The Palo Alto City Council celebrated a rare and tiny victory on the housing front last week when members unanimously supported a proposed development with seven condominiums at a property that once housed Pizz'a Chicago.
The Palo Alto City Council unanimously approved on Dec. 16 a tentative map for the project at 4115 El Camino Real, a 0.36-acre parcel on a triangular property bracketed by El Camino Way. The three-story building would have retail space on the ground floor and an office on the second floor. It will also feature four residential condominiums on the second floor and three on the third. One of the seven units will be offered below market rate.
For the applicant, Bill Wu, the Dec. 16 vote was the final step in a lengthy approval process that has also included public hearings and approvals from the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission.
The council, which has fallen well short of meeting its goal of producing 300 new housing units per year, welcomed the opportunity to add seven condominiums to the city's housing stock. Prior to this project, the only multifamily complex it has approved this year was a 57-unit apartment building for low-income residents and adults with disabilities.
The approved 16,726-square-foot building will include 47 parking spaces, of which 24 will be allocated for retail use. Some of these spaces will be provided by mechanical lifts that will vertically stack cars in the garage.
The only point of concern came from Councilwoman Alison Cormack, who noted the busy traffic conditions in the area, which includes a T-intersection and a nearby Goodwill store. Construction logistics will be important, she said.
"There's tons of kids riding their bikes to school and that Goodwill lot is full of Marie Kondo devotees," Cormack said, citing the bestselling author who famously champions abolishing objects that don't give their owners joy.
While council members acknowledged that the number of housing units in this project is relatively small, they were happy to support the project. Councilwoman Liz Kniss said it's "wonderful" to be voting on a project that includes housing, even if the development also has an office component.
"We are not voting on enough housing," Kniss said. "I'm delighted to support it."
Councilwoman Lydia Kou was slightly less enthusiastic and suggested that the project, thanks to its commercial component, will actually worsen the city's jobs-to-housing imbalance. Even so, she supported the building. Vice Mayor Adrian Fine, the council's most vocal housing advocate, disagreed with Kou's assessment.
"We are getting one unit of BMR (below-market-rate) and a few other units of housing," Fine said. "I think, on the whole, that's a good balance for us."
Comments
Barron Park
on Dec 23, 2019 at 7:03 pm
on Dec 23, 2019 at 7:03 pm
No Surprise, Have to stuff as many people as we can into three story tall Condos smack Dab on the sidewalk on el Camino..
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 23, 2019 at 8:38 pm
on Dec 23, 2019 at 8:38 pm
Poor Lydia. It must have been so hard for her to vote yes. Though she did make her negative comments known. Karen will be upset.
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2019 at 8:44 pm
Registered user
on Dec 23, 2019 at 8:44 pm
I'm curious how much office space is being built (how many employees and contractors), and if the 7 units of housing is enough. If not, Lydia is right, we just made our housing problem worse.
Palo Verde
on Dec 23, 2019 at 9:10 pm
on Dec 23, 2019 at 9:10 pm
"Triangular property" looks more quadrilateral to me. :)
Downtown North
on Dec 24, 2019 at 4:04 am
on Dec 24, 2019 at 4:04 am
So sad to see places I enjoyed riding my bike to growing up in this town vaporize when it was a regular town. No parking lots allowed as we can build out to the edges and add stories.. look what happened to the San Antonio Center!! I am grateful to have grown up in Palo Alto before it became the embarrassment it is now. I feel sorry for kids today that can’t enjoy K-12 where homework wasn’t shoved down our throats and we had fun when life should be fun. Now we have snob elites causing what was unimaginable in my day and blamed on mental illness. Who is buying that b.s.? Dirty little secret that’s no longer a secret. I am divorced and my son goes to school not in the town where my property taxes are based on 1970’s values. Who would have thought I am getting away from this shell of a family friendly town as soon as I can maximize my profit selling a 100k townhome for 2 million. Sorry you missed out on the generation that is mocked by the computer addicted youth of today. No one can take my memories from me when Palo Alto was a gem.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 24, 2019 at 4:58 am
Registered user
on Dec 24, 2019 at 4:58 am
"Councilwoman Lydia Kou was slightly less enthusiastic and suggested that the project, thanks to its commercial component, will actually worsen the city's jobs-to-housing imbalance. Even so, she supported the building. Vice Mayor Adrian Fine, the council's most vocal housing advocate, disagreed with Kou's assessment.
"We are getting one unit of BMR (below-market-rate) and a few other units of housing," Fine said. "I think, on the whole, that's a good balance for us."
How special there's going to be one whole BMR residence after the pro-development cc members voted to destroy the President Hotel and let all those BMR folks be evicted. And thank heavens there's going to be more office space and more commuters and more congestion.
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 24, 2019 at 10:41 am
on Dec 24, 2019 at 10:41 am
A drop in the bucket. Don’t pat yourselves on the back too much.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 24, 2019 at 11:05 am
on Dec 24, 2019 at 11:05 am
>> Councilwoman Lydia Kou was slightly less enthusiastic and suggested that the project, thanks to its commercial component, will actually worsen the city's jobs-to-housing imbalance.
It isn't a "victory" for housing if it makes the jobs/housing imbalance worse.
>> Even so, she supported the building. Vice Mayor Adrian Fine, the council's most vocal housing advocate, disagreed with Kou's assessment. "We are getting one unit of BMR (below-market-rate) and a few other units of housing," Fine said. "I think, on the whole, that's a good balance for us."
A duplicitous response from Fine once again, attempting to deflect from the obvious fact that this development will make the jobs/housing imbalance worse.
Look, I understand. The developers are winning. Just don't try to tell us that it is a victory for housing. Not even a tiny victory.
Barron Park
on Dec 24, 2019 at 2:12 pm
on Dec 24, 2019 at 2:12 pm
@Anon -- Re: "A duplicitous response from Fine once again, attempting to deflect from the obvious fact that this development will make the jobs/housing imbalance worse."
Did you get a math education in Palo Alto?
As long as the jobs/housing ratio in the new development is better than the jobs/housing ratio existing in the city currently it will improve the overall ratio. In concrete terms, we're currently at 3.54 jobs/housing unit, if we add 7 housing units and fewer than 24 jobs we're improving the ratio... not as much as if you had all housing and no jobs created, but still progress.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 24, 2019 at 6:10 pm
Registered user
on Dec 24, 2019 at 6:10 pm
I'm not too great at math but it's a 3-story building and only 1 story is residential.
One story is offices and one is for retail with the retail presumably employing more workers.
Also, 7 residences with 2 people each = 14 people vs 24 workers which doesn't help the jobs/housing imbalance or the traffic or the parking problems.
College Terrace
on Dec 24, 2019 at 6:25 pm
on Dec 24, 2019 at 6:25 pm
This is such a travesty for Palo Alto. The whole project should be BMR housing or even less. Perhaps a deed restricted housing project for our teachers, law enforcement people, workers for the City, people who are ostensibly homeless but working and raising families. Step up to demanding that the City do the right thing. Yes, it means spending money on property for this type of development. Then you can call this a winning project.
Downtown North
on Dec 24, 2019 at 8:49 pm
on Dec 24, 2019 at 8:49 pm
Any number of new jobs is a bad idea for Palo Alto (given our jobs/housing imbalance) and for the area as a whole. No city should be able to add more job space if they don't have enough housing. This is what led to the massive overpopulation, traffic, pollution and housing issues that we face.
The article does not report the square footage of the office or retail parts of the building, but it does state the overall building is 16,726-square-feet. As a rough estimate, dividing by the 3 stories gives 5575 sq feet per floor and if each worker on the one floor of office space takes up 200 sq feet that is about 28 office workers plus a few more for the retail space.
The seven units provided are therefore a complete disaster when it comes to fixing the problem that is our human legacy to this area. We are the problem and we (along with elected "growther" city council members) keep making it worse.
Next election let's hope we see some intelligent, anti- growth, anti-overpopulation candidates and let's hope they get elected.
Crescent Park
on Dec 25, 2019 at 1:24 pm
on Dec 25, 2019 at 1:24 pm
The plans show 2,932 sq. ft. of office. It's common nowadays to have less than 200 sq. ft. of office space for each employee, which means there will be 15 or more workers in the office space, plus some more in the retail part. So this definitely makes our housing shortage worse.
A comment above claims that as long as this lowers our jobs/housing ratio by a smidge, it is a good thing. That's like saying that if you are in a truck at high speed driving off a cliff, it helps to slow down a tad. No! You should instead slam on the brakes. And then turn around.
That comment also did the math wrong. If a new project has a jobs/housing imbalance of say 3.4 instead of say the current average of 3.5, it isn't "better" in any real world sense. If we keep building new projects at 3.4, our housing shortage will still get worse because we'll keep adding far more jobs without housing and have more workers unable to find or afford a place to live. A 3.4 ratio doesn't stop us from creating millions of more jobs without housing – it just it might take a tiny bit longer.
The solution for our jobs/housing imbalance is not to lower the ratio a smidge, it's to turn around completely. No new offices should be built in Palo Alto until housing catches up. Why the pro-growth members of our City Council and our state legislature aren't willing to do this demonstrates how cozy they've gotten with developers and how little they care about the public.
Midtown
on Dec 26, 2019 at 8:27 am
on Dec 26, 2019 at 8:27 am
So...ground floor retail, one floor of office, and a few condos.
Take a look around town and carefully catalog ground floor retail.
All we will get is either a gym (yoga/palates/xFit/training) or a nail salon.
Retail is dead. Please, drop the office to the first floor and then add a few more residential units.
Desiring every project to have a viable ground floor retail component is a pipe dream. The property next door just lost its very busy Starbucks Coffee.
Sad to see it go, but as long as we prefer Amazon shopping to actual bricks and mortar, viable retail will be a pipe dream.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2019 at 4:26 pm
on Dec 26, 2019 at 4:26 pm
Posted by Retail is DEAD, a resident of Midtown
Retail isn't "DEAD", it just requires lower rent than what developers can get for office space. Housing isn't "DEAD" either -- it just requires lower rent than what developers can get for office space. We need to downzone. No more office space. Eventually housing and retail will be back in balance. We have way too much office space now.
>> Retail is dead. Please, drop the office to the first floor and then add a few more residential units.
How about we build pure residential instead? No more office space!
>> Desiring every project to have a viable ground floor retail component is a pipe dream. The property next door just lost its very busy Starbucks Coffee.
Zoning that requires retail is OK. Just zone so we have no more office space. Don't want it, don't need it.
-No more office space.-
Los Altos
on Feb 1, 2020 at 8:22 am
on Feb 1, 2020 at 8:22 am
How stupid are they adding more office and retail workers than housing units then claiming to help the housing problem?
It is insulting they think we believe this nonsense!
Be honest and admit it is a money grab and the city goes along to get money (taxes) to keep paying the huge pension obligation without having to build schools for the relatively wealthy buyers who can afford these new units.