How can this be called affordable low income family accommodation when they are studios and one bedroom units?

How many people do they expect to live in a studio or one bedroom unit?

And dare I ask about parking?

Fine, Kniss, and Scharff will not go along with 60 percent of median income. They want housing for single tech workers making over $110,000. Afterall, they are our future, yes?

Fine tries to argue that 120% of median income is affordable housing. Wow.

@resident -as the article states, there will be 50 parking spaces (so underparked for 58 units). Palo Alto Housing generally allows two people per bedroom, plus one so I'm assuming that the studios would be limited to two people, the one bedrooms to three people.

Prime location for alternative transit. Wonderful proposal!! Please include compact efficiencies such as plenty of covered bike lock-ups. I also suggest each studio/one bedroom be provided one small onsite easily accessed storage locker for needed and necessary seasonal and utility items. Very excited about this project. I truly hope it gets accomplished. Sorely needed here!

At 2-3 occupants per unit they realistically need at least 122-183 parking spaces, plus a proper allowance for the business tenants. It would help greatly if the project included a grocery/pharmacy instead of offices.

I hadn't even gotten down to the Comments section but already had the same questions in mind, from just reading the article, that 'Resident' raised. And just what is 60% of AMI currently? I think of studio apartments as being for one person. Maybe two, if they are young newlyweds, or just young cuddly partners. When my wife and I were newlyweds, and college students, we rented a studio apartment with a pull down 'Murphy' bed. It worked out okay, just okay, but we were dying to graduate, get jobs, and be able to afford at least a 1 bedroom apartment, preferably a 2 bedroom apartment. Is that what these studios will be like? Assuming two people will live in the studios, will two people earning minimum wages be able to afford the rent that will be charged. We haven't heard anything about that part of the equation.

Now on the general subject of affordable housing:

I think it's time to retire that old worn out story about the Maybell Ave project. Archive that one. A lot of people don't even remember it, and most of those who do, just don care or think it's relevant anymore.

My guess is that there are so many hurdles left to get this new proposed project approved and launched by the end of the year that the odds are against that happening.

So, I have to turn it back to, and on, CC, the ones who approved the Comprehensive Plan, and the fantasy goal set of building 300 units a year until 2030. Shame on you...for approving that. There was no indication...plans already developed/approved or ones on the drawing boards...that gave that goal a chance of being met. I hope our residents see through that charade and don't vote for candidates based on what they promise. We're one year into this fantasy and are way behind. Playing 'catch-up' from behind is a very difficult task. Let's wait for this year's crop of CC candidates to explain how they propose to do it.

Seems like a very suitable project.
In my experience, a studio is for one person and a one bedroom unit is for one-two persons. Do not permit cramming of four persons in order to get kids into Palo Alto public schools. Reasonable, safe occupancy guidelines must be enforced. Abuse of taxpayers who pay high property tax is unacceptable.

ADU's aren't going to do it...get the job done...won't help one iota in solving our housing situation...and whatever happened to all the downtown high density development ideas that would cure our housing problems and reduce rental rates at the same time? High density, under parked apartments with micro units? I haven't heard that term, 'micro-units' used in a long time. Some things just don't catch on...especially with claustrophobic people.

"Prime location for alternative transit"

I live in Barron Park, not far from this intersection. How is this a prime location for alternative transit (and what does that mean)? Sure, there is the 22/522 bus, which is helpful if you are going up and down El Camino and not in a hurry. It's over a mile on foot to the Cal Ave train station - do you think people will walk there? There's no supermarket or drug store in walking distance - Mollie Stones is over a mile (if you can afford it); Safeway is 2 miles.

I can't figure how people living here won't want/need cars, just to live. I live basically across the street and we need one car per adult. 50 cars spaces for maybe 100 adult residents? How is that supposed to work?

To Resident and Anonymous, above:

Small places can accommodate more people than you think. The reasons may vary - people are modest and don't mind close personal space, or want to save money.
For example, there are small studios near me.
[Portion removed.]

I believe they have reserved a certain percentage of the units for adults with developmental disabilities who are able to live independently but don’t drive nor require caregivers.

It would be great to limit through traffic on Wilton especially since the popular restaurant on the corner doesn’t have enough parking so their customers park on Wilton. I suggest a one way barricade on Wilton (east of the alley) to allow neighbors to access El Camino but prevent cut through traffic down Wilton (similar to the one at Park and Chestnut).

This is a fantastic project in the right location. I'm so glad that Palo Alto Housing is finally developing affordable housing locally again, after the body blow of Maybelle. THANK YOU Council and PAH!

Dream on. A review is one thing...actualization another.

How does one define 'affordable' in an affluent city like Palo Alto?

> "Fine, Kniss, and Scharff will not go along with 60 percent of median income. They want housing for single tech workers making over $110,000. Afterall, they are our future, yes?"

Of course...to them, the 'extreme' lower end of the socio-economic scale in PA can live & commute from elsewhere. The aforementioned city leaders have no sense of reality. They are simply offering 'lip service' to perpetuate their ostensible/self-serving/self-proclaimed personas of actually caring about this critical housing scenario & those who it impacts the most (i.e. the lower-middle & working classes).

Shouldn't come as any big surprise.

@Eric Rosenblum, Downtown North - I do find people often see great appeal in "special projects" in neighborhoods far from their own (Maybell was similar). What do you say to the neighbors who worry about traffic and parking from such an under-parked building? (BTW, I'm across El Camino, so I don't think I will personally be affected.) Do you think there are sites in DT North for this project?

The Ventura residents will probably have to end up paying the cost for a parking permit to be able to park near their homes since the El Camino section of Baron Park, with it's low buildings is likely being eyed by developers for much higher density 3 or 4 story buildings, as is the case around California Avenue.

"What do you say to the neighbors who worry about traffic and parking from such an under-parked building?"

Most proponents of these proposals say they're NIMBYs. I say they're rightfully concerned citizens.


"Do you think there are sites in DT North for this project?"

Why not come over and look around? Don't expect others to do your homework.

I count at least 30 RVs parked along El Camino from Stanford to my home in BP, which house the working class. Now we have a reasonable housing proposal to replace a run-down commercial building, and everyone is up in arms. SMFH

PA Forward president Eric Rosenblum thinks a seriously underparked building in someone else's neighborhood is 'fantastic.'
I don't doubt that the PAFs will come out in lockstep supporting it too.
As will his former colleagues at Palantir.

As usual, too tall, not enough parking, didn't retain ground floor retail. And it will add to the traffic mess we already have, the glut of people using city services that we already have, the overcrowded schools, parks and playing fields.

When does it stop? When are we officially "overcrowded"? Do we not care about the environment and exceeding a reasonable carrying capacity in terms of resource usage? Do we not care about the quality of life of current Palo Alto residents who are being abused with all of the increased population and sunlight blocking density?

Vote in the upcoming city council election for candidate who want to keep a lid on growth. Although it doesn't look like there are any real slow growth candidates these days. Maybe some will still run!

> I'm so glad that Palo Alto Housing is finally developing affordable housing locally again, after the body blow of Maybelle

Maybell, not Maybelle.

The story brings up an interesting dynamic that accompanies projects from PAH. The accompanying photograph shows the small commercial structure that currently occupies the space. The visual impression is that the PAH project will replace an aging building at El Camino and Wilton.

But, the proposed development is about 3 times larger, extending from El Camino to the alley and from Wilton down mid-block to Curtner, including the Euromart. PAH's rendering shows the resident friendly view, but doesn't depict the menacing facade on El Camino that will offer no amenities to the neighborhood.

I don't think folks in the neighborhood realize how big this development will be.

"I don't think folks in the neighborhood realize how big this development will be."

That is by design. The rendering shows the proposed project as a high flying bird would see it, not as humans on the ground will behold it, and it completely omits the neighborhood context. It's a common method of architectural deception which unschooled groups like planning commissions and city councils fall for every time.

The Santa Clara County plan for true BMR housing seems to be RVs. At least with those accommodations there must be a ratio of one parking spot per unit.

Unless you can force restrictions, families will live in the studios, so they can send their kids to PAUSD.

@AP - Palo Alto Housing limits the residents of a studio to 2 people and 1 bedroom units to three people. Whether they enforce that once people live there I don't know.

Three words:

"Parking, parking, parking."

If the folks living in this nice development give up the right to park on Wilton and other nearby neighborhood streets, then I have no objection. Well, no objection in general. If the facade has corrugated metal on it like the new Mitchell Park Library and the Hohbach memorial building on Park, then, I object on architectural grounds.

It is important to remember that these projects under Palo Alto Housing PAY NO PROPERTY TAX!

So the costs of educating the 50+ kids undoubtedly moving into this building, providing police/fire/libraries/roads/etc all fall onto us, the legitimate property owners of Palo Alto.

This is unsustainable.

to @curious neighbor, who wrote "@Eric Rosenblum, Downtown North - I do find people often see great appeal in "special projects" in neighborhoods far from their own (Maybell was similar). What do you say to the neighbors who worry about traffic and parking from such an under-parked building? (BTW, I'm across El Camino, so I don't think I will personally be affected.) Do you think there are sites in DT North for this project?"

YES... there are a lot of sites for such a project. We have at least one such project already (in that there is minimal parking and high density)-- The President Hotel, which abuts my neighborhood. I personally love the President Hotel, and am glad that such a housing project exists nearby.

I think that Downtown North has other potential for this sort of project, because it is so conveniently located to caltrain, services, retail etc. The site that used to be the North Face, but which has been abandoned for a couple of years would be a perfect site for fairly dense, car-light housing.

Water ?

Palo Alto median income is about $161K, which means people or families with an income of $98K or less would qualify to live in the development. That encompasses a great number of people who work in the area.