Do I think there should be more low income housing? Yep! Is there inadequate local input? Sure! But that lack of input is Palo Alto’s choice: had the city an adequate (legally acceptable) plan, the developer wouldn’t have been able to resort to the builder’s remedy, which is a legal last resort.

I love California Ave and I think this plan is real: good for shops, good for restaurants, close to transit (so not as many cars), so good for Palo Alto, and for our state too.

There will be more cars than ever, not less. There just won't be places to park except on the street. Even people that use the train will need cars for other purposes.

"Palo Alto, he added, wouldn't be subject to a builder's remedy application if it had followed state law and approved a compliant Housing Element."

Actually PA submitted its Housing Element in May -- 6.5 months ago -- but the state is slow-walking its review so developers can milk this for maximum profit under the Berman's Remedy provision designed by DODO politicians (Developer Owned Developer Operated).

When will the state reconsider its absurd HE targets in the face of the drastically changed state and local economy? Not for 8 -- EIGHT years -- because we know everything stays the same for 8 years -- our weight, portfolio value, employment status, etc etc.

The finest "democracy" money can buy!

To clarify Online Name has it backwards
HCD replied to the May submittal on time and the city is now not choosing to respond to the second HCD letter until next year. The city may have good reasons to delay filing a third draft but it is staff and council's choice to delay responding.
It would also be a good step forward if some of the applications on file were brought forward for council review and discussion.

Palo Alto certainly needs more housing, and although the size this development is out of step with the rest of this neighborhood, I believe a condition of it's approval should be that at least half of the proposed housing units be for low-income residents. The cost of housing in Palo Alto as well as surrounding communities is contributing factor in homelessness. While I understand that builders need to recoup costs and make a profit, a project of this size should also address the lack of affordable housing.

Anyone who has paid attention to development in this city knows that our planning department favors applications from developers and others with big money, such as Castilleja. That we do not have a compliant Housing Element is a boon to developers b/c that status keeps us vulnerable to Bulder's Remedy. Our City Attorney says otherwise, but it seems to me her protestations are being ignored. So here we are.

We are often told that we must pay top dollar to attract and retain top tier senior staff. So we do. So, how is it that our supposedly top tier team cannot submit a compliant plan? Are we expected to believe that it is nothing more than coincidence that being out of compliance is beneficial to developers? I kinda doubt it.

And to Mollie Stones: you might want to check with your former colleague, John Garcia, about promises made by developers. I think it safe to say that he would not have ended up at Mollie Stones had promises by the developer been kept. Get a good lawyer to write an iron-clad agreement for the protections Mollie Stones wants and needs.

Would be interesting to see a rendering of this project from a different angle, especially how this looks from the neighbors just north of the proposed development (or from Peers park). Likely this would show a dramatically negative impact on the people who already reside nearby beyond the anticipated increase in parking and traffic. Not everyone who owns a home in Palo Alto is rich. For many people, their life savings are tied up in their house, and their quality of life involves living in a low-rise environment. Yes, I know we need more housing, but this kind of thing is a direct transfer of financial and emotional value from one group of people to another.

In a word, obnoxious !

We should remain a low-rise suburb. The City Council enacted the 50-foot height limit in reaction to the tall office building on University and others of its ilk. Now, 50 years later, we have to be more flexible. But the developer is thumbing his nose at the city with this 177-foot proposal and dressing it up with sweet-sounding, faux concern about social issues. Brava, Mayor Kou, for standing up for the right of residents to be to heard.

Presumably this would be done in such a way that Mollie Stone's would not have to close for a couple of years. In other words, this could be a decade of construction with a decade worth of construction traffic, construction noise and construction dust. Not a pleasant idea for what might be a pedestrian precinct for dining and relaxing.

Additionally, we are still not being told what type of units are being built. How many are studios, one bed, two bed units? Will there be any joint space for residents? Will there be any park area?

Where will all these new residents spend their weekends, certainly not eating in restaurants? This is something we are very much lacking in town, our parks get overcrowded because there is not enough space for sport, for children to play and for families to gather. We definitely need more recreational amenities.

Lastly, what about water, what about power? As it is our power goes out much too often. Will the drain on our power supply and our water supply be enough in this area?

This project should be considered rejected as presented and the city attorney join with others in their positions in other cities around the state to litigate against the non elected state Housing department to eliminate them, their funding and the builders remedy.

I see a need for more housing in Palo Alto but not low income as defined. I do not see Palo Alto residents that need help getting back on their feet. What I do see is the need for our college graduates coming back to the area and not being able to afford housing without living four to an apartment. And for our young professionals that come here to work such as nurses & doctors at Stanford needing reasonable housing.

The city and county should remove all the RVs parked on El Camino and other areas spilling their sewage into the Bay drains and oil on the streets. The city and county do not have the obligation to build housing for those that have come here living in the RVs.

This is Redco's "A" plan. Wait until the dust settles and we'll see what they're really after with their "C" plan.

104 studios - some are 558 sq. ft.
187 one bedroom units - some are 744 sq. ft.
91 two bedroom units - some are 961 sq ft

Web Link

The City submitted a compliant housing element, but it did not meet HCDs personal agenda, which goes well beyond state law including their desire to eliminate all single family and low density housing so they rejected it anyway.

"104 studios - some are 558 sq. ft.
187 one bedroom units - some are 744 sq. ft.
91 two bedroom units - some are 961 sq ft"

What a boon to low-income families and working couples. How great the residents don't have to drive to work since the units get less than a single parking space per unit.

(obvious sarcasm because this project is designed mostly for single highly-paid techies and childless couples)

I think making California avenue buildings more dense makes a lot of sense but 17 stories? I would prefer the whole avenue to be all 8 story buildings instead.

I wish someone would point out that "Transit" around here is entirely useless to the residents of this proposed tower. Unless you are impoverished, or a retiree with a high pain threshold, you can't easily get from Molly Stone to, say, the Stanford Shopping Center on public transportation. In NYC I could go from anywhere to Katz Deli for a nosh, but here? we have a car culture. Even after the idiots responsible for turning Charleston/Arastradero into gridlock and Louis into a main corridor for construction vehicles it is -STILL- faster to drive.

If you are really a YISOEB (Yes in Someone Elses Backyard), try to imagine what living in one of these places would be like. without a car, or if you have a car where you parked it in front of someone elses house...

and I wonder when the Developer funding of Gavin Newsome's Presidential bid will become public? Hypothetical, but giving a small group of wealthy developers to override the wishes of the community???

To EEyore: Actually, you can take the Marguerite shuttle SE from California Avenue to the Stanford shopping center. It runs every hours which is not great but doable. There is also the City of Palo Alto ride service that is like Uber.

Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Good transit needs density and density needs good public transit. So which do you build first? I would say you do both but doing dense first will work as well.

But, Palo Alto is bikeable 95% of the time, and that can only get better with density.

Steve,

YOU can wait an hour for a bus, plus transit time. You won't catch me riding a bike in this city, even when it is not raining or commute time. We already have density and, with the exception of that new shuttle, no one is presenting plans to build out matching transit. and, since we are not ever going to get anything like a subway, new transit is going to be sharing city streets.

And note that I used Stanford Shopping Center as an example. Yesterday I drove to Santa Clara for my vaccinations, then to Summer Winds to pick up a bulky metal trellis, then to Ace Hardware for misc. hardware. If I were still working you can add in another commute to Santa Clara.

New housing doesn't meet the smoke test for sustainability. Sorry. It is a pipe dream and will degrade our lived experience if it gets crammed down our throats by developers given free reign by a Governor with Presidential aspirations.

I'm all for this development, even knowing this is likely not the final version. Putting high density housing next to a train station is a no brainer. The stores and restaurants and bars on Cal Ave are going to have 100s of new customers within walking distance. This development works hand in hand with the car free zone. I'm excited to see what Cal Ave will be like when this is complete.

Rents for available apartments at the Palomino at Page Mill and El Camino include the following:

Studio (Junior One Bedroom) $3,447 to $3,597 for 374 sq ft
Studio (Junior One Bedroom) $3,025 Below Market for 374 sq ft
One Bedroom $3,999 to $4,360 for 522 sq ft

Web Link

@EEyore: There's actually great transit if you're close to ECR, as this wonderful project is. Your planned trip can be accomplished in about 25 minutes. A 5 minute walk to ECR, take VTA Route 22 - which is on 15 minute frequency throughout the day, get off at Palo Alto Caltrain, then it's a short, pleasant walk through the park to Stanford shopping center. The trip to "get a bagel" that you describe would be even shorter - just get off the bus at Town and Country. Is it longer than driving? Maybe slightly, but the tradeoffs are lower cost (car ownership!), less stress, environmental positives, exercise and more. We just need a mindset shift. "We don't have transit" is just code for "We don't have transit that I know about."

Web Link
Web Link

Think of the lifestyle you could have in this new building: Grocery downstairs, great services and eating down the block. Transit access.

Don’t think one minute this will help low income families. Even ifthey can afford the rent, they are not likely to be the ones who can do without a car. If you want to accommodate teachers, nurses, service workers, you need room for their families. Only “some” of the two bedroom units are 961 square feet which is pretty tight for two adults and 2 children. You also need parking. They are not likely to take the ‘transit’ that is available in the Cal Ave area. They do not ride the train to SF or San Jose to sit in an office all day. They likely do not work in the office buildings that surround Cal Ave. Will they want to do all of their grocery shopping at Mollie Stone’s, or somewhere more affordable? Will they want to dine in the expensive restaurants along Cal Ave? Not saying that the people who do choose to live in this kind of development won’t take the available transit (or use Uber which also increases traffic), or shop at Mollie Stone’s or dine in the expensive restaurants. Just don’t be thinking this is going to be a solution for housing for low to even medium income families. The developer must have a demand model in mind. I would like to see it.

Thank you to the resident of Crescent Park for thinking of the residents who already live in this area. So easy for people who don’t live there, who definitely don’t want anything like near them, to forget about the residents not just of Evergreen Park, but also the residents of the truly-low income, subsidized apartments on Park Blvd in back of Mollie Stones.

@ Anony Mouse
I’m sure that your description of taking the bus within town is accurate. But what if the weather is bad or you are not young, have a couple of kids in tow, have a disability, or are carrying packages (after that trip to Stanford Shopping Center)? As you describe, taking the bus from this development to the shopping center would involve walking to ECR, waiting for the bus, getting off at Palo Alto Caltrain, and then walking some more to get to the shopping center. That versus just getting in your car and going. I wonder which option most people would choose.

First, this is the CC and Shikeda's fault. I guess our City Council and Ed Shikeda should have submitted an actually approvable housing element with time to get it approved. Instead they diddled around thinking they were above the law here in exceptional Palo Alto. Good work, Ed. You are the gift that keeps giving.

Second, we need different leadership that actually gives a rat's behind about Cal Ave, Ventura, and Palo Alto. For those of us who used to rely on businesses on Cal Ave before they were all replaced by random cross-fits and restaurants, the stupid closed road is killing stores and looks like a junk heap of tent encampments. We can't even keep a Jamba Juice or a Starbucks. All the closed storefronts on El Camino south of Page Mill is ugly and unusable. Cal Ave was our only walkable business area, now being ruined by the closed road.

If you compared genteel North PA to Barron Park, Venture and Cal Ave you would not believe it was the same city. The level of resources, appropriate development, beautification -- it is all much worse. But hey we got Police Palace and Parking Manor. For 22 years I have been looking at concrete "planters" along El Camino across from the various seedy motels that are filled with trash and vomit. I'd love to see that in Community Center.

Mayor Kuo questions the democratic process for housing for all, when she herself, time and time again reinforces the SFH owner power, advances the protections for exclusionary R1Zones which make up 80% of the private owned single family homes. From the Dais: "Thats far away from the single family home, right? This won't interfere with the neighborhood single family homes, right? This plan is no where within a single family home, right? I am all for this plan as its far away from all the single family home zones which include at least 10 PANA neighborhood associations who are hard at work keeping others out.

I am collecting now a file on this topic - the HCD APPROVALS that then get rejected by the HCD because activist groups interject then selves into the process and totally destroy the credibility of the city who is suppose to be in charge of this topic for the city. Brisbane is now in the dog house. The SF Chronicle names the people and groups who are actively interfering in the process. All so self righteous in their POV's.

I think this is a good development for Cal Ave. I do not go there anymore because it is so unattractive. A useful location that was convenient to visit is no more. Time to take down and replace a number of those buildings and replace with new multi-story residential units. the Sun Market building should be next to go as it is closing. Open the street up again and stop trying to socially manage people's businesses which are leaving.

Where is the reporting on the Fry's site? The Fish Market site? WE have a number of locations that are in review - let's get the whole list out there.

And look at the unrealistic comments on how to manage your day just to go shopping. How old are these people? If you are 25 then maybe it works. How about if you have a family in tow? Or a baby? Sorry does not work, People who make comments are young - or unencumbered with family members. Old people need to get out and shop - they need cars if not within walking distance of a store.

People - manage your own day and let other people manage their days - they do not need your "advice". They live here too and know where they want to go.

Just a note: It appears to me that the11 story building on the north side of Cambridge should be reduced to 7 or 8 stories. It appears to violate the daylight plane entitlements for nearby R-1 parcels on College Avenue, specifically for 211, 221, 231, 245, 255 at least, and perhaps 261. If there are daylight plane entitlements for multi-family parcels, then this project violates those for 2257-2349 Park Blvd and possible for the condo complex near the California Avenue Caltrain station.

Looks great to me - housing near transit, schools, jobs, and will be a boon for Cal Ave businesses. Many of whom are struggling. Let's get it built so Palo Alto can be amazing!

@ Amie
Palo Alto is already “amazing.” Many of us are trying to keep it that way, with no asphalt jungles of 17-story buildings and big city traffic.

@Michael Dauber

Yeah, but we got all the massage parlors. So there.

Over the top development. I say no.

It does nothing for low income, as written about above and the rents will be astronomical. $35,000 a year just for rent?

Again as someone else has written, let's see version 2 of their plans, then version 3 and finally version 4...downscaling each time.