Why can't we allow both organizations to build on different lots? I don't see why the city needs to only select one developer. Really liking some of Randy Tsuda's comments about synergies and coming off of the Wilton Court project, the wind is definitely in Alta Housing's sails. That said, the businesses, residents and visitors may need more downtown parking in the future as density increases significantly so we should leave some sites for future multi-story parking lots in case we need them.

Another reason not to go downtown. I'm sure our retail consultants can get a few more assignments to consider why shopping and foot traffic are down.

Why not convert all the empty office space into housing and leave parking lots as parking lots.

Will accomodations also be made for the homeless population, many of whom are suffering from substance abuse and/or mental health issues?

Palo Alto has lost the plot.

So many unused buildings, with parking right there next to it. Do the math. Convert empty office buildings into housing. Adapt. Use what's already there. It costs MILLIONS to break new ground to build new 400 square feet per tenant closets. It would cost a FRACTION of that, to convert what's already there.

There's already electric and plumbing and walls and a roof.

Who sang this song....

"Pave paradise, put up a parking lot."

Then years later, bulldoze the parking lot, create housing.

How idiotic is this?

Why are they not teaching seniors how to ride bicycles? Why are they not offering to give $1000 bicycles as part of the bargain, since the residents will have to sacrifice transportation over having housing? Where are all of the accessible grocery stores, pharmacies, doctor's offices and hardware stores for people young or old to buy things they need to live every day?

The real "wild card" is how much the surveyors and architects and urban planners and the developers are going to bite the apple until there's nothing left but the core for low income residents? By the way, 80% of Santa Clara County median income overall is less than Palo Alto median income. So how about we start looking at reality, instead of paying for more pie-in-the-sky crazy plans like turning parking lots into housing? PSSSSSSST: They're already doing it in other locales. They call them tent cities. The most a city, county or state should be kicking in is for the equivalent of a tarp overhead.

More $tudies will be required for the$e multiple plan$.

Re: "A housing development at Lot C could be particularly well-suited for senior apartments because of the site's location next to Avenidas, Palo Alto's primary senior-services nonprofit"

Many/most of the seniors using Avenidas' services park at that very lot. The proposal suggested in the story to not keep parking at the Lot C location, but instead to provide it elsewhere in the city, will not work for those folks. Keep parking available near Avenidas!

Housing needs to be built in Stanford Research Park. Stanford needs to be transparent about leases in its Research Park. The city needs to keep the pressure on to see these leases. As Stanford has had many serious problems including the recent scandal where the university’s president stepped down it is high time to step up and build housing. Do it because it is needed and lessen the impact of commuter traffic. Stanford would get much needed points because it is the RIGHT thing to do. The trustees care about optics and want to improve their bruised image.

Stanford fell short when no housing was built after agreeing to do so when the hospital was built. Stanford has built ONE below market rate housing but that was conditional to the Palo Alto development agreement called Mayfield. Many argue that these BMR apartments are substandard with indifferent property managers and neglect with regard to repairs etc. University Terrace housing is for staff and faculty and is NOT affordable housing. This housing is not substandard. So build housing in Research Park and leave parking lots alone in downtown Palo Alto.

Has converting empty office buildings even been discussed?
Removing parking will make it more difficult for seniors and disabled to navigate town. Access Avenidas.
Seems like all the new developments really cater to higher income with only a ‘token” low income tenant or two.

SU has built a second campus in RWC in what was a large, commercial building. There is a huge apartment called the Cardinal across from the shopping center at Sequoia Station. They have a hospital near 101. SU was worked the math and are investing in locations that have existing underpinnings for electricity, sewage, water. If they build on land that does not have these elements already there then a large amount of money will be spent on creating the underpinnings - a working utility system.

Focus on empty office buildings that already have the utility features developed. Parking lots will be start from scratch on the utility systems and not really benefit the business base of the city downtown. Again you create people roaming the residential neighborhoods looking to park, getting frustrated, and leaving.

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

Beware of any article that uses the two terms "affordable housing" and "below market rate housing" interchangeably. "Below market rate housing" is not always 'affordable' for many teachers, nurses, etc, and certainly not for retail service workers. Spelling out what "affordable' means is very important. Also, please note that lower income workers who do shift work or or work multiple jobs are dependent on their cars to get to work and thus need parking. Others, who might be able to walk or bike or take the north-south train to work, will still need to own a car for many purposes. Like it or not, these cars will have to go somewhere. I applaud the effort to be creative and to focus on truly affordable housing. Just be accurate and precise in the reporting and realistic in the planning.

Palo Alto should join other cities in suing the California State Department of Housing and Community Development to keep them out of the local housing decision making process. This is why we elect a City Council for better or worse. Low income housing must first be built adjacent to each California state representatives property beginning with Senator Scott Wiener. The we can have a discussion.
• I know little about Alto but am distrustful of Non-profits as the name is generally a misnomer. Some Non-profits make significant money so they can pay people like Tsuda and staff.
• The City and County have wasted millions of dollars on the Buena Vista trailer park and it will continue to drain funds until it is sold off. Will this be the norm for these projects?
• A Revenue Bond has to achieve sufficient cash flow to pay the principal + interest +fees. The rating this bond will receive is dependent on the income of the people the project admits and their ability to pay their rent without government contributions.
• “Affordable housing” that is built in Palo Alto should be designated for PAUSD school teachers, PA Police PA Fire Department, PA city workers, healthcare workers and our young people graduating from their university studies.
• If mentally challenged people are included in this housing, where will the doctors and nurses live that must engage with them on a daily basis?
• Eliminate the parking to build upon? That will be the end of the University Ave downtown area as a via commercial center. PA PD officers advise me to not park in the garage under city hall in the evening as it is not safe. Separate from the narrative, one must remember this is California with an inadequate mass transit system in most places.

Converting empty office buildings to housing is very expensive, certainly more expensive than building on a city parking lot. There might be a small number of office buildings that could be convered feasibly. There are plenty of smaller, older commercial buildings for which it would be feasible to tear them down and replace with multi-story housing. In fact, many of the sites in the Housing Element are like that.

Parking lots are the only remaining "open space" that is not looming and oppressive when one goes downtown (which I rarely do anymore). The call to house all of the drug addicts, mentally unstable people, alcoholics and people who can't seem to thrive in society, in one of the most expensive places in the state, is ridiculous. There are costs and trade offs to everything that the government wants to do.

Since money really is finite, if you encourage spending money on this effort, that is less funding to help with early childhood education, helping the WORKING poor, or upgrading the power grid and trying to turn the tide on global climate change. Where do you want your dollars spent?

Think about it and tell the city to drop this obsessions with the these people and spend the money where it will help more of society. Educate some kids, fix the creek, upgrade the power grid, add more solar panels to very city building. That is what I want from a city council - to look at the funds available and spend them for the good of the society they represent, not to spend them on people that will never give back or be a part of that society.

TMP,

How many tens of millions of Dollars do you expect the city to spend on legal fees to tilting at these windmills you are talking about?

Sincere question here - what legal authority does ABAG have, if any? It was my understanding years ago that the Association of Bay Area Governments was akin to a Chamber of Commerce, not a legislative body. Is "membership" voluntary? Who are the members who arbitrarily demand that communities build more housing, even disrupting legal zoning restrictions, such as R-1 for residential single family housing. With all the ADUs being built & rented out, R-1 zoning, where many of us chose to purchase our homes isn't valid anymore.
Sidenote: Santa Barbara was instructed long ago to build more houses but the Town simply capped the number of muni water permits. Only way to build was to buy an old house to get the water hook-up. Smart.

I fail to see why Palo Alto should remove small municipal parking lots and erect more below market housing. Why should this be shoehorned in here? There’s tremendous space for this in the city of San Jose.

per ABAG

In some cases, ABAG has the authority to enact certain legislation on behalf of the Bay Area, for example the state-mandated Regional Housing Need Allocation, or RHNA. We also operate as the state-designated clearinghouse for federal grant applications.

The key words here are "pitch". The other key word is "non-profit". Note that taking a cement garage structure down is a massive effort that will not be performed by the non-profit - they will subcontract that effort out. They will also subcontract out the electrical, utility connections, building labor, etc. Those organizations are not non-profits. This is more of a marketing attempt to use a special type of funding and avoid a competitive bid - required for any construction project.

Very glad to see 80% or less of median SC county income included as a residency requirement, rather than the standard 80-120% (found in our other local inappropriately-scaled projects). Also, if "workforce" people [employees of the city of Palo Alto or the Palo Alto Unified School District] are making less than the median income it doesn't necessarily equate with their being "drug addicts, mentally unstable people, alcoholics and people who can't seem to thrive in society." Granted, some of them might be driven to those vices by serving our public, but we should show a bit of gratitude nevertheless!

Converting what is already built but unused makes sense, at least in theory. Fred of University South, says that it is "very expensive". Fred also uses "we" when referring to ABAG, so maybe he has access to information about housing construction and conversion. I think the topic should be explored more b/c if a property owner is open to making the conversion (could the State, County, and City provide some incentives for that?) it would be helpful to know how the expense compares to building anew. Conversion would, I assume, be better for the environment.

I walked downtown yesterday and the thing that stands out most is the number of vacancies. Downtown retail options are narrowing and since dining is costly, it is not likely that existing restaurants are going to be frequented by people who are in the low income bracket, no matter where they live. Is there a "downtown plan" that considers all these things? The current built environment, diminishing retail, and mix of businesses suggests that if there is a well-reasoned plan, it is not being followed. Or has been abandoned altogether. Chop Keenan, who successfully sued the City over parking, might offer some opinions on this.

Yet non-profits want to build affordable housing on downtown parking lot space. It's baffling to see how this all fits together. Perhaps Fred. Stephen Levy, Ed Shikada, or Jonathan Lait can explain how a city that is too expensive for retail is affordable for low-income housing.

Happy to help Annette. The city is donating the land, which reduces the cost. Good move by the city. The non-profit developers like Alta will raise the rest of the funds from traditional sources.
The city’s economic development consultant has made recommendations relevant to your questions. They conclude that downtown has too much retail given the loss of customers from WFH and growth in online shopping and competition from T&C and SSC.
They recommend revisiting the retail ordinances, making it easier to fill vacant spaces and building more housing DTN and near CAL Ave.
A DTN plan is a good idea but will be hard to pull off with fragmented ownership and the desire to have more retail than is viable.
From my experience I walk DTN every day as I live there the restaurants are filling up though their labor and food costs and prices are way up.
Conversion is expensive and only possible very selectively. Some cities like CALGARY and Philadelphia have put city money in as incentives to help their downtowns become more viable in a WFH world.

And of course to help local businesses we would want housing for affluent residents as well as BMR housing.

Thank you, Stephen Levy. Your 2nd comment prompts this reply: no problem! We have housing for the affluent and proposals for more. I see Palo Alto morphing into one that is best suited, if not exclusively suited, for upper income people. California is an expensive state to live in and choosing to live in a community like ours compounds the cost of living. Housing costs are probably the highest expense everyone has, but we all know that there are myriad other monthly expenses that claim chunks of every paycheck. Affordability is among the many things changed by tech and the money associated with it. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. Enter Progressive Politics. Smart as we think we are, we've managed to make a nice mess of things.

Any time I have been in a parking lot downtown it is filled with cars. Of course this is seasonal and time of day. Parking on the street is not a high probability action. And sometimes the street is closed for the dinner outdoor dining. My experience is that the parking lots have high usage. If we took the time to build them and they are used then why has this come up? Another contrived project which will not benefit the city. Why go downtown at all?

I go to RWC. They have the Barnes and Noble bookstore and music Friday nights. They seem more organized in how they plan out the city and less vulnerable to people gaming the system.

The map shown on page 14 of the July 28 print copy of the Weekly has: “twelve parking lots in downtown Palo Alto are eyed for affordable housing projects…”
I simply disagree with any plan that Palo Alto convert these small helpful lots into low income housing.
There are numerous better locations for that.

In addition, “Alternatively, developers could designate these units as “workforce housing” for employees of the city of Palo Alto or the Palo Alto Unified School District.”
I fully know that PAUSD teachers are well paid and that their children can receive FREE education in our district.
Furthermore, many teachers do NOT want to reside in the community where they teach as people would come up to them with questions, etc.

What is with this sudden obsession to shoehorn in subsidized gousing in downtown!?
Most of us in the private sector do NOT have Zuckerberg’s salary nor do we reside right where we work - ever.

Taxpayers have already subsidized multiple housing projects here.
It’s time to have other cities, especially San Jose, which has a huge inexpensive land area to do this, if our politicians insist. Driving 20 minutes is easy.

Nobody has a right to reside in a particular location.

This idea is in the papers today - SJM-"Parking lots could be hundreds of homes". The idea in the papers does not translate to the downtown Palo Alto business environment.

The downtown parking lots are for the people who work in the stores and the people who shop in the stores. The last thing we want here is the overflow to the residential side streets. We just lost the Footwear Store and are losing other stores in the downtown area. When I went to HR Block at tax time the person had to go out and move his car. We do not have huge office buildings in the downtown. I worked at a huge building in San Jose and that lot was full - back when people actually came to work. If you keep filling the streets with restaurants you need lots for the patrons to park and the people who are working in those businesses.

A group that has lots of lunches has been to Palo Alto, Los Altos, and now going to a large restaurant in San Jose that has lots of parking. No one want to go downtown and waste time looking for parking or cruising in the residential streets to find parking. And the people who live there are sick of people cruising the street looking for parking.

Worst idea ever, but no lack of worst ideas.

Downtown Palo Alto is weird. If you want a carpet or a manicure, pricey coffee or ice cream, lots of options. If you want to visit your wealth manager, bank, or lawyer, or buy a piece of art, also no problem. Ditto an expensive meal. A pair of shoes is kinda hard to find, as is clothing that isn't very expensive. School supplies? No. Kids clothes? I don't think so.

Kudos to Letter Perfect for staying the course for decades.

I am noticing a trend here. An idea that is appropriate (?) for a large city suddenly gets translated into an idea for this small city which does not have any abundance of available space.
1. Bike lane on ECR with no street parking? The SFC had the lady on a bike on Valenica Street in SF a whole half page devoted to her "I" words. Comments in the pages the following days was the outrage of the small businesses on that street whose businesses were ruined with no street parking.
2. Parking lots filled with homes? Maybe that works for San Jose that has huge buildings that no one goes to work in anymore. But our parking lots are filled with patrons and personnel of the small stores and restaurants that fill our commercial sections. If your patrons and personnel cannot park next to their businesses then you will kill downtown.
3. People keep pushing "Consultants" to solve our problems. Looks to me that some posers here have that intention in mind. And they are suppose to the ones who are growing our business base.
4. Looks to me that a fair number of people who are in the business of being talking heads are in a state of desperation and will take money from any activist group or non-profits to survive. That includes the "news" which selectively prints the opinions of those pushing some idea.