Who are the people we expect to live in any housing here? Are these going to be restaurant workers? Do teachers, fire, police, want to live with their families in this type of housing? Has anyone asked them?

There was a time downtown was overrun with tech workers, but that is no longer the case. Facebook, Google, etc. are downsizing their work force.

Do we have anyone doing inventory on what is available and why they are empty? The last I heard from a couple of techies looking to find a place to share was that there were lots to look at in the Mountain View/Palo Alto areas. Are we still in need of the same types of housing we are being expected to build?

So let's see here - the bike coalition now has El Camino with no parking when they repave. If you cannot park on El Camino is University next? You cannot park on California Ave. WE have a number of special interests groups working their single topic themes and they expect to get funding to do that. These groups are paid to push their topic. But CA Ave is not getting any accolades for it's current approach. People hate it and want it to return to it's former status with street parking.

Same with housing - if you take away the street parking then you need the parking lots. Every single topic group works independent of all of the other groups. The City Hall people are suppose to have the overview to make decisions that balance all of the objectives. Creating housing where you have already put in a parking lot is very difficult and costly to take down. A residential multi-story residence needs a deep underground set-up for utilities and parking for the residents.

The article says time limits on parking in downtown lots aren't enforced after 3 PM, but the sign in the picture at the top says 5 PM. Which is it? Were the limits changed during the pandemic?

Inlike how Cal Ave is now and always see lots of folks enjoying tbe car free vibe. I’m really glad both of these proposals focus exclusively on low income. I worry if parking is moved elsewhere it could eventually be eliminated. Underground parking is expensive to build and maybe they are trying to reduce costs? Overall encoraging.

One of the reasons is that they are not used enough? Is that because the commercial buildings around them are empty and for lease? We need to STOP and let the business people come back and fill those buildings with attractive businesses so people come downtown. PA is a University city with people who come here for the games. Our high school teams are winners who command large crowds. With that many people coming in cars for our signature events then they all need to park somewhere. And that is NOT on residential streets. Suggest the city come up with incentives to get the business back here.

These 2 questions by Bystander bear repeating:

Do we have anyone doing inventory on what is available and why they are empty?

Are we still in need of the same types of housing we are being expected to build?

As of today, I think the answer to both questions is NO.

"But city staff believes parking could become more of an issue in the future, particularly in light of Assembly Bill 2097, a new law that exempts new developments near transit stations from parking requirements."

And yet people are being encouraged to take public transit when there's no where to park.

Re the bike coalition and their quest to eliminate parking, San Francisco merchants and residents are furious over this. What started out as a few protests has now mushroomed into major story packages from many media on Google News and elsewhere.

Do they not realize that this costly lunacy will destroy businesses by making them inaccessible??

Maybe all of PA's "retail consultants" could weigh in on what the elimination of downtown parking will do to downtown retail?

There was a time when we " paved paradise and put up parking lots". Now parking lots are the only open space we have downtown that allow us to take a break from the looming buildings and visualize the sky and clouds. Now we are planning to destroy the only "open parking spaces" we have left to build more energy consuming, sun blocking, oppressive, dark, demoralizing, ugly big buildings.

This is not progress at all, but certainly is a huge mistake for the city and everyone's quality of life.

I really like the idea of temporary housing in parking structures(with toilets). In the future, fewer homeowners will own cars but will need occasional ubers. A parking structure is a place for those ubers to hang out when not needed. Secondly, homeless could use the structure to get out of the occasional bad weather we have. Thirdly and most important, when the big earthquake hits, so many of us will be temporarily homeless. The big concrete non-flammable parking lots will be godsends.

Good idea. Also, if they are upzoning higher than 50-feet in south Palo Alto (which is getting the lion's share of the housing), they should do the same in north Palo Alto which has more community and transit resources to support higher density. That is only FAIR.