing Element assumes that the city will see about 64 new ADUs per year, for a total of 512 in the eight-year period.

The document also identifies two sites owned by Stanford University that could accommodate new housing and pledges to make zoning changes to facilitate these developments. This includes a site at 1100 Welch Road, which according to the city and Stanford can accommodate about 425 dwellings; a site at 3128 El Camino that could potentially accommodate about 315; and a site at 3300 El Camino, which could accommodate another 200. The Housing Element does not, however, include the site around the downtown Transit Center, which Stanford had identified as an area that could accommodate about 270 apartments. While some housing advocates encouraged the city to include the site in the Housing Element, the council ultimately decided that the centrally located University Avenue property requires significantly more planning and agreed to defer consideration of housing here until the next Housing Element cycle.

Though city leaders agree that it's important for the city to adopt a legal Housing Element, they have different opinions on whether the growth is practically achievable, particularly given the higher number of below-market-rate units that the city would need to approve to meet regional goals. Julie Lythcott-Haims, who was elected on Tuesday, has embraced the mandate and said the city needs to work hard to achieve the goal and go beyond it.

Others, including Mayor Pat Burt, have characterized the target as virtually unachievable, even as they stressed the need to make progress on housing.

The Department of Housing and Community Development has taken a more assertive approach this year toward reviewing Housing Elements in the current cycle than in prior ones, in most cases rejecting cities' initial submissions and demanding revisions. Cities that fail to get their Housing Element certified run the risk of becoming ineligible for grant funding or, in the most extreme scenario, lose some of their land use authority.

On Monday night, Burt was among council members who criticized the housing-mandate process and argued that it is creating unachievable goals for affordable housing and threatening to take away "most of our local control over local democratic land use policies" if the RHNA targets aren't met.

"It's basically setting up a process that appears to be 'failure by design,'" Burt said. "Not inadvertently, but it really appears that it is by design that this outcome will happen."

Council member Greer Stone agreed and pointed to Newsom's recent withdrawal of $2 billion in funding homelessness programs from local jurisdictions, a move that he called "pretty absurd" given the high costs of creating affordable housing. Stone lamented the fact that the state's mandates for more housing aren't accompanied by state funding, which he said is required to produce the needed below-market-rate residences.

"I think where we spend our money reflects our true values and the state just continues to push for deregulation and not actually provide the funding for us to be able to hit those RHNA targets," Stone said Monday. "I want to point that out and hope in the next legislative cycle we can push for actual funding for these affordable-housing projects that we so desperately need."

The draft Housing Element acknowledges the drastic need for affordable housing, noting that homeownership is effectively out of reach for households that make less than the city's median income of $174,003 in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars.

Residents are also experiencing "sharp increases in rent prices and are sometimes often forced into substandard living." About 17% of households spend between 30% and 50% of their income on housing, while another 13% spend more than 50%, which places them in the "severely cost burdened category." These residents, the document notes, may have little disposable income left after housing costs.

It also lists the many challenges that Palo Alto faces when it comes to actually creating the needed housing. The Housing Element calls Palo Alto "a built-out community with very little developable land vacant, with no opportunities to annex additional areas to accommodate future housing needs."

"The high demand for developable land, coupled with the smaller lot sizes in the city, makes multi-family residential development difficult," the document states.

The city plans to host an online community meeting on Nov. 16 to gather community feedback about the draft Housing Element. The council and the Planning and Transportation Commission are scheduled to discuss the document on Nov. 28.

Email Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner at [email protected]

Comments

Posted by Jeremy Erman
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 10, 2022 at 10:23 am

Jeremy Erman is a registered user.

The real problem is that there are a lot of high-paying jobs in the area, and landlords only want to rent to these higher income people, and only build/rent to "lower income" people when given bribes—I mean SUBSIDIES, silly me—to offset the projected loss of income.

Until this culture of greed is addressed and landlords lower their prices, I don't see how we can significantly change the housing costs in the Bay Area simply through increasing supply—one would have to be build an astronomical number of new units, say, twice the current number. And the state mandate is for all housing, not just rental units, and no one is even suggesting to build enough new "single-family" homes to significantly lower the price of buying a house.


Posted by MyFeelz
a resident of JLS Middle School
on Nov 10, 2022 at 10:43 am

MyFeelz is a registered user.

Is this the same city that is trying to force all single family homeowners to convert their homes to all-electric buildings? Wait until they try to force all single family homeowners to build an ADU in their backyard. OMG.

These are really the best ideas they can conceive of to increase housing? Converting sheds into housing, and building skyscrapers that will only accommodate those without cars, and tearing down all of the unused industrial properties and convert them to housing for those without cars, who will now be living far from the bus lines?

BTW, there is no real "transit corridor" on the Peninsula. Only if you can hoof it to ECR to ride a bus, or hoof it to the nearest (?) train depot. Oh yeah, I'm forgetting the city also believes everyone can ride a bike over the many miles of pavement that lack bike lanes.

As for the "most of our local control over local democratic land use policies" that will implode if Palo Alto is actually legally ordered by the state to conform to ITS policies instead of theirs, THAT'S THE IDEA. Because the problem here is LOCAL DEMOCRATIC LAND USE POLICIES that are controlled and paid for by a huge configuration on the west side of ECR across the entire city limits. And Burt is as much as announcing it right here, that he doesn't plan to give an inch.

Just because other dot com billionaires benefitted from a long standing system of payola to keep undesirables out of Palo Alto doesn't exempt them from participating in the system. either.

I smell a rat. A few rats, actually.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 10, 2022 at 10:54 am

Online Name is a registered user.

"Recent reports indicate a slowing of demand for new office and industrial space, which may bolster the desire for residential or mixed-use development on sites in GM and ROLM zones," the Housing Element states."

Today's news reports place local tech layoffs at 100,000 and rising. Since the housing targets are based on jobs, when are the numbers going to be revised to reflect reality.

According to the above, Stanford plans an estimated 940 housing units but ignores the recent report that they removed 795 housing units from the available housing stock when they recent;ly limited Oak Apartments on Sand Hill Rd to the Stanford community. That leave 145 new units, with patients and families at the ever-expanding Stanford Medical complex no place to go during treatment.

"But while the city has recently received two applications for residential developments on San Antonio Road, it remains to be seen whether property owners in the area will actually move ahead"..... Facebook has already announced plans to streamline its real estate holding including at the San Antonio complex, freeing up apartments it was holding for corporate workers. They're also reconsidering the Willow Village? complex.

Isn't it time to revise the numbers since more than 85% of the new units are for highly paid tech workers rather than truly affordable housing?

Finally, note Ms Lythcott-Haims recent quote "Lythcott-Haims hasn't been afraid to criticize the slow-growth side for preventing development, and she wants to come up with big ideas that will attract investors." So let's sell Palo Alto to the highest bidder? Funny, many of us thought Palo Alto was a COMMUNITY, not a commodity to be sold off -- to paraphrase Doria Summa.





Posted by A neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 10, 2022 at 11:08 am

A neighbor is a registered user.

There's a great map in the report, on page 3-35, showing the idea is that we could upzone parcels near Caltrain, so there are little circles around each station. The biggest opportunity is obviously the circle near California Ave: the other circles mostly enclose places like Mountain View and Stanford. Take a close look at the California Ave circle, and look for the parcels actually recommended for upzoning. It's *amazing* that there are *zero* to the north. Like literally zero. There are hundreds of acres of R-1 there, which could be upzoned to moderate-density RM-15 overnight, unlocking a wave of independent medium-sized projects that would make the area much more vibrant, include many more people, and make a lot of money for today's homeowners. It would make the southern part of "Old Palo Alto" into "New Palo Alto." Instead, the report proposes a few large projects, almost all along the freeway that is El Camino. It looks to me like we're not really serious about changing anything about the city we live in, we're just going to pack the maximum density in the most unpleasant places. We can do better.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 10, 2022 at 11:29 am

Online Name is a registered user.

"There are hundreds of acres of R-1 there, which could be upzoned to moderate-density RM-15 overnight, unlocking a wave of independent medium-sized projects that would make the area much more vibrant, include many more people, and make a lot of money for today's homeowners."

News flash 1: you can't evict people "overnight" or force them to sell

News Flash 2: not everyone wants to make a lot of money because they think of themselves as community members, NOT commodities.


Posted by Bystander
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2022 at 11:30 am

Bystander is a registered user.

Local single family homes building ADUs "thanks" to rule changes are not fairly evaluated. There are some of these in my neighborhood. One home has converted their garage and there is no covered parking for either home, and the new home now parks on the street. Another has built an ADU at the side of the existing home and widened the driveway to accommodate more cars, however this means that there is no street parking for them or anybody else who may have guests or other visitors.

Our neighborhoods are getting crowded, and what space is here is being used to pack more and more people into space that was not designed for that number of people. It will affect water supply, sewers, mail delivery, street parking, garbage pick up, shade, water run off during storms, more traffic with deliveries and people commuting. Yet, nothing is being done to improve infrastructure.

Will anyone prioritize infrastructure? Can we stop turning pleasant neighborhoods into rabbit warrens? Can we do anything without being overlooked by our neighbors or or hearing their noise? I have nothing against having neighbors and can be happy that they are enjoying their homes and space, but there is a limit to the number of people I want staring over my back fence, or polluting the quiet in the evenings with noisy conversations or similar outside my bedroom window.


Posted by NeilsonBuchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 10, 2022 at 11:31 am

NeilsonBuchanan is a registered user.

City staff in San Jose just released useful analysis of what affordable housing is and what it may cost.

I urge every interested citizen to stop, look and listen. It is the best, in-depth summary of the hurdles ahead for market-rate housing and housing supported with public funding.

Web Link


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 10, 2022 at 12:19 pm

Annette is a registered user.

No surprise that the issue boils down to affordability. It is a shame that we didn't elect Doria Summa b/c she has said that all along and she has the knowledge we need to work through this thorny issue. Lost opportunity. But it is good to read Greer Stone's comment that the State should have spent more of the surplus on housing and that the legislature should fund its mandates.

I continue to think it time for all mayors and city managers to demand that the RHNA numbers be revisited and revised to reflect various realities (actual demand, vacancy rates, affordability). And instead of the threat of a stick, try incentives such as tying increases in State funding to the successful repurposing of already-built structures and/or the actual building of affordable housing. The more you build, the more $ you get. I assume tax breaks for affordable housing are already part of the tax code.

I also think there should be more flexibility regarding what counts towards meeting the housing requirement. I heard a good idea the other day: allow multi-generational living arrangements to count towards meeting the requirement. If an adult child moves back home for whatever reason, that is one less person seeking housing, one subtraction from demand. Count it! Since ADUs count, living under the same roof should, too. This shouldn't be too hard to document.

One last thought: I cannot prove this or quote numbers, but I sure get the feeling that what's being built is bureaucracy, not housing. And certainly not affordable housing. How stupid is that? The problem at hand will not be solved and we will have more pensions to pay. Brilliant.


Posted by Local Resident
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 10, 2022 at 12:44 pm

Local Resident is a registered user.

The RHNA housing requirements are a business first approach that allows businesses to expand wherever they want, such as on the peninsula and then forces communities to zone new housing for them. High paid single tech workers getting discounts on their market rate housing and developers maximizing profits is much of what this is about. Which is why some folks spouting rhetoric oppose some of the most meaningful ways to address affordability for those who truly need it. Such as: the office cap, only exempting parking requirements for below market, requiring 20% instead of 15% inclusionary housing, maximizing the business tax, limiting extra upzoning to only below market projects, meaningful state funding for affordable housing instead of the paltry 2% of the budget surplus. Mountain View and Redwood City are busy adding office which negates their new housing creation. More affordable housing is possible if we prioritize those non-tech workers who really need it and stop legislating to maximize developer profits


Posted by Consider Your Options.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 pm

Consider Your Options. is a registered user.

"The newly released Housing Element proposes dozens of strategies to stimulate housing production, none more ambitious than the plan to rezone industrial and commercial areas around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way for residential use. The plan projects that this strategy will net 2,141 new dwellings, or 35% of the city's total allocation."

This same part of Palo Alto took the lion's share of the last round of Palo Alto housing (@1,000 units plus Stanford Research Park development) in the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor area. This time we get 35% of the proposed housing development? Again, there's no plan. The Housing Element presents a laundry list of sites to upzone with no Area Plan to manage increased traffic and community service demands this development will generate. Where is the Area Plan? San Antonio is already heavily congested, has limited useful transit, and terrible bike/pedestrian connectivity to anything in town. While there is a train station nearby, it is served only by infrequent local trains--no express service, so it is underused by existing nearby residents.

Since the city is dumping upzoning without a plan on south PA, the pain should be shared. The University Avenue transit center (which has excellent existing train and bus service, unlike south PA) would also be a very good place for housing, but north PA politicians have consistently and repeatedly pulled that option off the table for decades, saying it needs an Area Plan. Why is north PA treated so differently from south PA? Fix that.

There has been no staff recommendation, nor even a substantive public conversation, on how to mitigate impacts of this growth.

I'm don't oppose the housing. I oppose the complete failure to PLAN for infrastructure and services that will be needed to support this new housing. Plan for traffic. Cubberley will be needed for community services and school capacity...and yet it continues to rot. South PA deserves more fair distribution of resources.


Posted by Resident
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 10, 2022 at 1:19 pm

Resident is a registered user.

Pat Burt here.
I agree that the housing sites list was too focused on the San Antonio corridor and doesn’t yet have a well designed area plan to address the transportation, services and urban design needed for a new, livable neighborhood.
Housing in our two downtowns, and in the lower Stanford Research Park near Cal Ave would make the downtowns more vibrant and livable while offering strong adjacent transit services and supporting local retail.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 10, 2022 at 1:23 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

@Consider Your Options, good points. We do need an area plan, especially since Stanford keeps expanding into Menlo Park, Redwood City, keeps buying up College Terrace homes, removing them for PA's housing count.

So it's absurd that they're getting away with providing such a tiny number of housing units when they've just removed 795 units from the city housing stock when they're so rapidly expanding.

The University has 32,560 people (faculty and students, not sure about admin) while Stanford Health has another 15,676 for a total of 48,236 based on the most recent numbers. Palo Alto has around 66,000 so Stanford's almost as big yet it's only providing 145 net new housing units after Oak Creek but not counting all the College Terrace homes it keeps buying.

(They also keep telling us that none of their growth has added a single new car trip to their area. Another Silicon Valley miracle.)

So with 2 new City Council members with Stanford ties, what will they do to pressure Stanford to do its fair share in Palo Alto? Very eager to hear their plans.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 10, 2022 at 1:57 pm

Annette is a registered user.

Will Veenker and Lythcott-Haims need to recuse themselves on Stanford-related matters?


Posted by Local Resident
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 10, 2022 at 2:20 pm

Local Resident is a registered user.

The reason why the area around San Antonio near 101 is a good location is because they have a lot of large lots with old buildings. A density of 90 FAR is great for building high density tall multi-family. It's also very close to Google (you don't even need to get on the highway and also easy to bike to) as well as very close to Facebook. Of course retail needs to be included and additional infrastructure, but that's going to be the case anyway and can be built along with the housing. It's also close to the Baylands for additional recreation. There are not those large lots with old buildings available around University and Cal Ave although the Housing Element does lots of upzoning and has lots of housing sites in those areas as well.


Posted by Consider Your Options.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2022 at 2:26 pm

Consider Your Options. is a registered user.

When I ask for analysis of aggregate impacts, "We don't have resources to do this work," is the constant chorus. Even the grade separation plans for south Palo Alto have numerous problems related to this failure to plan for aggregates. This is very different from former staff who were interested and actively engaged the community in big picture, comprehensive planning.

City Council, please provide funding for this necessary work, direct staff to turn their heads south and take a comprehensive look at problem sets, so we can identify thoughtful priorities, and plan to assign resources to these tasks. We need staff to emerge from their departmental, Zoom-insulated pandemic silos and reach out in person to the community again to understand the issues. We have a lot of new staff and consultants who each look at their individual projects in isolation. Reliance on Zoom and Google maps in place of community outreach and site visits feeds this problem and is not good practice. Both staff and Council need to start spending more time in the community, especially south Palo Alto, as you do this kind of transformative decision-making--before it is too late, a time that is fast approaching.


Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 10, 2022 at 2:37 pm

Allen Akin is a registered user.

Read the report that Neilson provided. The conclusions are important: Dense multi-family housing isn't financially feasible in most of San Jose, cost of materials and construction is the main reason, and eliminating City infrastructure fees isn't enough to solve the problem (though it would eliminate the ability to build infrastructure to support new housing).

The situation in Palo Alto is even more challenging due to smaller sizes of available lots and higher land prices.

As already mentioned, housing construction in nearby cities like Mountain View and Redwood City is being accomplished by offsetting it with so much new office space that the jobs/housing imbalance in those places is getting worse.

Some new Council members are going to learn a lot about housing economics in the next couple of years.


Posted by Jerry
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 10, 2022 at 2:43 pm

Jerry is a registered user.

I would have to surmise that the cost of these new housing units will be astronomically higher than anyone has projected for at least the following two reasons.

The cost of remediating toxic ground chemicals (especially near the San Antonio corridor) and building housing with vapor barriers. Silicon Valley is basically one giant superfund site.

The cost of lawsuits against the city when they start proposing 5 story apartment buildings next to single family homes.

Random comment: The lack of concern for infrastructure scares the be-jeezus out of me. Palo Alto is already borderline unlivable due to traffic congestion. And if you're a pedestrian or bicyclist, it's downright live-threatening.


Posted by Native to the BAY
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 10, 2022 at 2:51 pm

Native to the BAY is a registered user.

@MyFeelz. Thanks. Let's speak up about Fry's & Foon Chu site. Sabrato wants to "downzone" 15 acres of historic RM30 residentially zoned, chop it up and piece meal it away. Squish 1 acre of lowest income housing on a creek. CC zoned this RM30 30 years ago. Let's talk about ROLM/IDUST/COMM as a Flood Zone AE:10 by FEMA standards and a Alt transit desert. While Jonathan "come" Lait(ley) promotes the sea level rise area as a means to hop on a freeway in a prius or tesla to get to a high tech job. Hello FB is laying off 11 thousand area workers next week. CC also forewent $900 thousand bike upgrades along Fabian etc while promoting a toxic ROLM/INDUS site for dense high rise homes for the poor. This cycle of HEWG CC and PTC has removed transit wealthy feasible sites like Transit Center, Fry's, Creek Side, City Owned parking lots from the inventory! As well there are weeded lots, abandoned bldgs, rickety quasa huts ripe for ECR homes at all income levels between Page Mill and El Camino Way. And how about West Page Mill? Somehow ok to promote cheap, flood prone development on the bay along a freeway yet on the other side, where there is open space also along a freeway corridor, there lies fallow into infinity. And let's not forget that Karen Holman and her PA History group just got $12million dollars of HUD money to resurrect the PAMF cadaver on Homer. What? Her first show should really be about the systematic, generational, historic redline Palo Alto drew, draws, drawing for misplacement displacement and disregard for those who serve and served our community for the last Century. The shell game continues as our highest paid city leaders remove feasible home and transit sites. Only to preserve these for not "transit rich" but Affluent wealthy future residents that will be sold to highest bidder. Rat-a-tat-tat and that be that with the big Rats in a greese vat of greed. Oh yeah & I remind those here. SubPar Mayfield Related Place is ALL cheap surges .


Posted by EM
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 10, 2022 at 2:57 pm

EM is a registered user.

Let's build 6000/10 tiny studios along 101 and San Antonio, price them at 1 million each, and then claims nobody wants to buy them and as a result, there is not need to build more.

That argument definitely sounds better than Mayor Burt's who has already "characterized the city target as virtually unachievable". Much better indeed, because the one he is currently using makes him sound incompetent.


Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 10, 2022 at 3:07 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

Mayor Burt got it right. It is an unachievable goal without an infusion of grant money and subsidies through non-profit organizations which are funded with our tax dollars. Julie needs to take a crash course on the history of PA housing and read/study the last Housing Element Report that was approved. Actually, we should all read it and pay attention to the areas that were described as suitable for housing to meet the mandate then. How did we do? Pianissimo…ppp…pretty piss poor. And she thinks her success for being elected was due to the support of people who heard her message in support of the mandate. I think it was more due to endorsements from left leaning media outlets and the large donations from developers and outside interests who would benefit from more market rate housing. Her big smile was dominant in newspapers and online ads, and her campaign signs on corners all around town outnumbered all the others. Those get the votes because most people don’t spend the time to listen and hear the pros and cons on issues and the feasibility and practicability of implementing solutions.

@Jeremy Erman…you doped it out very well and ‘no’ you’re not ‘silly’!


Posted by Eeyore
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 10, 2022 at 3:09 pm

Eeyore is a registered user.

Baylands for recreation. Hahaha. San Antonio and Charleston are pretty much unusable these days, but of course people stacked and packed into Fabien are just going to drive away from, not into, Palo Alto.

People far more eloquent than I have chimed in above.

CC is being stampeded into supporting Newsoms bid for the presidency with this housing fiasco.


Posted by Jerry
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 10, 2022 at 3:38 pm

Jerry is a registered user.

While a lot of the focus of the draft housing element report is on upzoning offices and light industrial areas, the subtly incongruous suggestion is that faith-based institutions have excess land to use for housing.

Imagine living in a single family home next door to a church that decides to build multi-story apartment building. You neighborhood goes from RM-1 to RM-40 real fast! (Ref: Page 3-41)


Posted by MyFeelz
a resident of another community
on Nov 10, 2022 at 3:45 pm

MyFeelz is a registered user.

@Native, right on the money as usual. And I do mean money! It's all about the shell game. And @Eeyore, Baylands is going to be flooded with fragrant plants to offset the ick. No wait that was just a dream I had. [email protected], today I saw a man on a bicycle on Alma street nearly get squished because two drivers don't know how to stagger so there might be room for a bike. No bike lane, no sidewalk, sheer terror. And @Pat Burt or anon or whatever, neighborhoods aren't planned. They evolve as people populate an area. If you want proof look at NYC, LA, Dallas, Seattle ... when the population exceeded the housing, in every one of those cities tent communities popped up. All of those cities have high paid "City Planners" whose only plan is to get in, latch onto the payroll and sit there long enough to get on the pension rolls. They never planned for people who lose jobs or are forced out by gouging landlords. They only plan for best case scenarios that never come to fruition, and their own wealth portfolios. And a last remark about what @Native said that comes to mind over and over again, it's past time to re-think the oligarchy that is protecting land west of El Camino from development. Greed is ugly, and as Madge the manicurist would say, Palo Alto is soaking in it.


Posted by A neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 10, 2022 at 3:56 pm

A neighbor is a registered user.

I bet if the zoning for New Palo Alto allowed it, independent capital would be available to build lots of things like these:

Web Link

17 units on a lot less than 3000 sqft, $300k per unit.

I bet some clever engineers nearby could find a way to make modular cheap enough; there's quite a bit of activity there already, example:

Web Link

One more thing I need to point out about the report. It's not a proposal to actually *do* anything. It's just a claim that the 6086 units *could be accommodated*. Since many other uncertain things need to happen to actually build anything, it would be good to aim a lot higher than the "could be" number. How can we aim for 20000 new units? What would New Palo Alto look like with the density and vibrance of Greenwich Village?

What will Palo Alto look like in the year 2100? What we're headed for is this: a ring of giant apartment blocks fronting multilane expressways, and inside the ring there will be, effectively, a museum. A museum of single-family homes, occupied by billionaires.

We can do better.


Posted by MyFeelz
a resident of JLS Middle School
on Nov 10, 2022 at 4:35 pm

MyFeelz is a registered user.

@neighbor -- "inside the ring there will be, effectively, a museum. A museum of single-family homes, occupied by billionaires" -- think of the revenues generated by double decker buses full of tourists being served high priced cocktails while being paraded past the "billionaire museum". They do it in LA, we can do it here too. That is, if the streets are still public in PA in 2100.


Posted by Jerry
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 10, 2022 at 4:52 pm

Jerry is a registered user.

@MyFeelz You nailed that one. If I were a billionaire, I'd buy the streets and make everyone pay an $8/month fee for a blue checkmark on their license plates so they could drive on them.


Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 10, 2022 at 6:22 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

ADU’s: A speck in the mandated total and I think the number will taper off over the years and not continue at the 64 per year rate. I think people that had thought about it several years ago have already done it or the work is in progress.

I imagine many of our many renters are in support of more housing because they may think it will be an opportunity to upgrade and move to a newer apartment or that their rent won’t increase anymore, or might even go down because of the large number of new apartments being built. I can envision this hypothetical scenario: New apartments are built but because the cost of building them is so high their landlords will charge $4,000 per month for a one bedroom apartment. A renter in an older (50’s-60’s) apartment just a few blocks away is paying $2,750 per month for their one bedroom apartment. It’s not as nice as the new apartments because it’s showing signs of age but it’s all they can afford. Now the profit minded landlord of the old apartment building sees the opportunity to increase their rent because they are savvy and see what the new apartments are renting for, and they know their tenant has no place to go.

Of course CC won’t consider my crazy hypothetical scenario as a possibility unless it becomes a reality. And why should they? After all I’m not an economist.


Posted by Native to the BAY
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 10, 2022 at 6:27 pm

Native to the BAY is a registered user.

@MyFeelz And while riding in the "Grey Line" don't miss the Old Palo Alto house the Grateful Dead jammed in and most likely, lived for nearly free. And "look that is where Grace Slick grew up... And if you turn your neck ever so quickly you might see Zuckerberg being crushed by his own bodyguards while he jogs in place in front of his neighbor's trash can doing a bad imitation of the Devo arm move with those super "Big Eyes". Housing Deniers are Trump'eting tax blues as humans lose. Meantime the algorithm is "not penciling out", in real-time.


Posted by MyFeelz
a resident of JLS Middle School
on Nov 10, 2022 at 10:46 pm

MyFeelz is a registered user.

I can't help but wonder what secret behind closed door meetings the CC is having to determine the fate of Palo Alto, while we are distracted by articles like this ("this" being an article about a Fantasyland that will never be built).

@Native in the 80's I had a couple of gay friends who leased an ugly and moldy Eichler for a song, because the landlord wasn't willing to remediate his habitability issue. He foisted his problem onto an undesirable element that I'm sure he hoped would die from mold or possibly mesothelioma. I'm sure EVERYONE who owns an Eichler has, by now, had the property checked for asbestos. *cough* *cough*

Ahhh, the good old days. Now Eichlers are going for how much? We'll learn that while the bus driver recounts the story and explains the value of owning such fabulous homes. *cough*


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 11, 2022 at 7:44 am

Annette is a registered user.

@Consider Your Options: YES YES YES. Please send what you wrote to City Council, Shikada and Lait.

#Jerry: I bet you are right about the toxins and the cost of clean up. And your comment about infrastructure is frighteningly accurate; let's just hope it is not prescient.

I'm not so sure about the lawsuits, though, because they cost money and generally speaking, the side with the most money wins. Recent example: Castilleja. The neighbors didn't sue, but they did band together to "fight city hall" and we all saw how that played out. Also, Sacramento is laying the foundation to make almost anything legal.


Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 11, 2022 at 9:50 am

Allen Akin is a registered user.

@A neighbor: "I bet if the zoning for New Palo Alto allowed it, independent capital would be available to build lots of things like these [Seattle building with 17 300-sq-ft apartments built in 2016]"

I don't think so. Poor return on investment is the main problem, not zoning. Two recent similar examples come to mind: (1) Sobrato's 50-unit project at the site of Mike's Bikes, which was fully approved but dropped because cost-of-construction went up. (2) Tarlton's 36-unit project at 955 Alma, which Council supported and which even had some office space to boost profitability, but was shelved because it no longer penciled out.

Here are a couple of important quotes from the Merc's "Who Owns Silicon Valley" feature in 2019 ( Web Link ): "Today high-end apartments, renting out at $3,000 or more a month, are the only ones profitable enough for developers to build here without government assistance, according to Michael Lane, deputy director of the housing advocacy nonprofit [email protected]" "'It’s always going to be a very expensive place to live,' Sobrato said. 'We’re not going to be able to reduce the price of housing down to where it’s going to be affordable for the majority of middle income people.'" And this was in an era of record-low interest rates!

We're legally obliged to make a good-faith effort to meet the RHNA targets, even if they were designed to fail. I think the Housing Element Working Group and City Staff did an excellent job under the circumstances. The State will review the final plans and decide if they're viable. If not, I think the next steps would be to open up Stanford Research Park to more housing and to come up with a plan for 27 University. There are other possibilities, too, but we're always going to be at the mercy of the economics. That's why I believe it's time to put some financial constraints on demand to encourage growth where it's cheaper and more equitable.


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2022 at 11:16 am

resident3 is a registered user.

@Neilson Buchanan,

Thanks for the San Jose report, maybe the Weekly can use it to complement their resident economist’s views.

If I had to be creative about use of money and policy, I would prioritize filling up all housing in Palo Alto. Get tough on empty places. Use some of the City housing money to subsidize lower income families’ rents esp those who work here or have children in the schools while the long haul of building goes on.

Anyway, those buses Native and Feelz laugh about could do a dedicated tour of the investment houses, all cash purchases that don’t have any worries about interest rates or cost of money. Where ghosts stay that don’t enroll in schools or contribute to the community and are ready to buy their 2nd, 3d investment in Palo Alto.


Posted by A neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 11, 2022 at 11:39 am

A neighbor is a registered user.

@resident3 re: subsidies, I have a long list of things I'd like the city to spend money on; at the *very bottom* is "write checks to landlords."


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2022 at 1:01 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

@ neighbor,

“ at the *very bottom* is "write checks to landlords."

You subsidize heat pumps for mansions with a City preferred provider; soon maybe dinosaurs for $1 million, follow the money and sure we all have priorities. For “housing” - money ends up with a landlord no matter what you do.


Posted by A neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 11, 2022 at 1:11 pm

A neighbor is a registered user.

@resident3, if you just *change the rules* then you're not writing checks out of the taxpayer account into the landlord account. upzoning enriches property owners for sure, but it's buyers who are paying them, not taxes. it would be good to reserve tax money for things that can't be handled by the free market; say, reopening the Vasona Branch, so you can take the train to Cupertino. :-)


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 11, 2022 at 1:33 pm

Annette is a registered user.

"We're legally obliged to make a good-faith effort to meet the RHNA targets, even if they were designed to fail."

This says it all. Atlas is shrugging. Big time. A big fat bureaucratic quagmire. The harsh reality of what this means should, finally, silence praise for past Council members and mayors who pushed commercial development that was unmitigated vis-a-vis housing. Their legacy is this jobs:housing imbalance and the divisive problems attached to it.

The Working Group had an impossible task to do and that effort warrants appreciation. Now let's see how HCD responds. One piece of damage-control that should be taken is a re-evaluation of the RHNA numbers. We will still need to add housing and still need to find ways to make housing affordable in our unaffordable corner of the state, but the State should at the very least be making demands based on real demand and real need, adjusted for work from home and business departures and vacancies.


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2022 at 1:46 pm

resident3 is a registered user.

@neighbor,

“it would be good to reserve tax money for things that can't be handled by the free market; “

we got money “reserved” with the business tax, as negotiated by the business lobbyists- anything is possible.


Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 11, 2022 at 1:54 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

@Annette, I propose going a step further and cease any more time spent beyond the draft, communicate that to county and state officials and try to work with other cities to form a coalition in support of an update of the mandate numbers based on current information. City staff, CC, and our residents shouldn’t waste any more time getting all stewed up and into a food fight over it. An appeal should be made for a deadline extension of the report.


Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 11, 2022 at 2:10 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

Julie should answer why she accepted developers and outsiders campaign contributions when Allen Aiken’s post comments sink in…about accounts of developers backing away from housing projects because they didn’t ’pencil out’. Sounds like she thinks it’s okay that only market rate housing should be built because that is the only housing that stands a chance of ‘penciling out’. How can she still claim to support affordable housing? Her logic just doesn’t ‘pencil out’.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 11, 2022 at 3:39 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

"Julie should answer why she accepted developers and outsiders campaign contributions when Allen Aiken’s post comments sink in…about accounts of developers backing away from housing projects because they didn’t ’pencil out’.

Julie --and/or the media -- should also answer why she and the 2 other "great candidates" accepted / allowe4 the saturation ad campaign from known paid housing advocates. Those huge ads ran incessantly and we should be told how much they cost.


Posted by Ryan
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 11, 2022 at 11:28 pm

Ryan is a registered user.

Palo Alto actually needs LESS housing, not more. More parks, more open spaces, less pollution and overcrowding, crime and noise. We need to REDUCE housing from current levels.


Posted by Eeyore
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 12, 2022 at 2:32 pm

Eeyore is a registered user.

The other side of this equation is to remove commercial development.


Posted by SteveDabrowski
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 12, 2022 at 3:23 pm

SteveDabrowski is a registered user.

Meeting these housing goals in the downtown area will probably mean removal of numerous buildings and establishment of large blocks of apartments. Consider tearing down most of the old and inefficient Birge Clark structures like the old post office and Ramona Street eye sores so they can be replaced by new efficient blocks modeled on "The Dean" apartments on San Antonio.

What an awesome future vision that I suspect our new CC members will find compelling based on many of their campaign statements.


Posted by Bystander
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2022 at 5:15 pm

Bystander is a registered user.

I was talking with a worker from one of the high tech companies that recently announced huge layoffs. He is a shuttle driver of one of the many buses used by commuters. He has a joint meeting with bosses and other drivers on Monday with an update on what will be happening to them. If he loses his job, he will probably have to leave the area as there will be no work for him and he is too old to get other transport/bus work.

With all these layoffs, not all of them are the high tech workers although many are. But if these numbers of people are going to leave the area, and their homes become available, are we really going to need all the proposed new housing. Facebook had been planning to build its own village on campus. Google is proposing to build on its campus and also in San Jose.

Is anyone watching how many housing units are being emptied by workers laying off or people leaving the area? Is anyone looking to see if there is the same demand for housing now as there was prepandemic? Is anyone with any common sense actually making revised projections of what new housing will be needed? Are we going to end up with housing that there is no longer any demand for?


Posted by Fritzie Blue
a resident of Stanford
on Nov 14, 2022 at 1:47 am

Fritzie Blue is a registered user.

Six thousand dwellings is crazy. Who makes these absurd decisions? My guess is that they don't live next to enormous apartment houses/condo complexes.

A poster suggested tearing down Birge Clark structures. Yes, let's destroy the beautiful post office and put up a big glass box housing hundreds. It's sad to me that some don't care about the quality of life and wonderful old buildings of Palo Alto.


Posted by Jane
a resident of Ventura
on Nov 14, 2022 at 11:03 am

Jane is a registered user.

We're ignoring the main lesson from covid (and all other epidemics in the past) -- the more you pack people together, the more we spread disease around.


Posted by Consider Your Options.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 14, 2022 at 1:02 pm

Consider Your Options. is a registered user.

Thanks to Neilson for pointing me to the San Jose report. Others, if you can't read the whole 95 page report, the table on page 5 of 95 makes the problem pretty clear. I'd thought this, but having some data to understand the issues is helpful.


Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 14, 2022 at 2:42 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

Call me a rebel, rabble rousing NIMBY, or any other name you choose, but it won’t sway my feelings and thoughts on this issue. I, too, laud the efforts that went into drafting the new Housing Element report, and hopefully it will satisfy those wise wizards of number tossing In Sacramento. But, in a way it’s sad if they really believe that 6,000+ units will ever be built or that it’s even a good target number anymore. They made us work hard to prepare and file the report…now it’s time for them to get back to work to run that algorithm back through the computers, based on current information.


Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 14, 2022 at 3:11 pm

Allen Akin is a registered user.

@Consider Your Options: Yes, that table is a good summary of the report.

Not only does it show that multifamily housing development currently isn't viable in most of San José, it also confirms that building high is *more* expensive per unit than building low. I think it's important to acknowledge both of these things.


Posted by Andy
a resident of Stanford
on Nov 14, 2022 at 3:28 pm

Andy is a registered user.

For a split second, I got excited and thought the headline read:

PALO ALTO RELEASES PLAN TO ADD MORE THAN 60,000 DWELLINGS

...but then remembered we live in the land of NIMBYS so that wouldn't be possible despite a housing crisis, smart people fleeing the region and any common sense.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 14, 2022 at 7:13 pm

Annette is a registered user.

About NIMBYISM. I marvel when I see that label being bandied about, especially when it is used as an insult. Ditto YIMBYISM. Palo Alto and Stanford are both smart communities; people using these labels know that the housing issue is complicated far beyond the simplistic notion of "don't build in MY backyard" and "I WILL build in YOUR backyard." It's long past time to deep-six those terms.

Some harsh realities constrain progress on this issue. Land here is expensive. Developers expect to make a profit. Infrastructure needs are multi-faceted and, in some cases, like electricity, already at breaking point. And some resources, like water, are limited. Add to that: the data on real need and vacancies is missing. Add to that: the greatest need is for affordable housing, but that may no longer be achievable given the status of the other variables.

Few, if any, amongst us are flat out opposed to adding housing. But many want the growth to be smart, to not utterly destroy the essence of Palo Alto which includes open space and neighborhoods, to be well-planned, and, if at all possible, done in a way that benefits people with community-serving jobs. I'd also like to see a plan that ties infrastructure growth to population growth. What good does it do to add people if the community cannot properly support the growth? To drive this point home: what happens if we grow our population beyond what our sewage system can handle? Or we create so much demand on electricity that we cripple the grid that serves us? Or there's another pandemic and our hospital system is too small?

People who like to level the NIMBY accusation might see those things as ridiculous NIMBY concerns aimed at preventing growth. I think that would be a mistake. After all, whoever expected electricity in this area to be as questionable as it has become? Change and growth are inevitable, but they don't have to be dangerously under-planned.


Posted by Larry
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 16, 2022 at 7:44 pm

Larry is a registered user.

The “San Jose report” that Nielson linked for us was a real eye-opener. It shows in real numbers why it has not been possible to build housing. It is not an “IMBY” issue, nor do zoning, height limits, or even land value really matter. Instead it shows that materials + labor + financing costs have risen to the point where building housing is a MAJOR money-losing proposition at current rental rates and sales prices. The report’s Tables A and B show a *loss* of anywhere from $270K (low-rise) to $510K (high-rise) per unit, not including the cost of acquiring the land.

Using San Jose's numbers, our 6000 RHNA low-rise units would run up about $1.6 BILLION in losses - on top of the cost of acquiring the land.

It would be interesting to see a similar 'pro forma" for an office building project to see why office space is so profitable and why offices always seems necessary to make a project pencil out (and in the process worsening the housing imbalance.)


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 17, 2022 at 7:52 am

resident3 is a registered user.

@Larry,

“It would be interesting to see a similar 'pro forma" for an office building project to see why office space is so profitable and why offices always seems necessary to make a project pencil out (and in the process worsening the housing imbalance.)”

Offices are dying. They are dying around the country, maybe the Bay Area will be last to know. Offices are just as vulnerable to financing and building costs. The ABAG numbers and logic (about cities having the burden of housing for office jobs) were made up before Covid and also before the business lobbyists gave themselves a cap on business taxes in Palo Alto.

Not much about ABAG numbers made sense before Covid for Palo Alto and nothing about them makes sense now. Why even use the “imbalance” terminology when there’s nothing reasonable about them.

ABAG's housing demands for local cities are too much - Diana Diamond
Uploaded: Oct 28, 2020

Web Link


Posted by Bystander
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 17, 2022 at 7:57 am

Bystander is a registered user.

I remember reading news articles or hearing on the news about the then new office workers who were sleeping cots at the offices. It was around the time Google was having all sorts of perks for workers, medical, hair cuts, dry cleaning, childcare, etc. onsit and remember thinking that for some workers they don't really need a home around here, only somewhere to drive to for the weekend a little further away.

Now it seems that those workers are happy working from home and don't want to work in offices, but prefer the idea of living out of town and just visit their office for occasional meetings once a week or so.

Who knows what the next trend will be? But are we really building rabbit hutches for workers who don't want them?


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 17, 2022 at 8:13 am

resident3 is a registered user.

Bystander,

“Now it seems that those workers are happy working from home and don't want to work in offices, but prefer the idea of living out of town and just visit their office for occasional meetings once a week or so.

Who knows what the next trend will be? But are we really building rabbit hutches for workers who don't want them?”

The giant Amazon office building by 101 looks like a penitentiary. That can’t make people happy and burning gas to get there. The most environmentally sound solution to the Bay Area’s traffic and pollution problems has happened- work from home. What I don’t understand is why environmentalists limit parking for housing (a quality of life issue) but don’t mind office buildings which are a larger footprint.

For the occasional office visit, offices could coordinate parking but housing for families and residents need adequate parking.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 17, 2022 at 10:13 am

Annette is a registered user.

ABAG's motto must be something like "Don't Burden Me With Facts" because they surely are overlooking some obvious shifts in reality. Can someone publish the names of those who serve on ABAG? Voters should know who it is that is either not paying attention to changed circumstances or that is catering to a narrow constituency that benefits financially from decisions made.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 17, 2022 at 10:27 am

Online Name is a registered user.

Shameful that the staff last night refused to answer substantive questions at the Housing Element "hearing" last night and/or their refusal to acknowledge the reality that the jobs on which PA's housing targets are based get more erroneous by the day as more and more layoffs are announced, with the number already of tech layoffs far surpassing 100,000. (Today's layoff: 4,000 at Cisco.)

Even more ludicrous is Stanford's absurdly low number of housing units as it continues its relentless expansion throughout 2 counties.

Maybe we should all send holiday thank you cards to our past and present "leaders" who so successfully fought to make PA safe for offices and never met a development project they didn't like.


Posted by resident3
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 17, 2022 at 10:36 am

resident3 is a registered user.

@Online name,

“Maybe we should all send holiday thank you cards to our past and present "leaders" who so successfully fought to make PA safe for offices and never met a development project they didn't like.”

Or just one - to the Palo Alto Weekly for promoting their solo “economist” and council candidates who will probably march to the fuzzy math at no cost to them.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 17, 2022 at 10:56 am

Online Name is a registered user.

@resident3, absolutely!! And be sure to thank him for the saturation "Three Great Candidates" ads for which he and a few named others took credit only once before switching to the vague "Committee to Support" them without connection to "them or their campaigns."

I'm still waiting for the campaign finance disclosure on how much those ads cost. Shades of Liz Kniss; maybe by the next election.


Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 17, 2022 at 11:10 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Large article in today's SFC concerning the housing mandates in the city of SF. The CA legislative rep is Mr. Weiner who pushes housing mandates - he arrived in CA as a lawyer. The SF Board of Supervisores are saying that they cannot reach any of the goals and the Gov has removed the funding required for low cost housing. The people in large cities can see what the issues are and then push state requirements down onto the suburbs who do not have the same amount of authority to push back on unreasonable and unachievable "goals". Meanwhile Big Tech is eliminating jobs and people are leaving. Put the housing on the major highways like El Camino and leave our R-1 residential locations alone.


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

Email:


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.

 

Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 29 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away more than $9 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.

DONATE HERE