|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Palo Alto launches the complex process of identifying sites to accommodate more than 6,000 new residences, city leaders plan to zoom in on prominent commercial areas such as Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Research Park.
The process of selecting housing sites and deciding how much housing these sites can realistically accommodate began to roll out over the past week, as the city’s newly appointed Housing Element Working Group held its first meeting and elected its co-chairs: Sheryl Klein of the nonprofit builder Alta Housing and Ed Lauing, a member of the Planning and Transportation Commission. On Monday night, the City Council began its own journey toward the new Housing Element when it approved staff’s timeline for crafting the document and offered its early comments on the state-mandated document.
Council members generally acknowledged that creating housing inventory for the period between 2023 and 2031 will be a daunting endeavor, given the high number of residences that Palo Alto is required to plan for and recent state laws that both restrict what sites can be listed and impose new penalties for cities that fall short. Under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, Palo Alto’s housing allocation is set to roughly triple in the next cycle, going from 1,988 in the current planning period to 6,086 in the period stretching from 2023 to 2031.
For a city that consistently fails to meet both its own goals and its regional obligations on housing development, the new numbers represent a steep challenge — one that is almost certain to revive in the coming months of community debates about building heights, parking rules and the sanctity of single-family zoning. These issues will also take center stage next Tuesday, when the council weighs in on two proposed housing developments: a mixed-use project with 36 microstudios at 955 Alma St. and a plan for a three-story, 24-apartment building at 2239 Wellesley St. in the College Terrace neighborhood.
While the majority of the council has consistently opposed allowing multifamily developments in single-family neighborhoods — a position that represents a high hurdle for the College Terrace project — council members indicated on Monday that the state mandate will require them to look for housing opportunities in areas that have historically seen only commercial use. Mayor Tom DuBois suggested that the city look at Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Research Park for housing opportunities and Planning Director Jonathan Lait confirmed that staff will look at these areas, as well as at neighborhoods that are already zoned for multifamily residences.
Even open-space areas, DuBois said, should be in play in the upcoming planning process.
“I would like to challenge the planning commission and council to think a bit outside the box,” DuBois said. “I believe we’re going to have to be very creative and consider a possible expansion of the areas that we’d consider for housing.
“I’m not talking about our neighborhoods,” he added.
Like most of his colleagues on the council, DuBois has been critical of the housing allocation process, which council members have characterized as an unfunded mandate that may be impossible to meet. Next Tuesday, the council will consider whether to formally appeal the city’s allocation with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the regional agency that brings representatives from cities throughout the Bay Area to craft the methodology that is used to develop the housing allocations.
On Monday, several council members reiterated their prior concerns about the state’s planning process — namely, that it puts too much emphasis on market-rate housing and provides too little financial support to enable affordable housing.
Council member Greer Stone described the housing process as a state mandate that is “left to struggling cities in an economic crisis to fund on our own.” Vice Mayor Pat Burt said that by focusing on the number — rather than types — of new residences, the housing allocation process is creating an incentive for cities to focus on adding studios and small apartments to meet the regional targets, to the detriment of larger residences that can accommodate families.
“We’re going to have such difficulty meeting 6,000 housing units,” Burt said. “Achieving both our city’s objectives to balance the demographics and meeting the numerical demands are conflicting objectives.”
Under the timeline that the council endorsed Monday, planning staff will work with the Housing Element Working Group to create an inventory of potential housing sites by March 2022. Staff will then work with the group, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the council’s ad hoc committee to draft new programs to encourage housing. The city would submit an early draft to the state Department of Housing and Community Development by June 2022 and the council would then adopt the Housing Element in November 2022.
The planning exercise has already generated widespread community interest, with more than 80 residents applying to serve on the 15-member Housing Element Working Group. Some in the community view the planning process as a ripe opportunity for the city to rethink its growth policies and actually boost its housing stock. For others, it’s a misguided and likely fruitless exercise.
Kathy Jordan, a member of the working group, pointed on Monday to recent reports from the state Department of Finance showing that California has lost about 182,000 residents in the past year, while Santa Clara County has seen its population drop by 0.6% over the past year — figures that she implied challenge state’s growth projections.
Resident Jeffrey Hook also criticized the regional mandates and suggested that it would be foolish to plan for an increasing population at a time when critical resources are increasingly threatened by climate change.
“Does it make sense to be planning for more people at a time when water is going to become increasingly scarce?” he asked.
Jordan Grimes, member of the advocacy group Peninsula for Everyone, soundly rejected that argument and said that the region’s population is declining is because cities are doing such a miserable job in providing housing.
“Given California’s and Palo Alto’s, specifically, unfortunate commitment to making housing as expensive and difficult to build as possible, it’s a miracle that our population has kept growing for as long as it has, and it’s frankly a testament to how much people will endure to live here,” Grimes said.
There is a confluence of property values and the pandemic that have contributed to people leaving the state. Yes, yes, yes build multifamily housing in commercial. The CC is right on to build at the Stanford Research Park and the mall. We do not need monastic studios . Multifamily housing must be built in Palo Alto.
I believe Jordan Grimes also said Jeffrey Hook’s comments about water and population made him an “Eco Fascist”
California’s population is decreasing. Santa Clara County’s population is decreasing. The Birth Rate is decreasing. People are working remotely and can live far from where they work with ease.
Hmmm. Just putting these things together.
Doing the math…10% of 6,000 equals 600.
How about creating 600 individual or small family homeless dwellings as well?
Take a cue from Mountain View.
Showing some humanity is a virtue and not an encumbrance.
It is journalistic malpractice not to mention that Sierra Club-endorsed Mayor Dubois floated developing open space. That was the most newsworthy remark of the whole meeting by a wide margin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfu1h5seluY&t=11275s
“I believe we’re going to have to be very creative and consider a possible expansion of the areas that we’d consider for housing,” [said DuBois.] “I’m not talking about our neighborhoods,” he added.
Actually, he is talking about neighborhoods. Of course he is. He’s just making the offensive insinuation that multifamily neighborhoods somehow don’t count as neighborhoods.
I used to live in an apartment on Curtner, in the Ventura neighborhood. Then I lived in a townhouse on Vista. Those are neighborhoods! People live there! I lived there. I’m a person. Yes, he is talking about putting housing in neighborhoods. He just thinks that single family detached house neighborhoods should, for some reason, be exempted from new neighbors moving in, and other neighborhoods should get all the new housing.
At least we should expect our politicians to be accurate in the descriptions of their policies. If there are homes in an area, it’s a neighborhood.
Ugh. I see that Mayor Dubois’ openness to developing in open space was indeed mentioned, but I cannot edit or delete my previous comment. I apologize and regret the error.
Which open spaces does Mayor DuBois have in mind, I wonder? I realize that many Palo Altans don’t want duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and small apartment blocks in single family home neighborhoods, but is this what Palo Altans really prefer? Midrise 5 story apartments in the Baylands? Townhouses in Foothills Park? Towers in Arastradero Park?
If choosing where to put the proposed Wellesley apartments, I’m confident Palo Altans would prefer College Terrace to Arastradero Park or Foothills Park, if that’s the choice.
Those who gave ABAG the power to destroy our residential areas can take away
that power with our votes. Nobody with civic responsibility wants to follow these
ridiculous demands by the strange people representing ABAG. Leaders of all the
cities and counties need to gather together and create a strong front to block the nonsense fostered by Senator Weenie and his buddies.
Watching last night’s meeting, I was amazed that neither Planning Director Lait nor “our” big housing consultant firm could answer the simple question of whether a microstudio unit housing one person counted the same as a townhouse for four when determining our city targets.
How is a local district supposed to plan when it’s got no clue about demand for city services like schools? How could we have gotten this far without knowing the answer to that simple question?
There are similar unanswered questions about how ADUs count and how the current number of ADUs influence future ADU targets.
As for ABAG and the “housing” lobbyists, it’s clear they only care about creating MARKET RATE housing for techies — not needy families. In fact the headline in the Full House email today was about the demolition of the last affordable housing complexes in the county, a trailer park. This is after the sale of multiple affordable apartment complexes.
ABAG has been known for its corruption — a top exec actually went to prison for buying himself a $5,000,000 house on the Oregon coast — and yet we’re listening to this body that was appointed, not elected.
Last night we were discussing who appoints ABAG commissioners and we didn’t know. Does anyone know?
JC,
It is important to understand that there is a wide range of opinions on this issue, even in Palo Alto.
You are going to continue to be disappointed if you believe that the majority of the state and even Palo Alto is against building housing.
You will get a better outcome if you start compromising rather than spending millions of dollars tilting at windmills in court.
Online Name, I too was surprised that the planning director was unable to answer that question. A microunit counts as one unit, just like an 8000 square foot house, or a five bedroom townhouse.
HCD is unlikely to accept a Site Inventory that would be entirely microunits, however. But building one or two SROs or microunit projects would be a good idea; they’d be cheaper and take up less space. Even some well-paid engineers might be perfectly happy living in microunits.
As to ADUs, every ADU that gets a building permit counts as one unit of housing. This is odd, because according to surveys although the majority of ADUs are lived in, a minority are used for home offices, visiting relatives or other uses. But HCD allows every ADU to count.
Palo Alto could do an ADU survey of rents and uses, or use regional data, to decide to count some ADUs as low income housing. Other cities do this. Los Altos Hills counts every new ADU as below market housing.
Here’s the executive board of ABAG: https://abag.ca.gov/about-abag/what-we-do/how-we-govern/executive-board/executive-board-roster
I don’t know how they get selected, but there is wide representation from Bay Area cities and counties. Most of the members are elected city or county officials. I don’t see a Palo Alto representative, but my Mayor (I live in Los Altos) is on the executive board.
“I too was surprised that the planning director was unable to answer that question. A microunit counts as one unit, just like an 8000 square foot house, or a five bedroom townhouse.”
Anne, actually I was more surprised that PA’s big and no doubt pricey consulting firm — Rincon? — couldn’t, esp. since PA will be coordinating with their many statewide clients considered demographically similar to PA. I was less surprised at the planning director given some of his other answers and non-answers in previous meeting, most notably his recent inability to define “medical services” proposed to replace retail at Town & Country and his use of 1999 population numbers the the Casti Traffic Management study.
Thanks for the ABAG link. Odd that there’s no named Palo Alto representative there. (I thought former PA mayor Geoff Sharff was still on their exec board.
But looking at the PA web site, I see that Greer Stone is supposed to be our ABAG liaison. Page 13 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/city-roster/april-2021.pdf
There are too many people in California. The state frequently has the worst air quality, the most endangered species, the most destruction of wet lands, we’ve dammed most of our rivers, paved over land used by other species and are running out of water rapidly. But why stop building???
It is time for a state wide referendum to return local control to local elected officials. If a city decides it is full it can stop building. If it decides it wants to lower its population and provide more open space it can.
Time to stop giving the state away to rich developers and their bought and paid for state officials. We need to stop the growth and take back the state for local communities.
I think that ABAG requirements are out of step with the present reality and should be objected to. That said, adding housing to Stanford Shopping Center is an excellent choice, given its proximity to transit and the decline of shopping malls. But Stanford Research Park is not adjacent to transportation hubs. Arastadero during commute peak (pre Covid) was already a parking lot. This will overburden it even further.
I fail to see why single house neighborhoods should be exempt from density requirements. I live in a condo, but this does not mean that I don’t value my privacy and community just as much as those in R-1 neighborhoods. Why should all the additional density, noise, traffic and pollution be pushed on us multi-family dwellers who already bear our non-equal share of them. If more housing units must be built, then ALL Palo Altans should share the burden equally.
@tmp, I’m not going to fact-check everything you’re saying, but the air quality claim is definitely wrong. In spite of all the wildfires, we weren’t even in the top 10 for bad air quality in 2020. Goes to show how big a deal it is to live in a post-Republican state!
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/air-quality-by-state
Has everyone forgotten that Stanford lands are private property dedicated in perpetuity for the benefit of the University? Or that Stanford has been adding housing at a great rate for several years?
The solution is high rise buildings along El Camino Real with light rail service down its length.
Go up to Redwood City – the place is now filled with high rise apartments, many along ECR. They have concentrated the apartment complexes in the center city. They are not going out to the residential neighborhoods and tearing them apart. Their approach is much better than the disruption of single family neighborhoods – but in fairness they have a lot of land east of 101 that is developed. Two business complexes, a port, rail lines, a residential apartment complex on the water that is very clever.
A lot has to do with how much land a city has and how it is situated on the bay. PA is limited in the amount of useable land east of 101. The airport, the golf course, and the utilities functions take up the space. The rest is inundated with water during high tides.
The bottom line is the ECR corridor that is already filled in with apartment and hotels up to Charleston. Charleston to Oregon should be a target for some high rise apartments.
“the seven states with the worst air quality, compiled and ranked using data from the American Lung Association’s (ALA) State of the Air 2019 report.
#1: California
California consistently ranks as the most polluted state in the country. Six of the top 10 most polluted cities (for year-round particle pollution) are in California, with the Fresno-Madera area ranking as the most polluted city in the country. California cities like Bakersfield also rank as the worst for short-term particle pollution, as well as Los Angeles for the worst ozone pollution in the nation.”
https://molekule.science/the-top-seven-u-s-states-with-the-worst-air-quality/
@scott – I’m not going to post long informative articles for every claim I make. If anyone has any sense they will know that having 40 million consuming people in a dry state like California is bad for the environment and there is no way you can continue to add more without making the issues worse.
Regarding your comments about air quality – it wasn’t hard to dig up some facts. Too bad people don’t really know the facts and just keep adding more people.
“According to the American Lung Association’s recent “State of the Air 2019” report, California leads the charts for cities with the worst air pollution.1
California’s unhealthy air quality, relative to other US states, is the result of a combination of factors. The state’s large population of 39 million, significant port industry, and growing economy create significant emissions by way of traffic, diesel trucks, construction, agriculture, and domestic emissions. Environmental conditions, which are prone to frequent and severe wildfires, with mountainous terrain that traps pollution, and a warm climate that contributes to ozone formation, present additional challenges to California’s air quality.
California’s most populous cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco, are all located near California’s coastal mountain ranges. Here, westerly sea breezes can create a pollution-trapping effect in which emissions blown inland become trapped by the mountains, inversion layers, and stagnant air. Without a means for dispersion, pollution accumulates in the coastal valleys.3
[1] American Lung Association. (2020). State of the air – 2020.
[3] Sharip M, et al. (2017, April 14). Air quality in California and steps to help reduce air pollution. Loma Linda University.”
Stanford’s Research Park property is no different from any other private property that lies within Palo Alto’s boundary, subject to the same municipal code, zoning restrictions, as well as the benefits, as all other owners of private property in Palo Alto. Also bearing in mind this property is run as a business, quite separate from Stanford University’s academic campus, which not located within Palo Alto’s city boundary.
As an owner of private property within Palo Alto, I fail to see why Stanford’s property should be treated any differently to any other private property.
Furthermore, the jobs within Stanford’s Research Park are included in Palo Alto’s jobs to housing ratio and used by ABAG to calculate the number of new housing units Palo Alto must build.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable that, with a built-out city, some areas previously zoned for commercial use should be rezoned for housing to help offset the jobs the businesses generate. Especially now that offices originally designed to accommodate one employee per 250 sq ft., now accommodate two to three times as many jobs and employees within that same space. Resulting in an explosion of jobs with dire consequences for Palo Alto’s jobs to housing imbalance.
Thank you tmp for explaining the scientific facts about our air quality.
Palo Alto and basically every city around is filled with construction pollution.
Construction never ever stops!! 🙁
To Ann — DeBois comment was an insult to anyone not in his neighborhood or in his council’s neighborhood. They are all in R1 zoning homes. Isn’t that nice. BTW all the places they mention Stanford Research and Stanford Shopping — owned by Stanford (has it’s own post office & zip code and specially treated residents). Obfuscating again responsibility . He’s NIMBY on a Grand Dias scale. He and Filseth constantly insulting residents, good tax payers, involved citizens, renters and those who can’t by cost of rents, live anywhere else in our PA. Have they ever scraped by, cleaning houses, educating children, nursed a patient as a cert LVN? I doubt it. I bet renters in this town are close to, if not above, the 50% threshold to those property house owners. Yet. That cat’s not out the bag yet. too busy chasing in circles the big mouse with the cheese in it’s mouth.
Stanford Research Park has a Palo Alto zip code
I do not get why Anne who lives in Los Altos has so many concerns about PA. Los Altos if you drive through it all is solid in it’s residential planning. What does ABAG have to say about Los Altos? Do they have any requirements? Maybe Anne can tell us what ABAG is asking of her city and what they are going to do about it. They fought over a five story building on Main Street. They do have apartments in the city center area. Otherwise they are protecting their turf.
In RWC they have this figured out with huge apartments in the center city/ECR. They do not have people intent on ruining R-1 residential neighborhoods. Yet in PA we have people who are intent on breaking down the city structure with vindictive comments. We are planning a city – not resolving individuals grievances, expecting the city to resolve their feelings about their living conditions. The city councils job is to effectively plan a city consistent with all other cities and capitalize on the Caltrain and ECR transportation as the focus for housing.
We have a number of projects approved which will boost our numbers. Waiting for the FRY’s site to formalize a plan. The Fry’s site is in the SRP arena – cross ECR on Hansen and there your are. There are other parcels in the location of the FRY’s site which can be translated to housing. That is a good location for focus.
Such great irony for the City to try to push the solution to the problem on Stanford. Where were you in the fight with the County over Stanford’s land use permit? I hope Stanford uses the new-found leverage they now have as the “solution.” Palo Altans should think about living up to their cherished progressive-liberal values—let some ordinary people into the City by building housing. Would make the place much more interesting too!
@Native to the Bay, if you think gridlock and pollution is limited to high-density neighborhoods, think again. I live in an R-1 neighborhood on a bus route between 2 schools near Embarcadero where the “planners” eliminated traffic lanes AND put bollards at every intersection, impeding through traffic from going around turning traffic and creating gridlock and pollution.
Stop by during “normal” rush hour where cars get stuck in the middle of intersections at Embarcadero or Oregon when buses stop for the required time period and more than 5 cars back up behind them.
As for the postings by Anne from Los Altos, what’s so odd about someone caring about what happens 10 miles away? Our worlds don’t end at our city’s borders.
If, say, Google continues its massive expansions in San Jose and Mountain View, we all feel the impact of 20 new jobs/commuters to housing units. When the same developers demolish affordable housing complexes, we all feel the impact.
Stanford’s Research Park is not like any other private property. It is part of Stanford’s land endowment. Under the Founding Grant, it cannot be sold. All rental proceeds are paid into the endowment and support the institutional purposes of research and teaching, including massive amounts of financial aid to undergraduate students.
Densification of Hong Kong never did create affordable housing, it just created density, which by the way, virtually eliminated walking to work. They also found that despite a very high transit use level, highest in the world, most people cannot live near their work. That’s a fantasy solve by builders to keep pressuring us to let them build.
CA is losing people who already don’t want to live here because the areas where most people live are becoming less and less healthy or nice places to live because of the overbuilding. We have towns that want the influx of people and should focus on making them more liveable in terms of civic assets so that employers will want to relocate there.
I mean, do people not get that expensive microunits near downtown are going to basically be crash pads for people who choose to work elsewhere for when they come here to be at work in person? It will not improve housing affordability here. There has been too much demand for housing to be affordable on an absolute scale here for decades, even during down times when there are lots of vacancies. Stop letting developers use overly simplistic rationalizing to keep building where it’s increasing danger for people who live here (fires, pollution, noise, egress in emergency, drought, etc) and decreasing quality of life.
The pandemic and ongoing drought should be a wake up call. I thought there was a state proposition that states have to pay for unfunded mandates. Palo Alto and other communities should be full stop going after them for the backlog the state owes. Settle for their investing the money in existing communities in more parts of the state that have affordable housing and have the desire and capacity to bring in jobs.
If PA was LA – Barron Park would be Laurel Canyon – a quirky, rural location with a mix of building types, a river, a bohemian collection of residents. Laurel Canyon does not try and tell Hollywood how to run their show.
PA neighborhoods are all different and all have residents that are directed in different directions as to income and outgo. Quit trying to dictate what any neighborhood is suppose to do and just pick your neighborhood based on what you can afford. Trying to offload city actions from one neighborhood to another. And do not try and pass off Wokeyness as a civil right.
>>”If PA was LA – Barron Park would be Laurel Canyon – a quirky, rural location with a mix of building types, a river, a bohemian collection of residents. Laurel Canyon does not try and tell Hollywood how to run their show.”
Barron Park is not Laurel Canyon, Topanga Canyon, or the Grand Canyon.
And Palo Alto is not LA.
So with that in mind, establishing a gaven for RVs and the homeless street people would be a step in the right direction.
And telling others less fortunate to simply find somewhere else to live is both counterproductive and cold-hearted.
Has Shallow Alto de-evolved into Callow Alto from the standpoint of constructive and mature housing visions?
If so, may the gods have mercy on your empty soul.
@RV Mama
I agree! If Palo Alto was Los Angeles, it would eliminate homeless as LA is required to do by October 2021.
And Governor Newsome has allocated $12B to assist CA cities with this problem.
It’s time for Palo Alto to request a portion of that monetary allotment to do something productive.
Mayor and PACC take heed.
If Palo Alto requested and received even 1% of the $12B allotment ($120M), it could alleviate its homelessness by doing what Mountain View succeeded in accomplishing with their pre-fab housing.
There’s plenty of PA areas to establish a homeless community, anywhere south of Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway would suffice as many of these particular sections of the city are not exclusive PA neighborhoods, just overpriced due to current real estate inflation and PA housing shortages.
Loren, Loren, Loren – you live on SU Campus who is the biggest land holder in the area with the highest amount of land not yet built on. Why not a homeless camp on SU campus? Here you have volunteered neighborhoods that are people’s homes that are already built to the borders of the city. Are other people’s homes less important than yours? Where is PA suppose to provide homeless housing? Any neighborhood except yours? It is time for SU to step up to the plate as the biggest land holder and the most money.
RV Mom – just curious – where did you originally come from? what brought you to PA? MV has a RV protected park on Shoreline Blvd. RWC has a protected RV park next to the sheriff’s station. What were your assumptions about PA when you came here? You are busy insulting us at the same time you expect us to provide a KOA campground.
PA does not have the same amount of open, unused land as RWC or MV – or SU. We do not have the same amount of available land east of 101 as other cities on the peninsula. Such big expectations and angry that reality does not match up.
@loren freeman – m.b.a., yes, Stanford should house its fair share of the homeless, esp. near the Business School. This will help MBA students and faculty grasp the impact of a gig-worker economy where the many underpaid and struggling gig workers without benefits enrich the few full-time employees who enjoy benefits, great salaries and stock option plans.
During the last election, companies spent $240,000,000 lobbying against paying their gig workers living wages, benefits etc. They should have front-row seats.
Stanford also lobbies strenuously to keep the compensation for foreign contractors low — around $85K a year — thus encouraging companies to fire more costly full-time employees with benefits.
Remember many of the RVs house Stanford construction workers so fair’s fair.
Note the SFC 05/13 headline – “Imagining Housing in 2070″. A think tank SPUR is busy producing a narrative which we have seen parroted – over-stack the major cities and reduce the building in the central valley. However if you read the business section of the papers and follow-the money you will find out that Alexandria Company owns most of the commercial land in PA – buildings east of 101 on Embarcadero, the SSL site on Fabian, and a number of buildings in SRP that are leased to companies.
Housing – many one-story buildings being replaced by new two-story buildings, and Eichlers bought and brought up to new condition. This is observable in the location called south of Oregon. And Barron Park – sneaking up with many new two-story houses in a rustic environment.
Given the new money pouring in and the new houses replacing older houses then you can forget the homeless camps that the north of Oregon people so desire. A giant sneak action – what you say and what is happening are two different activities.
The MBA school at SU needs to teach it’s students to read the papers and follow the money. People who went to the UCLA School of Business know how to do that.
Stanford University could and should step-up to ease the homeless problem in Palo Alto.
With Stanford’s unlimited financial resources, it should purchase Town and Country Village with the intent of establishing a modern and upscale homeless community with tasteful, pre-fabricated housing.
Besides, no one shops at TC Village nowadays for anything of consequence or importance.
Knives can easily be purchased online, sandwiches procured elsewhere, running shoes at Footlocker etc.
In other words, Town and Country Village serves no key function other than vacancies and overpriced rents.
Offer the T&C owners $1B and be done with it.
Yes. Stanford University could easily cough-up $1B to buy Town and Country Village.
Life is too short so spend the money on worthwhile endeavors.
The millennials (of whom many are socially conscious) should endorse this spending even if there may be nothing left for them in the fiscal coffers later down the road.
Besides, who cares once we (baby boomers) are dead?
After all, it is up to the older generations to set things right from a humanistic vision.
“Besides, no one shops at TC Village nowadays for anything of consequence or importance.”
I beg to differ,
Do note that while the T&C is pushing for more lucrative “medical” offices long-standing medical tenants like Dr. Lisa Berkowitz, a much-loved eye doctor –left T&C.
The CC REALLY needs to review T&C’s historic treatment of tenants.
Town and Country is a retail anachronism dating back to the 1950s.
No one will miss it.
Did RV Mama mean haven …(wrote gaven)..
what $$$ brought RV Mama to PA..we readers will never get an honest answer…$$$,..
,,,
Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
10 minutes ago
Online Name is a registered user.
“Besides, no one shops at TC Village nowadays for anything of consequence or importance.
“ I beg to differ” ,
Yes, agree w you….she is my optometrist..and many stores..RUTI,,great store,
Posted by Anne
a resident of Los Altos ..
Agree we appreciate your well-written contributions
..Posted by Spend The Money
a resident of Charleston Gardens
4 minutes ago
Spend The Money is a registered user.
Town and Country is a retail anachronism dating back to the 1950s. No one will miss it.
Doubtful anyone will miss YOU,when you die…
@Resident 1 mentioned the SPUR vision document, which you can find here: https://www.spur.org/featured-project/spur-regional-strategy/new-civic-vision
Their bottom line is growth, growth, growth. 4 million more people. 2 million more jobs. 2.2 million more housing units. Much higher density. The end of single-family homes. Massive, expensive new transit infrastructure.
Whether this is (a) possible (b) desirable are open questions, but at least you know where SPUR stands.
I find it amusing that the illustrations they chose to include show an environment much more like things were here a couple of decades ago than the way SPUR proposes things should look in the future.
Once the new Police Station (Public Safety Building) is constructed on Sherman, the building next to City Hall could be torn down and a new tall housing building could go in. It’s close to transportation and groceries, and it wouldn’t overwhelm any single-family housing. They could also tear down the small downtown library, build a tower there and then make space in it to replace the current library. Is the City leadership thinking about this? What are their plans for this site once the police station moves?
In response to the previous suggestion…
The former police station at city hall could easily be converted into a Black History and Equality Advocacy Center in addition to housing a local chapter of BLM.
Given the past injustices bestowed upon the black community by law enforcement agencies nationwide, this measure would be a step in the right direction and its occupancy should be provided free of charge by the City of Palo Alto and its residents.
I have slept in the back lot of Town and Country at times.
Others have too and the key is to be discreet.
I envy those who are fortunate enough to have an RV that they can easily park on El Camino Real.
In many ways, Palo Alto residents are insensitive and blind to the plight of the homeless population.
And this is understandable to a certain extent because many of them (but not all) have become jaded.
Lost in America – et all – you keep insulting the people who have worked their whole lives, brought up a family, and paid their taxes and contributed time to the city in sports, theatre, and other activities for the children. They have transitioned to any number of companies required to maintain their work ethic and support their families. That is what we do here – that is why this city and other cities on the peninsula are thriving.
People come from other states and cities with the expectation that they will receive a windfall of funding – because the Gov said so. We have bought houses in neighborhoods and the political cabal says that we are bad people – including the posters on this system. Is that working? NO. We have spent a life working our butts off and take offense when people float in looking for us to displace our homes. This is not about PA residents – this is about all of the people who have stuck out the good times and the bad times and kept on working to keep the hearth and home safe.
The places for the RV people are there but they do not want to go – they will lose their freedom. They prefer an in-your-face operation. So they can tell us how horrible we are. Is that working? NO
@Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
There is room for everyone (homeowners, street homeless, and RV inhabitants etc.) in Palo Alto.
Each group can have its own turf and FYI, the city streets including ECR are public domain.
The city parks are ideal for after-hours camping and as long as the street homeless pack-up their sleeping bags and tents by 7AM, the parks can become accessible again to the residents for recreational use.
Let’s work together and accommodate everyone.
It’s called sharing.
Palo Alto is anti-homeless and anti-mobile home so it comes as no surprise that a few grumpy residents also take issue with RVs.
The city and a ruthless developer tried to evict my family and others from Buena Vista Trailer Park where we currently reside in our modest yet comfy mobile homes.
The county intervened and we have stayed put regardless of various negative Barron Park community sentiments
In many ways, this small parcell off Los Robles has become our neighborhood within a larger neighborhood and we are never going to leave!
We are Palo Alto residents as well and deserve the same consideration and respect as homeowners residing in Crescent Park.
Palo Alto should also encourage landlords to readily accept Section 8 rent vouchers and expand residency capacities so that multi-families can reside in the same apartment unit.
A two BR apartment can easily accommodate eight children + four adult parents and by sharing the rent, poorer families can easily reside in some of Palo Alto’s nicer neighborhoods.
Along with food stamp allotments, the new federal internet subsidy, welfare supplements, and part/full time work the costly housing challenges can be easily overcome.
Palo Alto needs to become more egalitarian with no class distinctions.
Phil – your comment makes no sense. How can homeless people pack up their stuff by 7AM? Where do they put it in the day time hours? And where are they from 7AM – evening? Explain the execution of your idea. And where is “another Palo Alto Neighborhood”? That says nothing about from which perch you are conjuring these ideas. Which parks are you imagining? You are now using land that is budgeted by the city for maintenance and dedicating it as turf to be assigned.
What needs to happen in the county opening up buildings it owns in San Jose for permanent habitation. People are not going to pick up their stuff so put them in a location where they can have a roof over their heads, bathrooms, play area for kids, and some type of bus service to get the kids to school.
We do not have these type facilities in PA nor do we have the budget. PA does not have the same resources as San Jose which is classified as a big city. PA is not a big city and is not competing with other peninsula cities for that title.
If you belong to a church possibly they can carve out some space in their facilities to house people.
@How can homeless people pack up their stuff by 7AM? Where do they put it in the day time hours?
The city can implement bike lockers for the personal storage of these items at the respective parks.
Office vacancies in Palo Alto can also be used to provide temporary housing for the homeless, including any vacancies at Town and Country Village.
Time to think outside the box.
Me2 Jose, “Palo Alto should also encourage landlords to readily accept Section 8 rent vouchers and expand residency capacities so that multi-families can reside in the same apartment unit.
A two BR apartment can easily accommodate eight children + four adult parents and by sharing the rent, poorer families can easily reside in some of Palo Alto’s nicer neighborhoods.”
I agree that more landlords should accept section 8 vouchers. But having eight children and four adults living in a two-bedroom apartment is impossible. How does that work? Not healthy for anyone, especially the kids.
Homeless and squatters in RV’s, tents etc. want to be treated with respect? Respect is earned. Pity is what we feel for those we consider victims and non-equals. Pity is very close to contempt.
As has been pointed out in other comments, many of us have worked hard to live here, to pay taxes, to give back to the community and to make this a desirable place to live with a sustainable quality of life.
If you cannot afford to live here — or if the quality of life you can afford here is not as you think it should be, then move to where you can get back on your feet and get a roof over your head.
I am not for housing the unemployed homeless. Companies should work with communities to build housing and provide jobs. If you aren’t willing to work for a roof over your head, why should those of us who did work for our homes support you?
Greer Park along 101 would make a nice homeless tent community.
I was told the area was once a drive-in theater and since no one misses drive-in theaters (except maybe a few oldsters in their 80s) eliminating a poop-filled dog park and a couple of lightly-used softball diamonds would not be a major loss to the community.
The Driscoll Ranch in Portola Valley would make an ideal homeless encampment…a Woodstock for transients.
Unfortunately most of the residents here would object to such an undertaking.
Greer park is used for team competitions. People are getting back to NORMAL and all of our park facilities are signed up for team play. It is not available for a tent city. A tent city in a park is a legal conundrum that we cannot afford.
The homeless should be in a building that has bathrooms – said building provided by the county or state. Please stop making assumptions as to what resources this city has and assigning those resources.
“The homeless should be in a building that has bathrooms – said building provided by the county or state.”
The provision and operation of the building should be subsidized by the county and/or state but the said premises should be in Palo Alto along with other cities.
Every city should have a homeless apartment or complex regardless of public opinion against such a measure.
If the State of California were to allocate $250-400M of Governor Newsome’s $12B homeless relief program to Palo Alto, many of the street homeless and transient RV dwellers could be provided for at no major fiscal outlay on the part of Palo Alto for years to come.
The Buena Vista trailer park in Barron Park clearly illustrates that with some financial backing by the county or state, low income, transient, and alleged undocumented immigrants can make Palo Alto a truly sanctuary city where ethnic and economic diversity is a true bragging right.
WOW – James Frick – we have a Navigation Center – it is next to the T&C and PAMF. Check the box as “done”.
Now we have a group that is trying to produce a “sanctioned” dedicated park for the homeless. Guess what – that is the opposite direction that cities are going in. Santa Cruz eliminated their park and now SF is cleaning out the encampments in the city. COVID is over and the rationale that provided encampments is now mute. The problem here is that they have all paid for locations with rooms but the camp people do not want to stay in a motel. They want to be outside to maintain their life-style which borders on drugs and strange behavior.
Drugs and strange behavior will not work at Greer Park – we have teams playing there. And it will not work in Portola Valley. People are now going to the parks and do not want to run into drug dealing and strange behavior on city owned parks. That is a massive legal problem for cities. As it should be – a city cannot sanction potentially unlawful behavior.
Is Fritz lane part of the Lane family that produced the Sunset magazine? What is happening at the Menlo Park Sunset Magazine location? Now that looks like a location for the homeless to park for a while. And that is in Menlo Park.
I find this focus on PA so bizarre – we are built from border to border with homes. Our commercial section is in the Fry’s site which hopefully will come up with their plan. We do not have buildable space. San Jose does, SF does. Go where there is buildable space. And what is the focus on maids? There is a maid service here that goes to people’s homes in a “maids car” that shows the name of the business. The maids have this figured out. How old are Melissa and Priscilla? They are in fantasy world.
Simply suggesting that others (i.e. the homeless) to go elsewhere will not resolve matters and is a short-sighted strategy.
If you are that intent on carrying out this far-fetched approach, maybe consider BRIBING the homeless to leave by offering them $5K+ per exit with a signed agreement not to ever return.
Palo Alto has the federal money for this endeavor. Either use the resources towards this end or stop the complaining.
There are a couple of decrepit-looking RVs parked in our immediate neighborhood and no one to my direct knowedge is getting bent out of shape over their presence.
Perhaps some of the PA complainers should devote more time to fixing-up their crappy-looking front yards and lawns before pointing fingers at others for what they perceive as visual eyesores.
Most of Palo Alto will never qualify for a front cover in Architectural Digest so let’s put an end to any delusions.
Gee Davis = what a cheerleader you are – but for what are you cheer leading? If anyone watches the Monday night PACC meeting then you get a picture of what people want money spent on – Children’s theatre is the big topper of city wants. And no we are not flowing in money. Homeless people are not on the list for the people calling in. However if you read the SFC and the SJM/BAN then the stories are front page on what the cities are doing and what they are going to do. So they are providing the lessons learned of what they did wrong and what they are going to do to fix it. They want people to come to the cities and spend money and they need to project a safe place.
Then you watch General Hospital – one of the story lines is the group that goes into a town and creates a stressful list of situations so they beat down the housing and business value. Then come in and buy at a low price. Strange – we have had a number of very strange events in this city. Just like a soap opera. The ice cream stores, car going in the Walgreen’s window, people assaulted in the Stanford Shopping Center garage; etc.