It was instructive to see the parade of
for-profit developers urging the PTC to support changes that will make them a fortune.
Developer Owen Byrd was compelled to reveal he was allied with with Yimby Action and Palo Alto Forward. Of course he is - they are developers’ defacto lobbyists.
Cities being forced by the State to take actions it knows are adverse to Palo Alto is a shame.

These proposed zoning changes are nothing but a reckless rush towards overdevelopment, completely disregarding the character and essence of our community. The city’s attempt to appease state demands inflating housing numbers at the expense of our neighborhoods is extremely concerning. The potential 85-foot building height and increased density will not only disrupt the existing community aesthetics but also put a strain on our already burdened infrastructure. Moreover, the hasty push towards meeting the state’s arbitrary housing goals undermines the thoughtful planning process that should prioritize the interests and values of long-standing Palo Alto residents. This is a sad time for all of Palo Alto.

Well, just so long as the developers and Stanford get their way to limit their contributions to the community, to limit their tax liabilities and to maximize their profits ....

Re Owen Byrd, let's also recall his role as Chairman of the Board of Downtown Streets and his attacks on Embarcadero Media for daring to call him out on his role and enabling their abuse of their workers while their execs enriched themselves.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

If you want to opine on Stanford's development plan which helps them and hurts the rest of us by taking more housing off the PA market and tax rolls while pushing up housing prices, please write to Boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org before their 10/17 meeting.

I have lived in South Palo Alto all my life, and watched as "our" city council and planning commission and given the short shrift to South Palo Alto over the years. The communities on either side of El Camino share apartments, very narrow streets, dedicated bike routes to grammar schools, High schools, the VA hospital and Stanford. Allowing over large developments with inadequate parking, high priced apartments, and possibly not contributing to the services the city charges other developers, is not right. Our street and schools will be over impacted with these developments. 1/3 of the city requirements do not have to be put all in one place. I see the city is looking at San Antonio, Frys, South Palo Alto, but nothing in North Palo Alto. Where is the fairness in this?

Yes let's put all of the new development South of Oregon so the wealthier neighborhoods don't have to put up with the traffic and other density problems it will cause. East Charleston and Louis is already a mess because of the new light.

And let's also make sure Berman and Becker get voted OUT next time because they voted for these unconstitutional bills that take away local control; they are just big gifts to developers.

The State requires that any site chosen for a Housing Element must have a realistic possibility of redevelopment in the next eight years. Right now, there's potential for more housing *units* on realistically-possible sites in the South part of town than in the North.

There definitely are Housing Element sites in the North part of town. (There's one targeted for a dense multifamily project on my block here in Professorville.) Off the top of my head I don't know whether there is a greater number of *sites* in the North or South parts of town, but if we can agree on the dividing lines I might be able to figure it out.

If a property is already generating (or likely to generate) good revenue for its owner, the owner is unlikely to redevelop. This is one reason there aren't more Housing Element sites in already-dense areas like Downtown.

Keep in mind that the State's overall goal is to eliminate local control. If you disagree with this you have to take it to the State level, through your representatives or the initiative process. At the local government level, there are major legal constraints on what can be done.

(Speaking for myself, not the PTC)

Palo Alto should partner with other locations to initiate a lawsuit agains the state Department of Housing and Community Development to halt their "assignments" of what be built in specific cities. None of the members have been voted by the residents of Palo Alto so should have no say in what we decide here. 6,086 new residences seem to be far too high for a small town like Palo Alto and will disrupt the lifestyle that we have become accustomed.

This seems to be a land grab by the politicians and their allied property developers. Terms like 'Weiner's Remedy' and 'Berman's Remedy' are very concerning. Any developer that wants to build apartments here should post a large Performance Bond to be drawn from later by the PAUSD and requirements for rebuilding the roads, electrical system and fiber installations.

Traffic is not mentioned in this article. Getting from my house to Stanford (3 Mile trip) use to take 5-10 minutes. Now the same trip takes 20 minutes. With the new housing it will double again. public transportation will suffer as well. Think about it!!!

@Ocam's Razor, I totally agree. Other cities are doing that, especially since the whole economy has changed since the housing targets were adopted -- mass layoffs, state budget deficits so affordable housing's not getting funded, remote work, declining population. weather/drought, etc. -- but the state is refusing to reconsider ANYTHING in the face of the new reality for another 8 years.

@Joel, right.Traffic and under-parking are rarely mentioned and never considered because the developers and all their well-funded lobbyists and DODO politicians (Developer Owned Developer Operated) keep spouting their fairy tales that no one wants to needs cars to get to work, that people are going to live near where they work because no one in Sillycone Valley ever changes jobs ....

Jonathan Lait says that parking is just one of the things that has to go if we are to build housing. So, where does he propose to put the cars that people in the new developments will undoubtedly own? Even if people ride their bike or take the ridiculously slow bus to work, they will own a car and keep it parked somewhere. After all, there will come a time when they want to drive to a friend's house for dinner (perhaps in the winter when it is cold and raining), to the doctor when they are terribly sick, when they grocery shop and have a lot to carry, or when they want to drive somewhere for a weekend vacation. Until a lot of things change, people will need a car for many things. Not providing parking is just putting one's head in the sand and ignoring reality. Similarly, not mentioning how congested El Camino Real is currently and having no plan to address an added 1500 cars or so just with residents is not "planning" for reality.

The housing “crisis” or “shortage” in the Palo Alto - East Palo Alto - Mountain View area is a myth. Look at the vacancies for rentals online.

You don’t get to have a nice 4bd 3ba 3,000sqft home in whatever town you like at the price you want. The entitlement is out of control.

The only winners here are the real estate developers.

The subject of parking requirements came up several times during Wednesday's meeting, so I'll just summarize the comments I made there as well as some of the feedback from City Staff.

The State limits the amount of parking the City can *require*. This is especially true within a half-mile of Caltrain stations, where the requirement must be zero.

Developers are aware that housing without adequate parking usually isn't marketable, so they tend to include some even where it isn't strictly required.

A big problem arises when it's possible to dump the parking burden onto adjacent streets. Not only does that move traffic, noise, pollution, and safety issues onto neighborhood streets, it defeats the sustainability goals the reduced parking was intended to support in the first place.

We don't have many tools to deal with this. The best is probably Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts. However, the State has limitations on those, too. Current City law also requires that they be established by petitions from the neighborhoods.

Neighborhood groups could consider creating RPP districts right away. Overnight parking controls might be another approach to keep in mind. Not only would that protect existing neighborhoods like Barron Park, but it would encourage developers to do the right thing by providing adequate parking and implementing transportation demand management plans to reduce the need.

(Speaking for myself, not for the PTC.)

I'm glad that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recently gave its support to new homes at the "focus area" on El Camino between Page Mill and Matadero, and on Stanford properties including Pasteur. Palo Alto's new rents and mortgage payments are far too high, and far higher than most other places, because we have a terrible housing shortage. I'm glad to see height limits raised to 85 feet, density limits doubled, and parking requirements relaxed. I hope our PTC and City Council will approve similar pro-homes changes to our zoning code in other parts of the city, including the shopping districts and elsewhere on El Camino. Palo Alto is a great community. We should make room for new neighbors!

Housing on major public transit lines is essential. How many of these units will be for the workers at PAUSD, City of Palo Alto or unhoused families?

We need housing . Let’s work for housing and stop maligning those who recognize housing as a critical factor in our community.

It’s always so welcoming & comforting to again hear our elected leaders make sure, certain and agree that their SFH’s will remain a protected class of private property ownership — above, beyond and far away from any multi family complex: conceived, received, relieved of any encroachment — That these residential owned houses will remain whole and the streets and schools and “neighborhoods will remain untouched by any impure state mandates. You see, there are now two houses divided. The SFHOwner and the other of the all the rest of us. It’s so very sad and exclusionary to hear such rhetoric from the lucky ones who can’t share the hallowed land - self ascribed as sacred & “safe” from the other .

Palo Alto has 28,560 existing housing units (55.9% owner occupied and 44.1% renter occupied). The state mandates that the city build 6,086 units over the next EIGHT years. That will amount to a 21% increase in housing units in a very short period. Getting this done in a mostly built out city and creating supportive infrastructure that enables a healthy community is an impossible task. Imbalanced land use creates enormous problems and generates traffic and overloads utilities systems. We need housing, but this is very poorly written law that primarily will benefit corporate landholders. I'll remember who voted for it at the ballot box.

Where is the comprehensive planning with these mandates? The state did not attach funding for expansion of schools, community centers, parks, libraries, public works, transportation systems (including expanding parking because developers have been excused from building adequate auto parking for new dwellings) in the new housing mandate laws. These enormous costs will fall to cities. We are a city of 67,000 people (and fewer taxpayers). Large local tax increases will have to come with this growth if we want to maintain good public schools, functional streets and utilities systems at minimum. Our parks and community centers are already overused. Where is that money going to come from?

@Comment
I looked up Owen Byrd on LinkedIn and he was forthright mentioning his role at PAForward. So I was sure what you meant that he was "compelled" to reveal his involvement. It was never hidden.