Before we start building more and higher tower blocks, can we have an inventory count of all the recent developments? Are all the units rented/leased out or are there many unoccupied units.

With all the tech layoffs and empty office space, has there been any effort to ascertain the need for more high rises? Or is this purely being done because of government (Sacramento) say so?

I know of one young high tech worker who was looking for somewhere to share with friends and found plenty of choice. Went with somewhere in Mountain View near Castro Street and they were happy with their choice, but they did look in Palo Alto too.

Bystander raises an excellent point about "With all the tech layoffs and empty office space, has there been any effort to ascertain the need for more high rises?"

Office vacancies are at 20% and rising. Google just cancelled several huge office development projects due to the worsening business climate and more layoffs.

Since other communities are identifying vacancies as possible housing sites, maybe Lait and all the PA "planners" could do the same? Of course that won't satisfy the well-financed pro-density forces that only want NEW buildings because that's more profitable for their backers and who care nothing about all the neighborhoods / neighbors destroyed by huge developments looming over their back yards.

Taller buildings can solve the housing crisis so this is a no brainer. Also, is it possible the developers will consider supply and demand before spending hundreds of millions on these projects, in a very difficult environment no less? Probably

Please designate more sites for higher density housing north of Oregon Expressway where there is existing useful transit and a grid network of streets. Spread new, higher density housing across the community more evenly and fairly. Focus spending on transportation and other infrastructure and community service improvements in areas where the city is intensifying housing land use. VTA recently has demonstrated that they are not going to improve transit to south Palo Alto. Service improvement at the San Antonio Caltrain station is still just a concept. Where's the funding? So far, hundreds of new housing units for very low income or homeless people are going to south Palo Alto. Cubberley, our community center, continues to ROT. It is an embarrassment to the city. San Antonio and the southern reaches of Middlefield could not be more bike/pedestrian/transit unfriendly. They are packed with car congestion during peak times and impacted by very high speed traffic in off-peak times. There is no plan to improve them. There also is no public street grid in south Palo Alto to provide easy alternative routes. This all amounts to seriously awful comprehensive planning. I do not want to hear one more word about putting housing on Cubberley Community Center until I see north Palo Alto's community centers getting the same. South Palo Alto residents, PAY ATTENTION and SPEAK UP. Demand parity.

Our rental vacancy rate is 1.5. The 40%+ of our population that rents can tell you of the precarious, and often unsafe conditions of our aging rental inventory. Don't even ask about what these units cost, it is astounding. We need more housing - and a whole lot of it!

The Fish Market is the PERFECT site for housing. Why not plan for even more at this location? There are no residential uses surrounding it, we should be maximizing on these noncontroversial sites. How about 1,000 units building higher with more room for open space? Why not?

But bottom line, we need more housing throughout the city - in particular near jobs, transit, our retail areas, and schools. Why not more near University where I live, why not more at Cal Ave? These areas are in desperate need of more customers.

We as a city are holding Stanford accountable for its job growth but are ignoring our own imbalance. Let's have the courage, creativity, and boldness to make our city even better and more interesting with more housing.

Isn't it past time for this city to join with other cities to take this to court. The HCD is not elected and they are clearly in league with the pro growth and development wing of the ruling class. We need to stop them, not continue to give in and ruin the city and our lives.

Your life is ruined by taller buildings? Perhaps consider moving.

I have to agree with "Consider Your Option" and Amie that we also need to look at other parts of Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Caltrain Station has more options than San Antonio and is near El Camino and significant retail on University Avenue. We need to build strategically across Palo Alto including but not exclusively in the south.

Once again the northern part of the city seems to be enjoying privileges the south part of the city doesn’t get. Changes in height and density need to be city wide, not just in a few areas as proposed. Also we need an inventory of empty homes aka ghost houses so the owners can be charged fees to generate more revenue for the city to be used for extremely low income housing.

With all the double speak about climate, sea level rise -- how does the council propose to justify 2000 units in a flood zone, on top of a freeway, air, noise light pollution no public transit in a sea level rise bay. This overlay will exclude residents from city taxed services and ordinances. To Greer Stone: How about just the "desire" to live/reside my child's school, or my doctor, or the library -- or a park with a playground and basket ball hoop?

And lets speak to equity, inclusion. Perhaps reaching out to our sister city Bloomington? How have they embraced their housing shortage?

The solution to pollution is dilution. No joke. Spread the housing equally within the city, near all the reasons the city supports net-zero, safer streets, access to amenities, city centers, schools, getting out of our vehicles, getting on a train, walking, biking.

Empty offices? Perfect to re-purpose. Empty city owned lots? Perfect for infill homes for people who work the days and nights doing the hard, hands on stuff for us.

I live in DTN and just wrote council asking for more housing in the north near DTN and Cal Ave in part to spread new housing evenly and also to provide more customers for local businesses. Another benefit is that this housing reduces the need for some car trips.

tmp,

That is the approach the city tried for about five years. If you weren't paying attention, you may have missed it. They did not accomplish anything with that approach except put the city behind the deadline and behind many other cities. Redwood City, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills have all adopted plans that have been approved by the state. Why is Palo Alto behind? The responsibility largely falls on the last few city councils.

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

However, there are still plenty of Housing Element sites in the North. You can see maps in section 3 of the Housing Element ( Web Link )

In the future, I expect there'll be more sites identified in other areas. 27 University and Stanford Research Park come to mind. Those didn't make the cut in the current Housing Element, but that doesn't mean they're off-limits.

Finding sites in Downtown is hard for a variety of reasons. Lots are smaller, so they'd have to be consolidated first. Landlords with a reasonable expectation of decent revenue aren't willing to redevelop. Large buildings like 101 Alma, Mia, the Marc, etc. already exist and provide competition. And so on.

There's no conspiracy here, and no magic spell available to make every property viable. The sites we have are mostly a consequence of the economics of the moment, and we don't control those.

"The State" is what got us into this mess of forcing us to change zoning codes to build housing whether we want it or not. Guess what? WE are the State! I recommend that you stop whining and start voting for candidates that reflect your views. Voting for the same people and expecting different results is.........

I love where we live. It's evolved from sparsely populated to a metropolis responsible for much of how the world lives. There is zero doubt it will continue to evolve, grow, change. There are many places in the country one can choose to live where there is little to no growth, change, etc. and the challenges that come with it. If you are so opposed to growth, taller buildings, the "State", then move. In the meantime accept that you have CHOSEN to live in a very dynamic place that will continue to grow and change.

I think we would come up with better solutions if we had more empathy for each other. Empathy for those who need housing, of course. But also empathy for those who already live here. The latter are not selfish for wanting to preserve a high quality of life. I believe both groups would like to maintain Palo Alto as a place of high quality of life. After all, people want to move here precisely because of Palo Alto has always offered. The question is not whether to build more housing, but how to do it in a creative fashion so that new residents and current ones have good places to live, are not choked by gridlock on El Camino Real, and do not find themselves in dark canyons of soulless buildings with little natural light. This will require the highest caliber of design services, careful planning of City infrastructure and a high degree of respectful collaboration without the name calling so often happening when the two groups view the situation as a zero sum game. Unfortunately, developers could care less about such things - they are here to make money and depart. The City can help by creating appropriate guardrails for developments and also recognizing that affordable housing of the kind we want (that doesn’t shove lower income people into tiny little boxes) will most likely require some degree of subsidy to build and maintain. I would love to see some of this more creative thinking by the City as it identifies places for more housing.

Evergreen Park Observer,
No name calling? "developers could care less". Not a great start

The state housing mandates are so poorly written they give a lot of new power to developers. See today's Mercury News story about how developers are using the "developer's remedy" to downsize projects. I understand that problem is starting to bubble up in Palo Alto too. Evidently, we need a remedy for the poorly conceived "remedy."

We need more careful legislators. The new housing legislation forces rushed planning, approvals and development--and makes well-considered comprehensive planning impossible. Palo Alto does not have infrastructure in place to support a 21% increase in units, especially if they are going to be so concentrated in limited and unsupported south Palo Alto areas.

Legislators did not tie housing construction compliance to state funding for traffic mitigation, public schools, public works and community service facilities expansion. What city, including Palo Alto, has the funds to build infra to support such rapid growth by 2031--only 7 years from now? It's not just about the cost of building housing; it is about the cost of everything else that is needed to support the new residents of that housing. (Not to mention time it takes to plan and build infrastructure.) This legislation was approved with little thought to comprehensive planning or fiscal resources to help cities mitigate the impacts of such rapid growth.

Drastically short deadlines set for housing construction will make thoughtful mitigation planning, funding and implementation very difficult, if not impossible. This is going to create large-scale land use and infrastructure imbalances that will plague our state for decades. Sadly, the well-intended, poorly conceived effort to resolve an existing land use imbalance (housing shortage)will create a different kind of imbalance that may be impossible to rectify without breaking city budgets. It appears developers are going to walk away with their pockets of gold, laughing at the people who worked with them--AGAIN.

"Evergreen Park Observer,
No name calling? "developers could care less". Not a great start"

But accurate.

Would relaxed standards pave the way to add vertically to existing buildings? I think Stanford Mall would be a great place to start. Mixed use residential and commercial buildings are occuring in many places across the state. There's already a parking lot at the mall, and most of the employees have lower incomes than the 1%. Ideally they could make the housing available to mall employees first, like the teacher housing in PA ... maybe throw in Paly employees, PAMF, and T&C employees. There is so little housing in that area, everyone commutes. Reduce commutes, isn't that part of PA's mission?

Since Stanford University owns the Stanford Shopping Center and has for decades refused to build more than a minimal amount housing on the huge amount of land they own within Palo Alto’s boundaries, and so far have restricted almost all occupancy to academic related personnel, I’m not very optimistic they care about the community outside the bounds of their core academic campus.

Power has been given to unelected people and is supported by our local reps. They are all in a panic to meet goals that are unrealistic and not of value.
Mountain View has a huge inventory of apartments of every age and price scale. That city was created to support a military base during WW2 - Moffat Field. Their housing and abundance of commercial space reflects that. This city was created around the building of a University -the housing and percentage of commercial space reflects that reality.

Current thought wants to level everything of value that makes this city unlivable.
Look at El Camino in MV and Menlo Park - large buildings for both residential and commercial use. That is where you put large buildings that are consistent with the street in general. Tearing up residential locations is not beneficial. WE have apartments next to the shopping centers which is where they belong. They are already there. Time to just STOP and challenge the thought process that has tied up the natural progress of any city to create new housing where it makes sense. Do we need a law suit?

@MyFeelz: It looks like the economics aren't encouraging. According to the StreetSense report, retail in the shopping center leases for about $77 per square foot per year. According to RentCafe, average apartment rent in Palo Alto is about $47 per square foot per year. For apartments to be more attractive than retail, they'd have to be subsidized or very expensive (assuming there's enough demand for that).

Ghost homes are destroying neighborhoods far more than any multi-story housing development (which appropriately sized units and appropriate density) would. Ghost homes, like the 3 on my block, often fall into disrepair and become eyesores. They languish through seasons and deprive new residents of a potential place to live.

There are hundreds of these empty homes spread throughout our city -- some of them huge mansions on huge lots capable of housing two extended families (or more). We must require all housing inventory to be used for housing. It is a violation of zoning law to use a residentially zoned property for anything other than residential use, which means that holding these properties are mere investments that are not being rented out or lived in full time is a violation of our zoning law. Why do we not enforce that? Alternatively, many other cities are passing vacancy taxes and fines. That seems like such a long overdue approach for us.

Vacancy fees/taxes/fines are even more common in similar cities when it comes to empty office buildings (of which we have spades). If a commercial developer is forced to pay a fine for leaving office buildings empty (a problem they easily can solve by **lowering rent**), that developer will be far more willing to invest in construction changes and upgrades necessary (including plumbing and wiring) to convert existing buildings to residential use. No one is saying that it is free to invest in these conversions, so why is it free for these developers to allow these existing buildings to remain empty?

I do strongly support new high-density housing as well, but we MUST demand that new developments be big enough to house large families. Every new development without exception that has gone up in the last few years has been for microscopic studio apartments that rent for $3000 (subsidized) to $6000/month. That is insane. The biggest need is for 2-bedroom and up, yet all we get are shoeboxes. Unlike what one of our City Council members repeats often, making housing smaller does not make it affordable.

Working families cannot live in 400-square foot units, and neither can families of teachers, fire fighters, and other essential workers. Instead of 350-450 square foot studios, we urgently need 2- and 3-bedroom rentals, condominiums, townhouses, and even SFHs! When was the last time a townhouse development was built here? Or a set of smaller SFHs? I truly have no clue.

@commonsense and @online name: Saying that developers don’t care that much about the community because their mission is to make as much profit as possible is not name calling. It is recognizing that it is delusional to expect for-profit firms to dot otherwise. It is up to the community — NIMBYs, YIMBS, and everyone in between — to work together to create the kind of environment we all want to live in.

@Alan Akin, the subsidized teacher apartments that are already in the works is what I was thinking of. I guess it's called "workforce housing" and can be levereged through Tax Credits that the developer can manipulate, and offered at BMR. But as was pointed out through that subject months ago, it's unknown what to do once the eligible renter no longer works in the intended field. Retail employees are more transitory than teachers.

@mhj, Stanford only leases the land to the property manager. The property management company owns the buildings.

@ Evergreen Park Observer, let's remember that an increasing number of developers are not local companies that may or may not care about their communities; an increasing number are publicly traded companies and hedge funds and REITs with national or international portfolios.

Cities are being stampeded by hysteria to make bad decisions which are aimed at destroying the existing structure of the cities. Most cities are planned out so that services and apartments are in the same area. That is the case in PA. The shopping centers have apartment buildings in that area. WE already have apartments next to shopping centers. If you read some of the hysterical comments you would think that is not the case.

El Camino is the right place for large development. It is consistent with the surrounding cities. MP had great new buildings on El Camino.

Comments on CHS from people who do not go there do not realize that multiple non-profits use those classrooms for their meetings. This weekend is the Friends of Palo Alto Book Sales at that location. Ethnic groups have their meeting halls there. Why do people think that community service is non-essential to the hysteria concerning housing.

We need an inventory of developments that have been approved, in process, or are in the planning stages for development. We never see the complete picture - only hysterical comments that have no value. Time to STOP, figure out what the actual true picture is, then make common sense decisions that benefit the whole city,

I am fully aware of the non-profits and other organizations at Cubberley Community Center. I visit Cubberley regularly. FYI. It hasn't been called Cubberley High School in over 40 years because it has been a community center for all of that time.). I am also aware that there has been a City of Palo Alto sign on the public gyms doors saying, "OUT OF ORDER will repair in the morning" since I first noticed it last February. Rat traps are everywhere for good reason. Restrooms are an embarrassment of filth and disrepair, pavement is heaving, interior landscaping has been replaced with asphalt which now is cracked rubble, electrical is substandard, dry rot and roof leaks abound. It is a DUMP. The City should be embarrassed.

@MyFeelz asks if relaxed standards would allow for height additions to existing buildings. One important building standard comes from fire codes that restrict the construction of tall buildings using combustable materials. The typical apartment buildings you see going up are Type III or V light-framed wood. Those are limited to 5 stories and 85 feet. Going higher than that forces a change to non-flammable materials and more structurally appropriate techniques, like steel framing. Steel buildings are dramatically more expensive to build than wood, so the buildings have to be extremely tall in order to provide enough sellable/rentable units to pay for the additional construction cost. So going up is not always better.

And speaking of construction cost, don't think for a minute that these new units being proposed will be at all affordable. The article linked below talks about current construction costs, *without* the price of land included. With a single apartment unit costing upwards of $930K to build, how much rent do you suppose a builder would need to collect just to pay the ~6-7% mortgage on the construction loan? Under the guise of providing more housing to "reduce" rents, the City is poised to hand developers a huge windfall while not really do anything about housing affordability.

Web Link

The

The idea that we are going to put all types of housing in the same location sounds like an "aspirational goal" of a select number of political types who have no background in the sciences. I think they come from foreign countries and are trying to duplicate that which exists in the country they came from - the country that was failing.

We plan cities here with some engineering ability to manage the water use required, the amount of electricity available, and the soil type that will hold together with a lot of ground traffic on it. People who grew up in LA have been to the La Brea Tar Pits and know that is bubbling up to the surface. People who live in beach cities know where the winter rain rivers come down and flood the surface. If you build a dam it takes water from one place to another and one area wins, the other loses. Not all areas are equal. One time they built homes in Palo Verdes and they fell down the hill - wrong soil type. We are on earthquake faults.

Political hacks work aspirational goals with no understanding of the actual end results of those goals. Time to stop and challenge that which makes no sense.

Incorporate into the law suit the rationale of science, available resources in any area.