These are two very tall buildings which have less than one parking spot per unit.

This is terrible and doesn’t conform to the area whatsoever. Is this the future of Palo Alto? I certainly hope not!

Yup, It's already under-parked for even one car per unit but what about families with more than one car?

I'm wondering about the distribution of studios, 1-bedrooms, 2 bedrooms -- ie whether it's just for well-paid single techies or families

Very glad to see Palo Alto finally getting this kind of smart, walkable, mixed-use urbanism, which is illegal to build in most American cities.

My hat is off to the City for repeatedly submitting noncompliant Housing Elements, voiding all of the nonsense limitations that have been holding us back since the 1970s. If we'd just upzoned moderately, broadly, and on-time, we'd never have gotten a project this awesome.

Very excited about this one.

“‘Sadly, Palo Alto is losing its being a community and is sold off (in) bits and pieces as a commodity,’ Kou wrote.”

This is so disingenuous. Palo Alto has been sold off in bits and pieces for decades. The Knisses, Peerys, Arrillagas…they all became fabulously wealthy selling off Palo Alto to commercial real estate. Now we are dealing with the consequences. This place never should have been handed over to commercial interests. Well, it has and it’s time to build the housing and infrastructure we need to go along with it.

Sometimes it seems like Lydia Kou thinks no one in Palo Alto knows its history. She is wrong and many of us who have been here for decades WANT more housing. (Also, California Avenue is in serious need of a glow up.)

Also, the reason we are losing community is because there is no housing stability here. It has become a revolving door of people moving here expecting to make a life and realizing there is no path to housing stability. I can’t count the number of families who have left after several years of being part of the community. These are parents who work in high paying jobs (tech, finance, doctors). Why would they stay and throw money down the drain on rent (making someone else even wealthier)? This is why the number of kids in PAUSD has gone down considerably in the last five or so years.

If Lydia Kou is serious about having a strong sense of community, she will 1) work to ban home sales to non-resident buyers (look on Zillow to see all the houses being bought and immediately put on the rental market), and 2) build more housing.

Please tell me again how closing California ave to car traffic is causing hardship to Mollie Stones and other small retail?
I really hope this project gets rejected. This would literally be the end of California ave. We need mollie stones to stay :(((

Mollie Stones is staying and -I think- getting bigger.

"The plans that Redco submitted show Mollie Stone's occupying the ground level of the seven-story podium once the project is constructed."

Banning home sales to non-resident buyers will never be legal. It screams of discrimination.

Seventeen stories? You must be kidding. This developer has no respect for community.

"This is so disingenuous. Palo Alto has been sold off in bits and pieces for decades. The Knisses, Peerys, Arrillagas…they all became fabulously wealthy selling off Palo Alto to commercial real estate. Now we are dealing with the consequences. "

Indeed. And we continue to deal with the consequences as Ms Kniss keeps grooming her pro-density proteges for public office so they can continue her legacy which has included working to limit the number of seats on the City Council and -- worse -- working to limit political contributions from individuals but NOT businesses.

That's why we call her acolytes DODOs -- Developer Owned Developer Operated.

Just compare the huge campaign contributions gap of more than $1,000,000 between Mayor Kou and Mark Berman for that assembly seat! Kou is right that Palo Alto is being sold off to the highest bidders in this rigged game to erect atrocities like that going i near Molly Stones and replaces the Sunset complex on Middlefield.

More housing is needed. I don't see how to accomplish this without making taller buildings (near public transit areas).

If the first residents of Palo Alto had to "conform to the area" we would be staring at nothing but meadows and trees. Changing what nature initially provided by constructing the first building started a tide of change that we must learn to manage because we can't stop it.

Thinking about this more, there are so many questions other than size and parking. That number of apartments without mention number of bedrooms is very ambiguous. Would a family want to live in a 17 story building? Even if there were units without cars, Caltrain cannot take them to Costco, or the beach? Would there be space for storage, bicycles, camping equipment, sports equipment, etc.? How would the children get to school, bikes? More bikes in the Cal Ave tunnel? More bikes crossing El Camino? What about play space? I can't think families would be the aim here, more likely dinkys (remember them) or solo studio occupants. What community will they be able to have 17 stories on top of each other?

Oh, the naysayers! I like the proposal. I think it's a good thing for Palo Alto to have buildings not specifically designed for families. Who wants to police who does or want or who doesn't or doesn't want a family or who can't have children and wants or needs to live in a not-single-family housing? Believe it, many well adjusted successful adults were brought up in apartments and with
better and more compact choices than single family proponents.
It's a good thing for California Ave area, Stanford and in general for residents to have a choice of housing and vibrant and safer commercial areas.
Bring it on.

Speaking as someone who lives across the street from this proposal site -- it looks great. Build it! Bringing housing costs down and more people into our community only enhances it.

“…why the # of kids in PAUSD has gone down….

You’ve got it exactly wrong. Palo Alto has been ungodly expensive since before Silicon Valley. It’s been HARD to put down roots here nonstop since the ‘80s, harder then with 9% interest. But Stanford, schools, and quality of life, gave people a reason to make extreme sacrifices to stay. In past downturns when other cities struggled with loss of students, PA didn’t.

Building more in a desirable job center will not make it affordable. Just ask Manhattan or Hong Kong. It just becomes like Manhattan or HK. Or SF. Is that what we want?

HK became an office park where no one walks or bikes to work anymore and most live in Kowloon. HK struggled with same conversations while people’s dwellings became like chicken coops and still it wasn’t affordable.

The idea that building ever more densely will solve affordability in a laissez faire market is simply false. Things only get more affordable when things get so unpleasant people don’t want to stay or come back. Just ask SF. Or Detroit.

PAUSD schools were packed for decades of unaffordability. Now:
1) Laissez faire overbuilding has made people less willing to sacrifice to stay and put down roots, while making it possible for tech companies to bring in massive numbers of (mostly transient) people whose salaries eclipsed everyone else’s. When the pandemic hit, they left SF holding the bag to work remotely. I predicted this years before the pandemic. It could have been for a quake, etc. Longtime residents already left for more affordable QUALITY OF LIFE, and people stopped going there as much from surrounding areas also because of the insane idea that making it impossible to move around was good, nevermind innovations in energy. PA had a mini version of this. If SF doesn’t wake up to this, they will never truly recover.

Plus: fewer children born.PAUSD rigidity/stress. Pushing out disabled students=bad reputation. Homeschool/ed innovation right when remote work arose.

This is exactly the type of development that is needed in Palo Alto on California Ave, University Ave, San Antonio, and El Camino. It is literally steps away from a Caltrain Station and residents will not need a car to go from San Francisco to San Jose. This development will be a huge boon for local businesses, who will have a new customer base of hundreds of residents a short walk away. This type of development - and more like it - will drive down rental costs by increasing supply. We need more developments like this which provide desperately needed housing for Google, Apple, Stanford, Meta and other nearby employers big and small.

Here we go with the ridiculously out of scale developments enabled by Builders Remedy. We can thank Josh Becker and Marc Berman for voting for so many state bills that subvert democracy by taking away local control, and greedy developers who don't care about the community.

Yes!! This is a gorgeous-looking development and badly-needed. Density next to transportation hubs, walkable urbanization, starter homes, community! Let's do this!

Where will Mollie Stone's be located while this is being constructed? It seems unlikely that they would be able to afford just shutting down for two years

Yeah, Berman and Becker didn't hold a gun to the city's head and demand it keep submitting illegal housing elements over and over again.

I think this is a great project. The people I credit most for it are: Tom Dubois, Eric Filseth, Greer Stone, and Lydia Kou. This is is the moment that took us to this outstanding project. [1] The Housing ad Hoc wildly exceeded their mandate, and composed a slate of arch-NIMBYs to decide how the city was going to exercise local control to "meet its housing obligation." They made amendments unfriendly. Kou joined them, and that became the citizen body that laid down the principles about how the city would --well, not "comply" but rather "seek certification."

That lead to a document that the state has repeatedly found violates fair housing law. Shocker! So why not just fix the problem and reclaim local control? Well, the city is extremely reluctant to go much beyond the guidance of its "outreach" process. So they've been making minimal changes each iteration, creeping toward compliance as whole seasons pass and new Builder's Remedy projects arrive on each new attempt. First it was a tiny SB-9 expansion. Now it's ~five lots on El Camino in a focus area. Maybe they'll get there by 2025 at this rate. I'm not sure.

And as each new Builder's Remedy project arrives, I know exactly who I have to thank, and who detractors have to blame: Dubois, Filseth, Stone, and Kou.

[1] Web Link

What about those who live in the housing on Park Blvd. right behind Mollie Stones and adjacent at Palo Alto Central? The massive shadows from a seventeen-story building will diminish their quality of life by blocking light.

Yes this proposal is Berman’s Remedy in action. Berman needs constant support from developers for future campaigns.

Also if Mike Stone is so unhappy with California Avenue being closed to vehicles why is he expanding? His recent
platform at the city council was about how he is hurting. I do not buy the cry baby routine at all.

Time to go to court to block these developer driven monstrosities based on an unelected state housing group that refuses to set a time line or approve our twice submitted housing element. They are in the pockets of developers and holding up approval while letting developers ruin our city.

Since the housing group has set so time line for approval of our housing element, then the city doesn't have to let developers build what is non-conforming until the housing element is approved one way or the other.

Let’s go!!! We have both a housing crisis and ridiculous height limits so any project that changes the future is excellent!

I only wish it was taller and we approve dozens of these across Palo Alto and ALL communities so it’s the norm.

I like how these are also mixed use with built in underground parking - that should be encouraged!

Reading the groaning and whining of NIMBYs in this thread is truly a treat. I can't agree the commenter "scott" more.

Palo Alto native who spends a lot of time on Cal Ave here. This projects looks fantastic! Cal Ave is very, very underbuilt, and would be much more lively with a lot more residents living nearby. And it would be especially great to get car-light residents who would live next to (an electrified!) Caltrain, Mollie's and the great Cal Ave business district.

Super cool! Props to Palo Alto's leaders for being so incredibly bad at their jobs that the state has stepped in to take over our zoning. If we had even a semi-competent group of people running this city, the Lydia Kou's of this world would get to set the rules. So happy they don't!

I’m going to stick up for the Working Group here, who I think did as good a job as could have been done trying to solve a very difficult problem – how to realistically get almost 7,000 housing units (the RHNA goal plus a 10% buffer) into Palo Alto in eight years. Remember the mandate is basically a 25% population increase in eight years, even as Silicon Valley and California populations actually fall.

I get that @Scott above is unhappy that only one member of his Palo Alto Forward group was chosen for the Working Group. My own priority was for people who I thought would best (1) represent the diversity of values and experiences in our community; and (2) problem-solve effectively in the team, without trying to strongarm the group into a preset agenda. On that twin ranking, some of Mr. O’Neill’s associates did indeed prioritize below the group-size limit - as did some applicants who were passionate in the opposite direction (ie, “we’re full,” a view I also don’t think a majority of Palo Altans share). Perhaps that was naïve and I should have paid more attention to the activist groups, but I didn’t.

Mr. O’Neill doesn’t mention that some Palo Alto activist groups have also lobbied HCD directly to reject Palo Alto’s application. Has that had any impact? Hard to know.

Finally I wouldn’t lump State Assemblyman Berman and State Senator Becker together on this. The Sacramento doctrine has been that local obstruction is why housing costs and homelessness are high in California - and that by taking local control away from local voters, the State would deliver Affordability. So far it hasn’t succeeded; in fact, it’s not even clear that overall housing production rates have increased, let alone costs and homelessness fallen. Both state representatives have supported this agenda, but to different degrees as results have evolved. For example, only one has proposed eliminating development fees that fund city services and infrastructure. So it’s not accurate to equate them.

Mr. Filseth,

Impressive that so many neighborhood association representatives happened to score highly on your "twin ranking." Six, by the count in your spreadsheet, on a body where seven is a voting majority. (Just in that one category. None as alternates.) I regret to report that I did see some signs of preset agendas. There was one guy, well: I came to suspect that puzzle parking must have killed his dog.

By the way, speaking of your spreadsheet: I filed a Public Records Act to the city asking for all documents related to the Ad Hoc's work on the HEWG formation (W003456-021922), and the city said there were no such records. If you referred to the sheet you presented to Council as you're typing that out [1] --I'd still be interested in receiving it.

Thank you for mentioning our advocacy work. We are very proud of it. Link, for any who care to read along:
Web Link
[1] Web Link

You people crack me up. More Housing. More Traffic. Or doesn't this matter anymore? More Housing? Where were these folks living prior, that they need your spot to squat? The Housing ordinances seem only as a money maker for developers. No community, for Others to come and bring love, comfort, and neighborhood history? I see traffic and no parking. I strongly suggest that Palo Alto go back to the drawing board and remember extending Embarcadero Rd and Oregon Expwy to the Dumbarton Bridge.
It appears that a lot of you just want more "Status symbol" company. It Appears that you are using your Head as a "Hat rack".
I know you want more Friends and High-end entrepreneurs to live near you. (Cream of the Crop). Worldly, European atmosphere etc.
How much and how many do you need?
The folks that you have coming in now, Will only bring traffic. A burden on your emergency services. These people weren't previously living up under a bridge homeless. They need to stay put.
To buy or rent in the Bay Area you will have to make an income way above Homeless standards. Or do we have very RICH boutique-type Homeless humans? It was once said by the past Homeowners, that they cherished their large lots and didn't want the younger folks moving in and building YUGE buildings next to theirs. Now the disconnected (infiltrators) are coming in and busting up your Club. Well, the Elders are dead and gone. Now comes (change).
Frankly, I like the design of the project. The developers should visit the planning dept. in East Palo Alto. They have 2.5sq miles and are in need of convincing to increase their real estate into the sky.
Sad to say, They are dealing another way. Instead, they have inherited a group culture of 3 to 5 or more families living in one single-family unit. Thanks to Romero. When you visit over 101, you'll see overcrowding at its worst. The cut-through traffic is horrible. The dust, dirt, and filth from the traffic, it's man-made. I see this happening in Palo Alto's future.

This proposal shows a lot more creativity than our moribund City Council, which is trying to live in the past. Where better than a location one block from a train station and in the same block as a grocery store for a high-rise apartment building.? It would vastly improve the business climate on California Avenue and make the issue of closing the street moot.

@Scott

Thank you for the web link to the Weekly’s coverage from when the Housing ad hoc working group was formed two and a half years ago. The Comments are like a time capsule, whose contents reveal the huge swing in the terms of debate since real consequences have been attached to tardiness in making adequate adjustments to housing policy.

The need for housing is something we are being told but I for one am getting more and more skeptical that what is needed is not necessarily what this will provide.

Yes there are homeless everywhere in the region and they fall into different categories but will a development like this help all of them? Those who are presently living in cars will be helped, those living in shelters will be helped and then the shelters may have space to help those who sleep on the streets.

There are many tech workers who like to live in San Francisco and are happy commuting in buses to the Google or Apple campuses, they like the SF vibe and don't object to the commute on a luxury bus where they can sleep, work or spend time on their devices before and after work. Will they be tempted to live here instead?

We don't have as many high tech jobs in downtown or Cal Ave as were there prepandemic. Many are working remotely and only physically enter their office once or twice a week. Will they want to live here?

Local large high tech employers have reduced their number of employees at the local campuses. This reduction in numbers is at all levels, from the high paid engineers to the lower paid staff, janitors, food service, bus drivers, and other non-tech workers. Will there be as many who want to be near these campuses?

And as we are always talking about teachers, fire, police, restaurant workers and their families, will they be attracted to living here with their families?

I hate to be a Debbie Downer on this because building big near transit makes sense, but are we trying to solve a problem that may have existed a decade ago but no longer exists in the same way today? Will this be the type of housing that fits the needs of today since the needs have changed so much?

The transportation aspect of this proposal is not as bright as many people think. Sure, this complex is located next to Caltrain but many tech office buildings and places of employment are not.

Biking to work from one end of the Caltrain trip may seem like a good idea. But given the number of bike thefts recently, folks may be hesitant about doing that. Some large employers offer shuttles to encourage ride-sharing/public transit but many smaller ones don't have the resources to support that.

Simply taking away parking spaces in new residential buildings will not magically reduce the number of car trips folks are taking.

And then there's Millbrae Caltrain to BART transfer which adds minutes of time to a trip to SF. But that ship has already sailed, so to speak.

As usual, disabled people are not considered in the grand scheme of things. I am wondering why there hasn't been an ADA lawsuit about Cal Ave yet or *pick your poisonous tree of legal knots* And now a proposal that can't seem to recognize the ADA laws are federal and are not trumped by anyone's "builders remedy". Any new construction has to include ingress and egress of disabled people whether they are going to shop there or sleep there. What goes up must come down, and what goes in must go out and must be accessible for disabled people.

There are literally hundreds of ADA laws that new construction must adhere to, unless of course, they are a high dollar developer who knows whose hands to grease to evade those laws.

> ada Web Link < compliance right there.

Jerry, this proposal is only meant for use of people without disabilities.

@Scott is right. In recent years, Palo Alto has tailored ‘outreach’ to find problems to fit their solutions.

Quoted above by previous City official re: selection…

‘(1) represent the diversity of values and experiences in our community; and (2) problem-solve effectively in the team, without trying to strongarm the group into a preset agenda.’

Let’s just say that this is the same official who wanted to take away healthcare professionals’ parking permits under ‘quality of life provisions’ and ‘development threat.’ I still remember talking to our dentist about it. They had to petition his Council just so their staff may continue to drive to work.

@Jerry Underdal
The politics of this issue have changed more rapidly than any other I have seen in my lifetime, with the *possible* exception of gay marriage.

@JF,

Yes, and I'd go even further than that. The whole Housing Element development process was 100% backwards.

The first thing the city decided was how and where to upzone. The next thing the city tackled was about goals and programs. This all transpired before there was any public analysis of the city's production problems.

Yes: they went from a Solution to an Objective to finally identifying what the Problems must therefore be.

The "Constraints" section of the Housing Element is the part where the city has a legal duty to analyze constraints on housing production. There were no hints about what this section would say until the first full draft was released in November 2022. I was expecting, when it dropped, that I would have to use the city's analysis of its zoning and learn from that how this sort of analysis is done. Then I'd see if they made any obvious errors.

But what transpired is there was no analysis of the city's zoning as a constraint in the first draft, whatsoever. It just took for granted that requiring buildings average no more than .6 stories in height over grade on El Camino Real is adequate zoning for Palo Alto.

What's so amazing is the city had run a program called PHZ to solicit freeform applications from developers, in part to learn how zoning needed to change. The Housing Element basically pretended they didn't have this data. The most effective thing we did was just putting it in a table, and comparing it to our actual zoning. (Mr. Filseth calls this "lobbying." It's advocacy.)

As of now, one year later, the city has committed to zoning for apartments at development standards consistent with its track record of producing proposals on ~5 lots. That's the El Camino Focus Area. (GM/ROLM is in the ballpark, but not quite there.) So progress is real --but not fast.

This is a great spot for a lot of new homes. Right next to Caltrain, and right next to Cal Ave. Our community has a severe housing crisis, with two few homes available, and rents and mortgages far too high. To solve this problem, we need more homes at all income levels.

Council is advocating for providing incentives for housing near Cal Ave as they did for the small area on ECR. Housing for all income groups is important and projects like this provide BMR units but also bring higher income residents, which is what struggling local businesses need.

And for the skeptics, I suggest rereading the HCD rejection letter and comparing it to the recent rejections in Dan José and Menlo Park to see how far from compliance we are currently. While the ECR focus area decision to upzone is a positive step in the right directive, there is no logical reason why these incentives are not needed in DTN, Cal Ave and elsewhere.

It is also time to bring some of the current applications forward for council review and discussion.

All of this effort to debate and justify this destruction of our community could be dispensed with if the cities and their citizens back and pass the proposed state initiative to return zoning and growth to local control. This would probably change ABAG mandates for density to advisory status and allow the communities to determine and act in the interest of the people who care about their community.

If ever there was a spot for higher density in Palo Alto, this could be it. This morning I stood on the corner of Park and California imagining this development. With joy. Let’s not allow Palo Alto’s planners to reject this proposal out of hand.

Interestingly, in the article this week reporting Frances Dias' passing at the age of 100 seems to encapsulate the ongoing war between the growth faction and the bedroom community faction. Her story is everyone's story.

I can't help but wonder what she would think of the current tidal wave of governmentally mandated housing. She was PA's first female Mayor, but after her career was over she moved to Santa Rosa. It seems that's what people do, after making their mark here. They cash out and use the profits to go somewhere else.

The new construction on the horizon is not designed to last generations. If Palo Alto really wanted residents to stay generation after generation, they would build stone castles. They wouldn't build with plywood. If anybody is paying attention, the baby boomer generation is in the beginnings of the die-off. There will be too much housing. And Palo Alto would rather tear down existing buildings and turn them into parks, instead of making sure everyone could have one of the many many vacancies that will happen here. Wouldn't it be great if Palo Alto could decide to be the first community to open the doors to unhoused people when it does happen?

Since we are talking HCD there is an article in the SF Chronicle that the city of SF is now going to be non-compliant. A whole discussion on what the HCD is looking at is turned to the political aspects of housing.

Look up the HCD in the internet. They have an office in El Cajon - that is down near the border. Other articles in the papers are talking about the huge flooding in SOCAL due to the recent Hurricane and the lack of maintenance on the water purification plant that services San Diego and that general area. Newsome says not his problem to fix - the federal government is suppose to fix it. So the HCD office is in an area that cannot support any new building due to serious issues in the sanitation systems and flooding.

Strange - the HCD office is in an area that is compromised yet dictating to everyone else.

Cities are saying they cannot support new building due to limitations on their infrastructure - sanitation systems. Builder's Remedy says the Planning Departments of cities can be ignored. But the Planning Department's job is to consider the current status of the sanitation systems to support additional workload. This is all being ignored by AG Bonta and the HCD. WE have a serious issue here because the CA government is not making any sense and they are seriously compromising the whole infrastructure of the cities. Get legal people - only do what makes sense. Only do what the current infrastructure can support.

Seventeen stories? Are you freekin kidding? Sure, let's turn Palo Alto into Manhattan. Make it an overly-dense, traffic-impacted enclave for multimillionaire tech executives who can sit in their high-rise units and listen to the high-speed trains whiz by at 110 mph. Just make sure RV dwellers don't take up residence in front of this building and keep them confined to El Camino.

Palo Alto is selling what's left of its small-town ambience to the highest-bidding developer.

This project is in the pre-application phase. It has a long way to go. A lot of projects around the region have changed or been put on hold due to financial issues, so I think it makes sense to wait a while before drawing any hard conclusions about it.

(To understand the financial feasibility problem, check out the annual Cost of Residential Development in San José study, which was just updated last month: Web Link TLDR: Dense residential development isn't financially feasible in most of San José, and tall buildings are less feasible than medium-height buildings.)

Regarding the discussion here, constructively attacking policies should always be fair game. Attacking people shouldn't. I think some comments might have crossed the line.

It sounds like two Palo Alto Forward board members will be lobbying HCD to shoot down the Housing Element again. The hardest part of the local process is getting to some compromise across all the factions. The consequences of immovable positions are severe, so I hope PAF's official position is more flexible this time.

(Speaking only for myself, not the Planning and Transportation Commission)

This proposal should be rejected outright. Mollie Stones is an important business in our community even with Costco being a few miles away in Mountainview and RWC especially for the local community.

The PA city council should organize with the other cities in the state that are burdened by the 'builders remedy', litigate against the state, governor and the housing group that chooses the number of apartments to build.

Developing a 17 story tower in the middle of a neighborhood taking away its only supermarket. A real genius came up with this one.

17 stories? This is a nightmare situation. We need to get a housing element approved. And we needed it yesterday.

@Brian Hamachek Stuffing 2000 units on sea level rise, heavily polluted HWY 101, ROLM / IND / COM toxic soil where 50% of working poor are relegated to is not fair, equitable housing solutions to meet the HCD's mandate. Dispersing homes among the trees and parks and schools and libraries and commerce, better incorporates 55 years of California housing the population denial. As if once one homeowner-family of four "moved" here in 1970 and to Palo Alto, the earth has stood still since and forever -- .

PAF is not about advocacy. They have saturated the HCD with emails to lobby their platform. PAF are lobbyists not advocates.

Go read Analysis | Where we build homes helps explain America’s political divide: There’s nothing inherently political about oceans, so why do Democrats tend to live in coastal cities? We stumbled upon the answer when analyzing new data on the communities set to build the most new housing by Andrew Van Dam
in the Washington Post.

@ALB

So every dime the city pays for a said "consultant" and following a CC presentation and vote is the lobbying way to steer the CC to "agree" with City department, is the city lobbying for its own agenda. Consultants back up what the city wants to hear and thus sway the cc to vote the way the city staff have paid the consultants to "convince" council.

Every time I hear a city planner needing to refer to their hired "consultant" is justifying an agenda of paid lobbying for their end. The City staff hiring consultants and paying outside the scope of "expertise" has got to cease! Why then have a city staffed department at all if only to write checks to private firms to do the work staff is supposed to know and do and accomplish ??

Beginning to look look like the holy grail for Weiner, Berman, YIMBY, PAF, developers, tech, real estate investment funds, hedge funds, and all the other big money interests who will hugely profit from building dense developments in Palo Alto’s neighborhoods, is to use their considerable influence to block approval of Palo Alto housing element until Palo Alto is forced to remove restrictions that currently prevent profitable multi story dense developments in the neighborhoods.

Meanwhile using “Berman’s remedy” and related bills to force high rise dense developments like this that replace less profitable retail zoned and other resident serving businesses. It’s a win win situation.

I’ve also noticed that as well as those advocating on behalf of their own commercial self interest, there seems to be a certain jealous, even vindictive attitude, if not almost gleeful anticipation, whipped up in some quarters about the possibility of eroding the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods.

When I was growing up people studied Civil Engineering in college - that is how you construct a city and roads with all of the required infrastructure for water, electricity, sanitation, etc. That is then all based on assumptions of how many people will be filling the housing market location.

Bottom line is you cannot exceed the general body count relative to available water supply, heating, sanitation control. People who are knowingly pushing policies which exceed those limitations are creating a harmful, toxic environment. If that is what the legislature is doing then it is illegal. The legislature cannot approve illegal activity. Chasing the developer dollar through the legislature is illegal if it exceeds the capacity of the location to support the build. You say it is law? I say you are a crook.

As to this particular build it will be next to the Caltrain tracks where they are going to put in overhead wires for electrification. That is a huge electrical load for that location. So people will be looking out their windows at wires. Can you imagine when a train goes by the noise level? If it has to be anywhere then that is a good place to put it. You get what you pay for.

The city pays people to create a response to the HCD. If anyone is knowingly working to promote other then what the city has provided then they are breaking the law. And if the HCD listens to them they are breaking the law. This whole activity is a breach of public trust.

Concrete and glass, how green they build.

To clear up a couple of points:
there will be a new ground floor Mollie Stone's at this site and
HCD asks for and welcomes comments from the public on their city's HE draft.
Sv@Home and the League of Women Voters along with Palo Alto Forward and I think more organizations on the next round will share their thoughts with HCD.
Far from breaking the law or lobbying as is alleged above, Palo Alto Forward is doing exactly what HCD wishes.
You may not like what we or other organizations write but that is a different matter.
I continue to encourage readers to take a look at the two previous HCD letters to Palo Alto to see the depth of their notation of missing items.

The HCD process is fundamentally compromised b/c the incentive to not approve a plan is baked-in. Once this city's plan is approved, it will be interesting to see how it differs from the plans that were rejected - and how many "Builder's Remedy" projects beat the system.

It's preposterous that a city that prides itself on being smart, even iconic, cannot manage to submit a compliant plan. That Palo Alto has not begs some questions about motivation and who benefits from continued non-compliance. Getting this done should be the City's top priority. Maybe Shikada can find a consulting firm that specializes in writing compliant housing elements. That would be consultant money well spent.

17 stories. That's ambitious. And possibly presumptuous. PAFD has ladder trucks, but if Builder's Remedy is going to add multiple high-rise buildings, do we have enough? A good documentary to watch: Bring Your Own Brigade. Underparking is one thing, but under-planning for life safety is another altogether.

Annette
You got one part right and one part wrong.

Since half the Bay Area cities are compliant, it is not baked in to fail.

You are right that cities that read and follow the guidelines can get to compliance in 2 rounds, sometimes 3.

Palo Alto learned what is needed to incentivize housing in the ECR focus area. If we can extend that process and learning to other.areas like DTN, we will be moving toward compliance.

if not here, then where? higher density housing is needed to create these walkable neighborhoods that we still hope to maintain in palo alto. if you don't support this (and any similar high rise housing), then what? Can we incentivize developers to convert the enormous empty commercial space to housing?

Has the developer provided a breakdown of how many of the residential units will be studios, one bedroom or two bedrooms?

Is Mollie Stone's for sure moving in to the bottom floor? I won't be as upset if that is the case, I am totally dependent on Mollie's, am there almost every day. My husband and I often talk about how we can age in place because of Mollies, how we can walk to quality groceries....

But 17 stories is WAY too TALL. That's absurd, does not fit in with our small city.

Here is a link to the initial submittal: Web Link

104 studios - some are 558 sq. ft.
187 one bedroom units - some are 744 sq. ft.
91 two bedroom units -

Thank you, Paly Grad, for the link. Architectural renderings in submittals such as this always look great. Best foot forward sort of thing! The initial drawings for the project where JJ&F once was looked nice, too. The end result, not as attractive. And I hope this developer's promises about retaining the grocery where it is are more honest than those made by the developer of College Terrace Centre. Initial plans have a peculiar way of changing in Palo Alto.

Q to anyone who might know: is there an official source for demand information? I find it hard to believe that there are 382 (or even 200) adults hankering to lease or buy these units and the many other available units developers want to add to the Palo Alto built environment.

There's an undisputed need for affordable housing. I am curious about the real need for market rate housing, taking into consideration post-Covid changes such as WFH, some jobs and workers migrating to other states, and people opting to live in less expensive, congested areas. Development is a HUGE hit on the environment, so it seems to me the focus should be on building what's needed rather than what can be made to fit on a parcel.

I don't question that there's a need for SOME more housing, but I'm guessing the amount needed is magnitudes lower than what developers with plans and some housing advocates want us to believe.

"There's an undisputed need for affordable housing. I am curious about the real need for market rate housing, taking into consideration post-Covid changes such as WFH, some jobs and workers migrating to other states, and people opting to live in less expensive, congested areas. Development is a HUGE hit on the environment, so it seems to me the focus should be on building what's needed rather than what can be made to fit on a parcel."

@Annette, how true about affordable housing but the Housing Element and other housing bills were never intended to provide truly affordable housing but rather housing for the highly paid techies working at the big companies who've backed these laws EXCEPT when they apply to THEIR backyard.

Case in point: Mark Andreesen, VC and spouse of one of the biggest area developers, was all for housing density in YOUR backyard but not his as exemplified by all the coverage he got when their letter to the Atherton City Council leaked opposing an apartment next to his $16,600,000 manse and got covered by the national business press.

Second example: The College Terrace / JJ&F project was approved because it was supposed to serve the proposed YELP headquarters until YELP and its CEO Stoppelmann cancelled it after being exposed for underpaying their workers.

Too bad about that ugly mess PA got stuck with.

These "Builders" Remedies are a rigged game and there's no incentive for the state to move quickly to approve cities' Housing Elements especially when ATTY GEN Bonta's so busy rejecting all appeals and refusing to admit how drastically the economy has changed since the targets were set.

But then again he's too busy keynoting the YIMBY events and raking in campaign contributions.

The SF Chronicle of late is naming HCD names and advocacy groups which are in abundance. Looking at the region in general there is no lack of advocacy groups trying to make a name for themselves and get funding. That is their job. Now the HCD principles are named and are on TV. They do not need PAF or any other Advocacy Group to get to THEIR GOALS. Comments on HCD need to be regional - that is how they work.

The problem on the table is growth that cannot be managed within the specific city facilities. That is where the problem is and PAF and all of the other advocacy groups are silent on that topic. Not their concern.

On the Neighborhood site is a person who owns a home in Los Altos Hills whose house uses a septic tank. He tried to get the City of Palo Alto too install pipes but they said no. Are all of the people in Los Altos Hills on septic tanks? Why coming to PA and now the City of LAH?

Last winter SU lost electricity and the papers said they got their electricity from "the east side of the state". How can that be? Have they no facilities on that campus that processes human entrenchment on the site?

I am all for the building on the Mollie Stone location - in fact convert all of Cal Ave into giant condo buildings. That will solve our problem.

As to age of current buildings - we lived in UCLA Married Student Housing on Sawtelle build in WW2. Those were/are huge apartments. -Better than the sardine cans that are being proposed now.
Bottom line is that Advocacy Groups just rattle on a single topic with no in-depth knowledge of cause and effect on existing systems. And they work to get funding for going that.

@stephen levy: you present as "in the know" about PAF and housing, so maybe you can add to this discussion. Can you:

1. provide specifics about demand?

2. explain why current demand data is not public information and also not central to every decision about housing (and expressed in numbers rather than platitudes)?

3. explain why there's apparent refusal to officially re-visit the RHNA numbers given all that has changed as a result of Covid?


I think it makes perfect sense that Palo Altans seek to preserve what they can about Palo Alto's built environment - and not just because it is lovely. How this city looks and feels has long defined the essence of this community. Visitors comment on the canopy, the attractive streets, our parks, and the different neighborhoods. These things matter and if we need to adjust our approach on that and embrace some fundamental changes, it should be for good reason, not b/c something is possible thanks to bought-and-paid-for legislation such as Builder's Remedy.

Sometimes I think all the grandstanding over housing is more about prevailing in a philosophical battle than it is building what is actually needed. That, and garnering campaign contributions.

I liked the area before California street was closed to traffic and it had a book store, bar. I look at the out of control development in Redwood City and wonder if Palo Alto true mission is like Redwood City. Raise taxes,fee's increase the profits of developers and big business?

If approved, considering the typical pace of construction in the SF Bay Area this project is likely to take at least 2-3 years to complete, especially since a deep excavation will be needed for a vary large parking garage.

So unless Mollie Stone's relocated temporarily to the Country Sun location or some other large space nearby, it will lose its presence on California Avenue for enough time so that people will forget about it. I am guessing the plan for a Mollie Stone's on the first floor is unrealistic and probably just for show. Mollie Stone's owner will make enough money being in the joint venture for this project that he won't care if his new supermarket will re-open or not.

Too large.
Under parked.
Out of scale with community.
Unwanted.

Non-starter. Any council member that votes for approval should be kicked out next election cycle.

Clear and simple.

Builder's remedy is the worst thing to happen to CA since Reagan. We need to get this on the ballot and off the books ASAP.