"While city planners appear willing to give Acclaim what it wants . . . "

Tell us something we don't know!

There are two things about the above that are, well, galling. First, we should not still be functioning w/o an approved housing element. The longer we are in that limbo, the longer we are vulnerable to the whims of developers. And maybe our own planners. Given the Planning Department's cozy relationship with developers, it's not a huge leap to conclude that there's little incentive to submit a compliant plan. Second, the sentence suggests that Acclaim need only satisfy City Planners b/c Council will follow their lead. That's often the way it works (Exhibit A: Castilleja) but I think it worth remembering that residents elect CC members to represent them, not the interests of developers.

Can anyone answer this: is there really demand for all the units that developers are planning? I am aware of the need to house the growing number of homeless people, but I question if those people are going to choose to buy or lease units such as these. I think we need an honest, post-Covid needs assessment.

Palo Alto submits a "housing element" to the state housing agency; developers file objections; the state housing agency rejects it based on developer objections; developers pursue "builders remedy." Affordable housing proponents fronted this law, but it's by, for and about developers, and the affordable housing component is at best token.

"To appease developer..." Hardly unusual for Palo Alto or its developer-supported politicians who all voted for the high-density housing and "Builders Remedy" provisions.

"Affordable housing proponents fronted this law, but it's by, for and about developers, and the affordable housing component is at best token."

Yup. Only 5% of the required housing is for very low income and a full 85% is "Market Rate" housing for the well-paid willing to pay at least $4,000 for a one=-bedroom.

Let's remember that the "affordable housing proponents" who fronted and funded this law often did so when affordable housing wasn't in THEIR backyard. Marc Andreesen made national news for his hypocrisy in making huge donations to lobbyists WHILE writing to Atherton City Council to protest a multi-family development near his $6,600,000 manse.

Mark Berman, another Builder's Remedy backer, was just reported to have one of the 5 biggest investment portfolios of all CA legislators and one showing big conflicts of interest between his portfolio and his votes.

When voting, check their records and vote no on DODO politicians (Developer Owned Developer Operated).

When large market rate developers are asked what they need, the answer is one word “More”

I don't get this idea of accommodating developers. When we wanted to do a small remodel to our home there was no idea of accommodating us, we had to give in to them on several points. One rule for developers and another rule for residents. We are the ones who live here. We are the ones who will be affected. We are the ones the city should be thinking about.

I am not sure why we wouldn't accommodate developers needs in order to make projects work. These are really minor deviations being requested and it will facilitate almost 400 units getting built near jobs, near schools where painful enrollment declines and occurring, and near local businesses on Cal Ave that could certainly use a lot more customers.

And let's not forget the city will get unit at least 57 affordable units with this proposal - with ZERO city dollars and that there are ZERO single-family residential neighbors adjacent to this site.

This is exactly the type of creative coordniation we need to get housing built. I applaud the developer and Council working together to make a better and more feasible project.

The setbacks and modulation requirements can be worked through and actually seem silly to cling to in the face of our dual housing/climate crisis. After all, great architecture rarely happens with overly specific zoning requirements - and I want to see some great projects here in Palo Alto. Let's make this one happen!

The current plan on file with the City of Palo Alto calls for 38 Below Market Rate (BMR) units.

Web Link

“I am not sure why we wouldn’t accommodate developer needs in order to make projects work.” (Comment from Amie, above)
We wouldn’t because the elected City Council should be in charge, not private developers.

@ Local news junkie: precisely!

This Acclaim project at this ECR location may make sense and be a good one to promote, but Staff should not be the deciders of that. Their job is to review and inform. Only.

Palo Alto has a housing crisis. This segment of Camino Real is a great location for lots of new homes -- near transit, shopping, and other amenities. It is great news that city leaders are working with builders to find a plan forward that works for everyone. A little more height and bulk are a reasonable way we can locate more homes in this development.

Annette,

Staff is not the decider but as Adam says above, they can play a positive role as they did Monday in facilitating minor changes that allow this needed housing to move forward and the council did approve the one large change recommended.

"This Acclaim project at this ECR location may make sense and be a good one to promote, but Staff should not be the deciders of that. Their job is to review and inform. Only. "

Annette's absolutely right. We've seen too many examples of staff's bias and unwillingness to dig into facts surrounding proposed projects.

Two examples come easily to mind:

Casti, where up until the final moment of thje 6+ years of hearings they hadn't figured out how to count traffic, who'd pay to monitor the traffic and whether to/ how to penalize Casti if they again violated their Transportation Demand Management plan.
6 -- SIX years -- to get to questions that should have been asked at the beginning

Town & Country shopping center's proposed conversion from retail to medical/retail 2 weeks before the pandemic lockdown ended. CC member Cormack tried to rush it through before lockdown ended. City staff never / ever bothered to define what "medical/ retail even meant. They, unlike Lydia Kou and individuals like me, never even bothered to contact any tenants.

Fortunately the latter was so pathetic it got killed before city staff could destroy another resource like they've done with Cal Ave and like they're planning to do with University Ave.

Palo Alto needs LESS housing, not more. More open space, parks. We don't need more pollution, traffic, and crowding.

I will wait until the real responsible entity for Highway 82 weighs in on this. El Camino Real is California Historical Landmark #784. We can't even get anyone to agree that monitor windows qualify a building to rate historic protection. El Camino Real is owned and operated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). You can't fight city hall unless you're city hall and you have the right politicians in your pocket to effect change. PS I notice they keep their mouths shut about the McDonalds that is the a huge part of this project.