Developers in this area must be required to include decent-sized parks—not just landscaping or dog runs. It’s all asphalt, glass, and concrete now—and will only get worse.

These are excellent locations for development of apartments/ condos. We still are not seeing anything on the FRY's site. They need to apply some thought to the El Camino locations between Charleston to Oregon. Lots of old buildings - some empty.

If empty then the city should apply pressure - say they will take over, tear down, and rebuild. Check out East Bayshore - why so many buildings For Lease? Are they asking too much? Start checking the empty buildings - if they do not get these into a marketable situation then they need to get out of the For Lease business.

Including the phrase "legally murky" without explanation/support makes this piece come across as an op ed, not as factual reporting.

Geez, we already have too much gridlock. 2000 or 4000 more cars on our streets, yay.

Palo Alto needs new homes. This is a step in the right direction: 200 homes on San Antonio road, including 40 below-market homes. And: our city needs to take strong action now to provide services and amenities for new residents moving into the southeast corner of our city.

This is great news! As someone who worked in Palo Alto and struggled finding apartments at a decent price, I hope to see more projects come up so that we can have more options and not be forced to move out and drive 3hrs everyday.

We need long-term Comprehensive Planning around the mandated Housing Element changes. The city has not assigned sufficient resources to plan and implement infrastructure and community service improvements this new housing will demand in south Palo Alto. (Nor have PAUSD staff and electeds done sufficient planning. They have their heads in the sand about growth.) Massive State housing mandates were written in knee jerk response to ill-informed advocates who foolishly gave nary a thought, on their single-minded mission, to tying housing growth compliance to fiscal resources for expansion of community services, utilities, transportation systems, public schools. Council, turn your heads SOUTH, where you are now planning massive housing growth. Get out of City Hall and learn about this part of town. Be present in south Palo Alto where the city has decided to build the lion's share of new housing. Your absence (and staff's absence) has been noticed. Walk, bike and drive these areas. Talk with the people who live here to understand the area's needs. You work downtown, so you know that area well. It is clearly evident that you do NOT know south Palo Alto well at all. Stop planning off of Google maps, relying on out-of town consultants. Your rapidly increasing ignorance of current on-the-ground conditions is clearly evident to the people, but not to you. How could you know what you don't know without visiting? Go for a group walk with residents, visit neighborhood meetings. Listen to the people you serve. Experience what they experience alongside them. It will transform the relationship you have with the public. Your absence is undermining trust. The contrived "Town Halls" have been a Public Relations wash--not meaningful outreach. Ask yourself, when you are working on a project, "when was the last time I walked this area with a citizen to learn how things work?" Be more open. It's difficult to trust people who constantly hold up a facade. PR will not suffice.

So if the state housing department is not required to return the submitted housing plan in any reasonable time frame how is it that developers can claim that the city if out of compliance and build whatever they want? Is the state housing department colluding with developers to give them a lot of time to do this? Can the city claim that they submitted the plan and it is the state's fault that we don't have it back yet? Do we need to go to court to stop all of this stupid building that will add more pollution, use more energy and water and further destroy the environment?

HCD has always responded to Palo Alto within the legal review period—3 months for the first submission and 2 months for the second I believe.
And their schedule of due dates and submitted reviews is on their website
TMPs post above is not correct.

I knew a Hengehold family member in my youth, so I'm sentimental about seeing the site of a family owned business go, but I think replacing a truck rental lot with apartments is going to greatly improve walkability, reduce traffic, and improve neighborhood appeal.

Tmp's idea that this will create traffic, pollution, and energy use is incorrect. Denser neighborhoods close to amenities use less resources.

More doesn't necessarily mean cheaper otherwise NYC and other densely populated locations would be much cheaper than Wyoming and Indiana and Mississippi.

Maybe the high-density advocates could start comparing prices?

"Denser neighborhoods close to amenities use less resources."

This is not true as a general rule. It can be true under some conditions (e.g. population remains constant, cost of living goes up, certain standards of living decline), but it's important not to accept it without understanding the conditions.

For example, if you move new people into an area, then the transportation demand in that area will go up. In areas like ours, where the roads are the major transportation infrastructure, that means traffic will go up as density increases. This phenomenon is discussed more technically in the CEQA addendum for the Housing Element.

Where will the children attend school? Since possibly sizable number of kids, then school names, capacities and routes should be noted. (Sorry if I missed this aspect)

"We need long-term Comprehensive Planning around the mandated Housing Element changes." AMEN!

We have to stop hiding our heads in the sand and having tantrums like 2-year-olds and just put our head's together to build housing for our kids, seniors, and workers. We can do it, there is no shortage or brilliant, creative people in this town. Forget the state's 6,000 mandated units and face the fact that we have a housing crisis that we refuse to fix but then complain about ALL the side effects of the 30,000+ people who drive here for work each day (i.e., air pollution, GHGs, noise, traffic, suffering retail, decling school enrollment, lack of essential workers - need I go on......).

How is it that Mountain View can do 20+ community plans in the last 15 years (complte with CEQA clearances for projects) and we can barely do one? We need planning for transportation, schools, retail, and services. It isn't rocket science and we know what works, let the professional planners to their jobs! Commuity input is essential but cannot be a roadblock to a better community.

Hooray for this project, hooray for more housing.

Every year, California continues to lose more residents than it is gaining. Why? Quality of life is deteriorating. Cement towers with one or two trees along a very busy street is a poor option for a home. Palo Alto has less and less to offer. Crowded streets, filled with cars. When one can work from anywhere in the high tech world, why would you choose to live in a concrete jungle with fewer and fewer amenities?

It will be interesting to experience the increased traffic at each of these locations. Leaving The Fish Market after dinner was always challenging with all the cars traversing swiftly along El Camino so adding hundreds of additional vehicles at that location into the mix should make for enormous traffic sizing problems for the city to solve after the fact.

For several years there has been an abandoned multi-story construction project on El Camino across from the Fish Market. Wonder what the original investors learned when they stopped it?

And for our politicians ready to spend tax payer money for these projects, use no public funds for these construction projects. The developers can go to a bank like we do when remodeling our homes and pay the going interest rates.

Builders Remedy = Destroyed Neighborhoods for Developer Profit

The idea of "Builder's Remedy" needs to be struck from the books ASAP. Either our representatives do this in Sacramento...or we send NEW representatives.

I suspect if we stack all of the “Traffic Studies” performed for developments along San Antonio Road together…the road would look like a 10-lane highway to accept all of this new traffic.

This is a horrible development. San Antonio Road is a parking lot twice a day. Furtermore, the develolpment is under parked...meaning that cars will be parked all over the neighborhood.

This is a non-starter development.

Every city has a budget based on the property taxes and state income tax expected to be received in that location based on history. The city budget allocates the budget based on infrastructure costs experienced in the current periods and forecasted in the future. That is the accepted process for running a city and state. Actual cost incurred and predictability are the accepted norms of standard cost accounting principles. That is what cites get audited on under GSA rules. That is what businesses use to determine where to put their business ventures. They are subjected to cost accounting standards to run their business, including hiring people. The Tax Codes require accountability.

The legislature passed a Builder's Remedy which obliterates all of the standards required to run a city and state. Lack of predictability is chaos in motion and should be written off the books as illegal.

At both the family level and business level people need a predicable set of norms to function successfully. Any legislator who defies the norms of accounting standards and upends a cities' ability to successfully provide the infrastructure support required - water in, water out, electricity, trash control, security - police and fire needs to be removed from office. They do not understand the basic requirements of running a city, county, and state.

Show boaters, inexperienced people should not be voted into office. Our state is currently under water in every way possible. We do not need the chaos willfully manufactured by our state government.

Resident,

New buildings pay property on their current high valuation.

The old buildings being replaced pay low property tax based on Proposition 13 valuations from 1978.

New building is a big win for the city coffers.

Hengehold trucks is a big source of sales tax revenue for the city. Unfortunately one more useful local sales tax generating business no doubt will be forced out of Palo Alto.

Developers are still bullish enough on the future desirability of a Palo Alto business address to continue planning to build more dense office space in addition to the current proposals for high rise apartment buildings. The so-called “workforce” housing restricted to those who earn up to $175K a year. With a majority of the proposed units appearing to be small to very small (non-family friendly) units, plus a few token so-called “below market rate” apartments set aside, but likely still too expensive for those who do not have a tech industry related salary.

Commercial property is usually held for many, many decades longer than housing. At the time Prop 13 passed, Palo Alto’s property tax was divided approximately 50-50 between commercial and residential properties . Since then Palo Alto’s share of revenue from commercial property has steadily decreased and now represents only 25%, with 75% coming from home owners. In addition, Prop 13 also contains sweetheart deals that allow changes in commercial property ownership to be structured in a way that does not trigger a new property tax assessment. Although, of course, any subsequent “improvements” to the property are added to the property tax base.

Commercial property is usually held for many, many decades longer than housing. At the time Prop 13 passed, Palo Alto’s property tax was divided approximately equally 50-50 between commercial and residential properties . Since then Palo Alto’s share of revenue from commercial property has steadily decreased and now represents only 25%, on an ever downward trajectory, with 75% now coming from home owners. . In addition, Prop 13 also contains sweetheart deals that allow changes in commercial property ownership to be structured in a way that does not trigger a new property tax assessment. Although, of course, subsequent “improvements” to the property are added to the property tax base.

@mjh, is right. And while commercial property owners/ landlords "live" longer than humam property owners you rarely see them reducing rents. Just go back and reread the stories on Mike's Diner where the long-time property owners paid about $5,000 in property tax a YEAR while charging him about $52,000 a MONTH ($624,000 annually) while wanting even more plus a percentage of tenant sales.

Yet do you hear the YIMBY's complaining about landlords? Nope. Instead they vociferously attack all the horrible human NIMBY's who scandalously benefiting from the same Prop 13 as the landlords while ignoring that Prop 13 was designed to let "Grandma" stay in her home on Social Security and reduced income.

Ironically and illogically, now they use RESIDENTIAL Prop 13 Granny to justify underparked ADUs and high-density housing everywhere and now Prop 19 to force out Granny out after her parents die.

On NextDoor recently there were more than 200 incredibly nasty posts attacking a woman on Social Security who's now being forced to sell and move as a profiteer expecting freebies while defending the Housing Element creating 80% Market Rate housing units for rich techies making average tech salaries of $250,000+ vs $25,000 in Social Security.

I guess this is the age of illogical cruelty like Trumpers / Maga who brag about "making libruls cry"

So.....What is the city planning to do to meet increased demand for community services in this part of town where the lion's share of housing is being built? Cubberley is literally rotting, rat-infested, littered with portables to replace spaces that no longer function. Heaving cement walkways, leaking roofs, dry rot window sills, landscaping that has been replaced by cracked asphalt. The gyms have been closed for more than a year due to water intrusion. The buildings have needed paint for over ten years. Active neglect is not acceptable. It is very hard not to be angry. It looks like a slum, including the eight acres the city owns. The site has been neglected for at least 25 years. We have been through TWO planning processes in the last decade with zero progress. PAUSD, please help our community get this moving. Families, children and seniors need this space to be functional again.

With Builder's Remedy, the developer has to provide a flat 20% of affordable units, 40 out of 198.

If it were a regular project, which almost certainly would have been approved by the City given the location far from any single-family homes, it would have been 132 base units with 20 affordable units and 66 Density Bonus units, for a net percentage of 10% affordable.

While the City will end up with a little less property tax revenue, and a little less money in impact fees, it's probably worth it to get twice as many affordable units to help meet its RHNA. requirement.

The question is why the property owner decided to take this route and be forced to include double the number of affordable units. Developers hate inclusionary requirements. It's why they love to threaten Builder's Remedy but then not do it.

@Steven "... why the property owner decided to take this route?"

Obviously to make more profits. But "How?", is your real question.

There are two possibilities, and I'm speculating on both.

1.) IF the DR law sets aside height limits, and 2.) the DR law sets aside the requirement that BMR units be "substantially similar" to non BMR units, then developers can minimize how much square footage is earmarked for BMR not how many units.

Taller buildings can be configured to provide fewer units that are much, much larger, ultra-luxury units that look out upon Silicon Valley, commanding global prices, and lower down in the building provide the required number of BMR coffin apartments. In this scenario developers are able to build a higher percentage of non-BMR square footage and perhaps command a premium price on that square footage.

This is what's happened with the 400' Sunset project in Menlo Park. In the 2nd iteration from the developer, the number of units has been scaled down from 1100 to 800. If this takes place in the same building footprint, then it would reduce the required number of BMR units and sf and allow for much large non-BMR units.

After reading the comment by Consider Your Options I put on my conspiracy hat and came up with ...

The city and PAUSD let Cubberley rot a a bit more then decide there's nothing can save the current facility. They sell/lease the land to a developer which builds housing and a new community center run by the city. Kind of like the Tesla partnership with the city for the new substation.

Big money for schools and the city at least some of which would be wisely spent. More housing to meet the state mandate. A community center built for the future.

A lot of cities have closed high schools that they have converted into community resource locations that serve many purposes. Red Morton Community Park in RWC is a source of facilities and fields for all to sign up and use.

The City of Santa Clara Heritage Theatre is in a closed high school which now houses a Charter School and has all of the fields for community use.

CHS is a source for many groups to have a meeting place. Tearing that down for housing will eliminate a major community resource.

So tired of the "Housing Argument" which is going to destroy this and all cities if used to destroy community resources.