Tonight’s unanimous 6-0 vote in support of desperately needed 100% affordable housing with 25% of the units in this project for developmentally disabled is a testament to our community’s shared humanitarian values and commitment to doing our part to address the statewide housing crisis.

As one member of the public noted (the VA psychologist w/ homeless veterans patients), having a car is a luxury. But having a place to live is not. Let’s not treat this most basic need as a luxury.

I hope this project moves swiftly through ARB and Council so we can soon welcome 60+ economically diverse new neighbors

Tonight’s unanimous 6-0 vote in support of desperately needed 100% affordable housing with 25% of the units in this project for developmentally disabled is a testament to our community’s shared humanitarian values and commitment to doing our part to address the statewide housing crisis.
As one member of the public noted (the VA psychologist w/ homeless veterans patients), having a car is a luxury. But having a place to live is not. Let’s not treat this most basic need as a luxury.
I hope this project moves swiftly through ARB and Council so we can soon welcome 60+ economically diverse new neighbors

41 parking spaces for a building with 65 residential units. On a street already overflowing with cars. Neighbors with parking concerns utterly ignored. Commissioners raving that this should become a "model."

Will we be told next that our growing parking crisis is just a hoax from China designed to topple our economy? Web Link

When are we going to see a BMR project in Crescent Park or Old Palo Alto? With the extra large lots in those neighborhoods, and the zoning change, it would be a great way to add diversity to those neighborhoods.

The project is important.

There MUST be more on-site parking. 41 spaces for 65 units is silly.

Lets fix the parking problem (add a basement level parking lot?) and build this much needed project.

QUOTE: When are we going to see a BMR project in Crescent Park or Old Palo Alto? With the extra large lots in those neighborhoods, and the zoning change, it would be a great way to add diversity to those neighborhoods.


Not going to happen. To some, affluence has its privileges and certain neighborhoods are reflective of that perspective. Besides, the property/land prices would be too high for a vigorous undertaking of this kind.

It would be like asking/trying to establish affordable housing in places like Hillsborough, Atherton, Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach, Malibu etc.

While not condoning the mentality, a sense of exclusiveness is oftentimes a dominant factor when we are dealing with things like real estate & material goods.
Diversity & commonalities tend to diminish that illusion.

In these BMR developments with limited parking, for sure we should be both protecting the neighborhood from parking intrusions and thinking about how people in an area of Palo Alto not well served by public transit can get around. Some of those parking places should be reserved for car share services such as ZipCar and on-demand scooter rental such as Scoot. There should also be adequate parking for people who choose not to own cars but have electric bicycles (put charging places in the parking garage near the bike parking) and motorcycles. If we're going to under-park these developments then have to think of alternatives.

[Post removed.]

Funny how they can't increase the number of units for disabled people because they're required to have disabled people integrated into the population, not segregated in their own buildings. We used to have the same goal for low-income housing -- integration, blend in, no giant dense buildings that scream 'poor people live here' -- but we've gone full speed in the opposite direction on that one. Now we have 350 sqft apartments stuffed in there like Palo Alto misheard 'house low-income people' as 'warehouse low-income people'.

The building is as hideous on the outside as it is on the inside. ARB better clear their schedules for this one. Yikes.

Parking in this area is really difficult whenever I am trying to visit people I know who live there. Fix the parking concern and build the much needed units. But don’t build it without first making sure there is enough parking!

>> Why doesn't CC ever consider the opinions and needs of the local community, not just those of Crescent Park, Old Palo Alto and downtown. [Portion removed.]

Because Barron Park (formerly an unincorporated part of PA) and South Palo Alto (e.g. Ventura & Charleston/ECR) are considered to be the less desirable parts of town. Though RE prices throughout PA have risen dramatically, these two residential/commercial areas will always be considered the "poorer cousins' of the city.

When most outsiders think of Palo Alto, they are picturing downtown and the nicer northernmost neighborhoods. Not the areas inundated by various motels, car rental agencies and cheesy-looking high-rise hotels.

As a result, what better place than Barron park and South PA for the development and emergence of low-income housing?

Huge thanks to the PTC for getting this done. This has been a multi-year, multi-step process. First, the discussion about the Affordable Housing Overlay (which was extremely controversial at the PTC... thanks, Vice Chair Monk, Commissioners Alcheck and Riggs for your consistent support); THEN this project had to get approved. I am delighted to see unanimous approval for such an outstanding project. 100% in agreement with Sally Ann-Rudd that a full set of TDM measures (including car-shares, subsidized car and vanpooling, bike shares, and gopasses) should always be considered for buildings of this kind

I think with such a large setaside for the developmentally disabled, it’s unlikely that this project will need as much parking as a typical building.

On the other hand, PAHC does have a habit of underestimating parking needs. I hope that there will be a specific remedy promised if parking does become a problem, since the surrounding neighborhood and retail could be seriously impacted.

I also hope the neighborhood gets some kind of guarantee that this project will not be a wedge to begin creating massive developments there.

It would be a shame for such a laudable project to end up creating divisiveness. I am very glad to hear of the setaside for the developmentally disabled, and that the income range will mean it will serve an actual low-income population.

Not planning for enough parking seems to be a common thread in these PAHC developments, and was one of the major issues that killed the Maybell project. I wouldn't say this location is especially well served by public transit.

My real concern is removing the retail. This is a very retail-focused location. Having a large non-retail building in the middle of it isn't great for building a sustainable retail environment. Too bad; I'd rather see another story added or smaller setbacks instead.

Old Palo Alto/Crescent Park can support BMR units even though the land value is higher; the project just needs to have more density.

If we look at the recent parking study, no affordable housing complex even manages to get to a 1:1 unit to car ratio. They all have more cars than units. Even if the building is next to a train station, even if the building is downtown.

Here's the data for affordable housing apartments:
California Park (adjacent to Cal Ave train station): 45 units, 49 on-site spaces occupied, 19 street spaces occupied
Oak Court (near University Avenue): 53 units, 66 on-site spaces occupied, 12 street spaces occupied
Colorado Park (near Greer Park): 60 units, 78 on-site spaces occupied, 13 street spaces occupied

This building is short 25+ spaces. If you can't provide the parking, cut down the number of units. Parking spaces are equivalent to the kitchens or bathrooms of a house. People need it, people use it multiple times a day, and you don't build a housing unit without one.

Posted by Robert, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> If we look at the recent parking study,

Robert, are you referring to the April 2018 Fehr & Peers Multi-Family Parking Study? If so, it is available online here: Web Link

Another 3 story right smack dab on the side walk filling in El Camino to become a Narrow Canyon corridor..
No style, no character..

"...a model for future development", I indeed said that. I believe that Palo Alto Housing (PAH) deserves a serious credit for anchoring Wilton development in the range of 30 to 60 percent of the Santa Clara County Area Median Income (AMI). The PAH lived up to its promise to "subsidize rents to the greatest degree possible".
It needs to be reminded that PAH approached our Commission with the intent to develop housing for the 60 to 120 AMI range, targeting average 80 percent of AMI. To my great satisfaction, the PAH raised their bar to 30 to 60 AMI, the range where housing non-profits truly should be. They deserve our sincere congratulations, for abandoning easy win and raising attainment bar in competitive and demanding Palo Alto housing market.
Also, I want to recognize quiet experts behind PAH's win: Mike Pyatok and Adrianne Steichen from Pyatok Architects, competing with memorable Alma Place by Rob Quigley. We need to credit them with a share of PAH success.
The Wilton project was strongly supported with the city concession, we forgo retail space in highly desirable ElCamino. I deeply believe that concession was worth of this project.
The project offers an inadvertent opportunity to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council (CC) to take another look at the retail concession offered to 60 to 120 AMI range development in the Affordable Housing zone. As PAH proved sound margins for low income development, there is an opportunity to retain commerce for higher income developments.
Last, but not least, I want to share promise received from the PAH representative. Upon inquiry on reconciliation of parking concerns with anxious Ventura neighbors, I was assured that PAH is very interested in reaching agreement with Ventura, including additional parking stalls. I am eager to see their consensus presented to the City Council very soon.

QUOTE: Old Palo Alto/Crescent Park can support BMR units even though the land value is higher; the project just needs to have more density.

Chances are that many OPA/CP residents would challenge such a measure for a number of reasons...the addition of 'projects' styled housing would lower the prestige & perceived values of their respective neighborhoods + subsequent increases in population density & traffic/parking concerns would severely diminish the 'quality of life' perceptions of those areas.

Outside of CP, one of my favorite PA neighborhoods is Southgate near Peers Park. Though there is an affordable housing complex in Evergreen near the RR tracks @ California Avenue, to have 'projects' in Southgate would totally destroy & disrupt the tranquility of this quiet neighborhood.

Perhaps it's best to build these kinds of affordable housing projects in neighborhoods that either lack a certain character or have already been run through the wringer via commercial establishments and pre-existing gridlocks (e.g. Barron Park, South PA, San Antonio Road etc.).

There's no need to destroy what's left of Palo Alto by cramming more and more people + cars & traffic into older neighborhoods where their current residents have paid substantially more to reside.

As an example...if we were in LA, you would build these kinds of projects in El Segundo, not Manhattan Beach.

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

R. Davis, your snobbery and foolishness offer a rather compelling reason to build in Crescent Park, preferably along side your house.

While I did not agree with (or even like) Jerry99's comment, I feel that "really jerry?" has the same problem the other way. Why does Jerry have to be 'progressive'? And WHAT IS WRONG WITH DICK'S SPORTING GOODS? You slander a lot of people that you do not even know with a comment like that. Things like this (coming from 'both sides') make our fractured society worse.

@ Robert

Could you share a link to the parking survey you referenced? It makes far more sense than the parking survey linked by Anon, the April 2018 Fehr & Peers Multi-Family Parking Study which suggests every apartment complex studied has more parking than needed. I remember criticisms of the methodology when that study was released. It did not at all address residents parking in the neighborhood. The fact that parking spaces were reserved and unavailable even if empty at the time of the survey was totally not addressed by Fehr and Peers.

A friend who owns a condo in a large complex, which includes only one parking space for a two bedroom condo, has perpetual problems parking the second car owned by her partner on the street. She has been on a list to get a second spot for over 10 years, with none becoming available. When visiting, I have always found parking, but it is a struggle and frequently I have to park blocks away. Another friend owned a condo in a large complex in Mountain View. I maybe once in hundreds of visits found a spot in visitor parking. Street parking was very difficult. On some occasions, I had to give up and go home. My personal experiences visiting large complexes, especially in the evening, do not support the findings of the Fehr and Peers study.

[Posr removed.]

>...Barron Park (formerly an unincorporated part of PA) and South Palo Alto (e.g. Ventura & Charleston/ECR) are considered to be the less desirable parts of town.

That area around Charleston/Wilkie (between Alma and ECR) could stand some visual improvement. A lot of run-down residential properties.

Amazing that those houses can command prices in the $2M+ range.

Perhaps it's the best part of PA for various redevelopment projects.

The Fehr and Peers parking study was completely flawed, with a methodology guaranteed to under-count true parking demand.

1. It completely avoided counting cars parked on the street for any reason. All of the following are not counted: Work vehicles that don't fit in small spaces, residents with more cars than assigned spaces, visitors to residents that don't have visitor parking, second vehicles, unregistered or borrowed vehicles, etc.

2. By counting only the peak number of cars and not the number of unique cars, this study under-counts for any night-workers, or folks who for whatever reason had their cars parked somewhere else for an evening. Is it possible that anyone was out late working, playing, or on a date? If so, those folks were not counted.

Drive by Curtner or Ventura Ave any evening, and you will see the street is 100% parked, but there are always a few carports empty. By the flawed methodology of this "survey", these developers would say that Curtner or Ventura developments have too much parking!

>...Barron Park (formerly an unincorporated part of PA) and South Palo Alto (e.g. Ventura & Charleston/ECR) are considered to be the less desirable parts of town.

>> Perhaps it's best to build these kinds of affordable housing projects in neighborhoods that either lack a certain character or have already been run through the wringer via commercial establishments and pre-existing gridlocks (e.g. Barron Park, South PA, San Antonio Road etc.).

>>>That area around Charleston/Wilkie (between Alma and ECR) could stand some visual improvement. A lot of run-down residential properties.

Makes sense. Redevelop those specific areas and leave the rest of Palo Alto alone.
The aforementioned neighborhoods could use some improvement.

The house model of the future I would like to see for the less well off is not this approach, but housing cooperatives. Each resident owns their own cooperative unit. Maybe larger non ownership buildings with built in frustrations like parking will still work out in a prestigious location like Palo Alto. I think it is taking a unnecessary chances, facilitating cooperative ownerships is better. Housing cooperatives proved effective in NYC.

Posted by Marie, a resident of Midtown

>> @ Robert -- Could you share a link to the parking survey you referenced? It makes far more sense than the parking survey linked by Anon

That was the only recent survey that I could locate online. I believe that is the survey that several CC folks have mentioned. I'm not endorsing it. I was hoping to figure out where the data Robert referenced came from.


Posted by Anon, a resident of Ventura

>> The Fehr and Peers parking study was completely flawed, with a methodology guaranteed to under-count true parking demand.

A different Anon, not me. Anon: Where is the other parking survey that you allude to? Is it the same as what Robert used in the previous post? Is it available online? I agree with your comment regarding Curtner/Ventura/Park area.

Curious. What constitutes affordable rent in Palo Alto nowadays?

Let's see some actual figures...for a studio, 1-2 BR apartment etc.

This project will obviously be irrelevant to those whose salaries and wages are below a certain level.

There's an updated study the PTC was looking at for the housing work plan. It's in the PTC packet for August 29th.

Web Link

The parking study is towards the middle of the packet. The demand numbers are on page 21 of the parking study, page 68 of the packet.

The executive summary of the study suggests parking supply

Affordable Housing:
- 1.0 parking space per studio and per-bedroom unit
- 2.0 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit

I'm not sure why this proposal is being entertained with fewer than 1 space per unit. The City's own study is telling them they need 1 space per studio unit. I see people arguing the study underestimated, I don't see people arguing the study over-counted cars. It's senior housing that has 0.75 spaces per unit. Is this complex going to be 100% senior housing?

Why does everyone want to live in Palo Alto? Even the transients in their ratty-looking RVs seem to target PA as a final destination and geographic aspiration.

Is there some special allure that makes this city a mecca of sorts?

"Is there some special allure that makes this city a mecca of sorts?"

The inexplicable fickle whims of fashion.

It’s the babes!

Posted by ps, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> I'm not sure why this proposal is being entertained with fewer than 1 space per unit. The City's own study is telling them they need 1 space per studio unit. I see people arguing the study underestimated, I don't see people arguing the study over-counted cars. It's senior housing that has 0.75 spaces per unit. Is this complex going to be 100% senior housing?

They do seem to think that it will more similar to senior housing wrt parking demand. If they guess wrong, what is the recourse for the neighbors?

QUOTE: Is there some special allure that makes this city a mecca of sorts?
QUOTE: It’s the babes!

Sorry pal but you need to get your eyes checked. *L*

This is PA not Zuma Beach/Malibu.

Wow!!! Thanks ps@ for linking to the new study!

The survey consultant, Fehr & Peers, interviewed a total of seven (7) people!!! And those seven were all interviewed at the most walkable complex surveyed (The Marc in downtown). And guess what question they did not ask in the survey? They didn't ask if any of these people parked on the street. What a complete mess.

That's their answer to residents' and the city's request for more data. Haha! The jokes on us. This survey is yet another attempt to pretend we don't have a parking problem while approving new developer-profit-friendly units, at neighborhoods' expense. Unbelievable.

----
To make it easier for people to find (the survey is buried tens of pages deep), search for "Resident Intercept Surveys" in the link. Quote from the survey:
1/ "Seven residents (four female and three male) agreed to be interviewed. Overall, residents feel like the parking supply at The Marc is about right"
Comment: Why not ask if they, or their guests ever park on the street?

Wow—Palo Alto really needs to get going on this issue. I’m always surprised by how expensive the homes are there (I.e. 4 mil for a 3 bd home). It’s just gotten ridiculous.

>>>Why does everyone want to live in Palo Alto? Even the transients in their ratty-looking RVs seem to target PA as a final destination and geographic aspiration.

Does a hermit crab not wish to live by the sea?

Posted by PA Zen Man, a resident of Southgate

>> >>>Why does everyone want to live in Palo Alto? Even the transients in their ratty-looking RVs seem to target PA as a final destination and geographic aspiration.

>> Does a hermit crab not wish to live by the sea?

A ratty RV,
The space on El Camino,
Avocado toast!

^ Aah, setting Palo Alto to poetry. That special allure of our fine city.

We need more affordable housing for families with school aged children.

Why isn’t Palo Alto doing more to combat this problem????

QUOTE: Why isn’t Palo Alto doing more to combat this problem????

There are two sides to the coin...overdevelopment to accommodate new residents & low-income housing,

VS

...restricted development to minimalize over congestion & gridlock.