How predictable that [portion removed] Steven Levy, Ms Cormack and Mr Tanaka would support this huge development even when it undercuts city tax revenue and residents' quality of life. Check their endorsements in the current race for City Council if you want more of the same type of predictability.

That's why this election is so important. If the wrong mix are elected, these projects get easily greenlighted. We understand that more housing has to be built, but hopefully it is done in a sensible and pragmatic manner.

I think the current council is doing a good job, especially with their recent encouragement and approvals of office/industrial space to residential. I think Lauing and Summa are most likely to continue this sensible approach.

Lisa Forssell and Julia Lythcott-Haims have lots of endorsements from YIMBY groups, Palo Alto Forward members, etc. I would be concerned they would greenlight excessive proposals like this Creekside Inn project

Vicki Veenker has a very eclectic group of endorsers, which perhaps supports her reputation as a consensus builder.

“Economist Steve Levy also urged the council to advance the project, noting that the concerns raised by residents could be evaluated and mitigated as part of the approval process.”

As part of approval process? Mitigate after a giveaway? How does the Weekly have only one economist that it always quotes and without adding his known political affiliations as pro growth next to his name.

Neighborhood voices on the other hand don’t get lofty titles except when Palo Alto is summarily described as “home to some of the world's most brilliant and creative minds developed by world-class educational systems. And we are strengthened by the diversity of our residents.”

Either give everyone their title or list known affiliations.

[Portion removed.] My views are as a long-time resident. I have never been paid by anyone to speak to council and am not a lobbyist. I have different views than many posters here but there is no need for lying about my motivation or actions.

@Mr Levy,

“My views are as a long-time resident. “

From your blog posts, you have very focused views about developer topics. It’s evidently the Weekly’s idea to have you profiled as an economist and not a longtime resident. As a published Weekly blogger on pro-development topics however, it seems fair to have this noted. The Weekly never misses a chance to label residents as slow growth but leaves their professional, or educational titles out.

I am saddened by this decision. What a loss for the environment, Palo Alto's many workers (including essential city employees), local businesses, and schools with our dangerously declining enrollment. If we just had zoning that made sense for housing projects, we wouldn't need all these PHZ requests where a developer is guessing what to build on the site and begging for an approval. Every window, roofline, and bedroom becomes an argument and something for the neighbors to pick apart. Death by 1,000 cuts to every project.

And we wonder why the state is stepping in. With the recent legislation passed, this project may get green-lighted with no input from the city.

Side note - please y'all stop with the "greedy developer" stuff. Last I checked, we lived under a capitalist system, whether we like it or not. Developers (for profit or otherwise) build housing. If housing was built by the state or federal government to meet the needs of our 3:1 jobs ratio, I can assure you housing projects would look very different and we would have about 20,000 more units being built right now to meet the need being driven by the jobs.

Resident3,

As a resident, I am an advocate for more housing. As you note, my blog reflects my arguments in favor of more housing in Palo Alto and ways to meet our housing goals. If Gennady wants to characterize me as a resident housing advocate, that would be a fair characterization. But I have never been paid to communicate with council and am not a lobbyist.
You and I have different views. Let’s debate the issues. I don’t control what Gennady writes but he did quote me accurately in the article.

@stephen levy

“If Gennady wants to characterize me as a resident housing advocate”

That’s not a fair characterization because everyone is in favor of resident housing and residents against massive market rate developments cannot be called anti-resident housing. Your recent blog post that I strongly disagree with promotes Market Rate Housing with inappropriate assumptions.

Given the Weekly’s endorsements of the same candidates that you have been on record as paying (for their ads in the paper), I’m not optimistic that the characterizations they use won’t be political..as their council endorsements are this year. Two candidates with none to little relevant record.

When the state sues palo alto for failing to meet its housing obligations, who is going to pay the attorneys' fees? I for one think we need much more housing and this project would have been a good start. It's not nearly enough, but its a start.

Thanks to all for telling me who the YIMBY candidates are! I'll make sure to vote for them.

@Amie,

“If housing was built by the state or federal government to meet the needs of our 3:1 jobs ratio, I can assure you housing projects would look very different and we would have about 20,000 more units being built right now to meet the need being driven by the jobs.”

The state doesn’t build housing and neither does the city. As you suggest- to get real about capitalism, if developers could be profitable building, they wouldn’t need subsidies to make a profit. Evidently, they can’t build without favors which is telling. As for using the fictitious state quotas to threaten communities, like the business tax debacle, this is grossly funded politics by the large businesses who refuse to share fairly in the burdens their development needs bring. The business tax debacle has at least made this clear.

I hope Mr Levy will respond to the ads for the "Three Great Candidates" -- Julie, Lisa and Vicki -- that were initially paid for by Mr Levy,John Kelly, Gail Price etc "and no one else" before morphing into the anonymous "Committee to Support" and which claims to be totally separate from the candidates and their campaigns AND has filed no financial disclosures on how much they've spent on their saturation ads for the 3 candidates.

Doug Moran's recent blog her in the PA Weekly Web Link details this in the section starting:
"-An Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC) is in this election--

The IEC Committee to Support Lythcott-Haims, Forssell, Veenker for Palo Alto City Council 2022 is going to great expense for ads for the candidates named. The people behind this committee are -- from an early ad -- Jennifer DiBrienza, John Kelly, Larry Klein, Gail Price and Steve Levy. Their endorsement for those three candidates are the vacuous "Build more housing for all income levels in all parts of Palo Alto", "Accelerate impactful climate action", and "Strengthen local economy & raise city revenue".

If I were an intrepid journalist, I would want to ask the supporters -- without expecting a credible response -- why they are collecting money to spend on advertising rather than contributing directly to the candidates for them to enhance their own advertising strategies??
Likely motivations:
• Traditional: Obscure who is contributing and/or how much. Or get contributions above the legal limit of $4900 for each candidate. For perspective, with only 6 maxed-out donors a candidate would be very close to ..."

Rough? It was entirely misguided. GS this is much needed rental housing ! Not one mention of this or that is has 20% set asides for all income levels. Or the argument that the Council and torch carrying Barron Park R1zoners are using: SRTS safe routes to school. That portion of our transportation Dept was not there to represent any side of the argument for or against this proposed plan. Nor was the owner or long time manager of Drift Wood Deli. These pitch fork and torch Barron SFHowners are not engaging with either. The council did not personally invite the owner of Drift Wood Deli. There has been no community engagement. I am sickened by the shoddy process and all the BAD assumptions, generalizations and OPINES being thrown around from the all the current sitting CC'ers from their pompous Dias, the planning Dept and the Barron SFH owners. 160,000 unhomed California residents are living out of doors and the vitriol served up last night was absolutely egregious. Mostly that ALL council members were speaking FOR critical components and needed partnerships and members of our community who were not present. Either by a transportation department branch (SRTS) or and PTC commissioners and the so called "beloved" DW Market and Deli. Bogus. Bogus. Bogus. This was not a study session but a smear and swipe against dire rental housing needed. A do over is imperative. Meanwhile Sabroto a Billion Dollar developers for high above market rate "for Sale" townhomes gets a red carpet welcome on already RM30 zoned 14 acre property for more commercial auto dealership, another hotel or whatever they desire to put at FRY's site. I am exhausted from Tanaka's micro management of micro units. Doe he live and thrive with his family in a 550sqft micro unit. He says "Its not the 60's anymore... families are divorced they don't need space" Assumptions, prejudice, discrimination abounds from the mouths or SFH and sitting, highly paid decision makers. I demand a re-do.

@Native to the Bay,

[Portion removed.]

[Y]our labeling of people by zoning numbers and at the same time calling for “community engagement” doesn’t sound sincere as far as listening to other people.

This being said, all projects would be better helped if they had more numbers, objective evaluations and less drama…which is why we need people who can stick to the issues and facts.. people who have a relevant record of critical thinking on these complex proposals.

I listened to CC discuss this project last night and was relieved to hear the mayor's comments about the request to waive development fees. It is audacious that the developer would even ask that. Why do people so easily ignore the cost of the infrastructure needed to support additional population?

Overall, I think Oxford deliberately put forth an enormously over-reaching plan so that it could pare here and there without much impact to the overall goal of building a couple of big apartment complexes with mostly market-rate units. We live in an area where super-sized incomes skew the meaning of AMI. These apartments are not likely to be affordable to people with community-serving jobs.

I think we need to get a handle on housing unit vacancy before we add more and more and more. All construction impacts the environment and infrastructure. I know about the State mandate, but it makes little sense to disrupt an area by building a massive housing development, absent some assurances that the housing will be occupied. AltoLocale, a creative housing project, is under-occupied. And there are others. Yet we keep hearing about the housing crisis. Vacancies and the volume of real estate ads suggest that the housing crisis has changed such that what we have is an affordability crisis. I'd like to see advocates like Mr. Levy put some of their advocacy energy towards that. Some communities are looking at a vacancy tax or fee. Maybe that's part of the answer.

@resident3. Broad assumptions made about non-present individuals, business' and transportation departments is simply and badly overstepping and undermining renters that is so very much a part of the citizenry here, It's who we are, or are we part of this process of a study session? Many who are struggling to pay their rent use the SRTS route.

The old auto parts store has been closed for over twenty years and was located down the street. The dirt lot next to the auto parts store has been cleared since the 1980s. With the auto parts store, some cleanup should be done. The developer could work with the city to clean up developing the entire area. The city should encourage clean up and then a larger development should be produced. The city could even help with the clean-up, this would expand the property tax revenue for the entire area.

Many other cities including San Francisco are looking at converting empty offices into housing before destroying functio9nal neighborhood especially since previous City Councils and city managers supported the construction of offices rather than housing which is why our economy has been so much slower to recover than surrounding communities.

Drive around town and see all the office vacancies and for-lease signs.

Mayor our leaders should start aggressively exploring that option? Granted that won't please all the deep-pocked lobbyists backed by big tech and big real estate interests but they'll find lots of support from resident-taxpayers tired of seeing PA turn into "anywhere USA" with dense boring unattractive buildings.

Just a thought.

The mundane strip along ECR in south PA has very little to offer in terms of a quality experience whether it involves goods or services.

It would be best served to convert the entire section to affordable housing.

@online name,

"looking at converting empty offices into housing before destroying functio9nal. neighborhood especially since previous City Councils and city managers supported the construction of offices rather than housing which is why our economy has been so much slower to recover than surrounding communities."

We are in this problem because of previous City Councils and city managers. The loss of Filseth and Dubois will be serious in this respect because they are as close to "objective" as you can get in contrast to the likes of Kniss & Co type governance. Their Council cycles may have made more progress on getting steps done towards affordable housing and they probably could have done more without all the political mud thrown around. Dreading lectures, attacks, and animosity for people who dare ask questions.

Where is the business registry for example?

I'm wondering how many people know that we still have high apartment vacancy rates? I canvassed the apartments on Curtner. They are about 20% unoccupied. We do NOT need more rental apartments. What we need now and what we've needed all along are denser housing units- duplex, triplex, quads, etc..., that, as townhouses and condos built in places where people want to live, which is NOT next to a freeway, the train tracks or El Camino, and are built to be purchased by individual owners who will live there. The "residentialists"/PAN have fought this idea tooth and nail and now, because of them, Palo Alto is in a pickle.

Steve Levy - you have a blog? I want to read it.

@Deborah,

"What we need now and what we've needed all along are denser housing units- duplex, triplex, quads, etc..., that, as townhouses and condos built in places where people want to live,"

IMHO the issue is less about location and more about parking. Unless dense housing is fully parked it's a big problem. How is it that all the densest cities in the world have both - mass transportation and parking and they are planned accordingly. You get off a train or a boat, and there is the parking. And parking isn't super size spaces to fit a studio, you kind of squeeze your way into parking garages even in San Francisco, but you have parking. Is it just Palo Alto where developers refuse to have their projects fully parked?

I have been attempting to understand the definition of affordable housing and below market housing. What is the income level for each category? What is the average home that would be appropriate for these housing categories? Is it individuals, families? How large of a family? etc.

I feel until there is a clear definition of these terms, there is really no reason any of these plans should be approved. Are developers aware of what these terms mean?

I have asked 4 of the City Council candidates to answer these questions - still awaiting responses.

It makes no sense to agree on number of units until the definitions are very clearly articulated. Los Altos made it very clear what affordable housing is to them last week:
100% affordable housing for those individuals and families earning 30% to 80% of the area median income where the median household income in Los Altos is about $240,000 annually. This would say that those earning between $72,000 - $192,000 qualify as needing affordable housing.

Is this what Palo Alto is also stating? What are the demographics of the those that qualify? High Tech employees? Service people? Teachers?

I really don't understand where we expect teachers, healthcare workers, etc to live if we keep blocking housing.

@Deborah - I agree that we are in a pickle, but not b/c of PAN. We had several cycles of City Council that supported unmitigated excessive commercial development. It didn't take long for jobs to badly outpace housing, especially as occupancy rates in office buildings escalated with open seating/cubicles rather than private offices. Housing is now a very complicated issue. I suspect we have more than we know. And I don't see the lukewarm reception for the Creekside project as "blocking housing". As is, the project is primarily an apartment complex for people who make a healthy 6-figure income. I don't think that's what's missing.

@Steve Levy: weren't you a consultant to ABAG? Was that a volunteer position? Either way, perhaps you could go back and encourage them to revisit their RHNA recommendations, taking into account the impact of COVID and working from home. There's been a transformation over the past two years and the numbers should reflect that so that they are reality-based.

Masaada Hussein, Contrary to your statement, the “mundane strip” of ECR in South Palo Alto has many neighborhood-serving businesses: Greenmail, gas stations, a car wash, Walgreens, Celia’s restaurant, Driftwood, Cibo, 9-Minute Lube, Stanford Carpets, etc.

This is a huge missed opportunity for securing the future prosperity of our city. I am confident that one day a future city council will look back on this the way that we look at Maybell today with regret. History bends towards progress, though.

I think the CC got it right. And poster, Annette, seems to always get it right with her comments. Our local expert economist thinks he's figured it out, but he only argues that we need more housing to meet the State's (illegal in my mind) mandate for housing. I consider it a resident's abuse mandate. I would like to hear his solution for housing the very low income, low income, and middle income people. If you're a fan of the mandate then you can't exclude those groups. And anyone who praises studio apartments...you're thinking of singles, maybe a couple living together, but you're not thinking about families with kids who will actively participate in community and school activities. I'm siding with the mayor and other clear thinkers on CC who spoke out against the project and I'm getting closer to making my decision on who to vote for for CC in November, based on some of the research done by diligent posters' comments. When big developers start begging for support for their projects, that should be a 'red light' for anyone involved in approving their projects.

These may not be good reasons to reject the project but I do have personal connections and interests with all those businesses that would be replaced. My wife and I (and our dog), stayed at the Creekside Inn for a week when we moved here in 1961. We got into town on January 11th. I had accepted a job at Philco's Western Developmental Labs. I've enjoyed wonderful food/sandwiches from Driftwood Deli (they catered food for my wife's memorial reception) and I've enjoyed good American food served at Cibos restaurant.

I'm not saying we don't need more housing, but we do need more amenities in town. Life is not just sleeping in dormitories and work, but enjoying life. Can we have the same pressure put on the City to provide space for recreation, relaxational activities and enjoyment.

And of course, infrastructure to support any new housing is equally crucial.

@Gale Johnson. Thank you for your comment. When I read that you are "getting closer to making [your] decision on who to vote for for CC" I wondered if you have had the opportunity to hear Doria Summa on the campaign trail. I heard her recently and liked very much this comment: "Palo Alto is a community, not a commodity." She gets it. And she favors housing, especially the sort we really need.

Older Gale, Many families in the last THIRTY Years (including ours) were not interested in PA's single family housing stock whether we could afford it or not. In full time two career families, many don't want to add housework and yardwork to the to-do list. The City does not have to accept fee waiver requests, Matadero can be improved, parking can be provided, and the unit count/size can be adjusted. Palo Alto just does not like Big Housing! IMHO that means we should not have accepted BIG JOBS! Making people commute is the single worst thing we are doing with respect to climate change.

Two great posts, two great quotes.

"Palo Alto is a community, not a commodity." She <Doria Summa> gets it. And she favors housing, especially the sort we really need."

That's a classic and should be on every lawn sign, every bumper sticker and campaign ad.

"Palo Alto just does not like Big Housing! IMHO that means we should not have accepted BIG JOBS."

Indeed we should not have. But you'll never hear the politicians who kept fighting office caps and limits admit it or the credulous city staffers who keep parroting the "no net new car trips" mantra while while tens of thousands of new jobs and millions of square feet of commercial space are added by Stanford and other big institutions.

Just another Silicon Valley miracle from the folks who can't even maintain a business registry and are unlikely to do so for the new renters registry.

cmarg, I would also like to know what the term, "affordable housing" truly means. The word really has no real meaning anymore. Most new teachers, service workers, restaurant workers, and hospital employees would NEVER be able to afford even studios. Check out the prices and prepare to be shocked!

To Old Steve, my good friend who lives in a condo/townhouse in Mt. View, and is twenty years younger than me. You're certainly entitled to your thoughts and opinions on Palo Alto dwellers, but you made your choice and we made ours. Your vote doesn't count here and my vote doesn't count in Mt. View. But let's both vote on issues that affect our communities the most.

I missed the city council meeting on the Creekside Inn proposal, but I’m glad that it didn’t get approved by the city council. We always send friends to stay at the Creekside Inn and really enjoy breakfasts at Cibo. During bad heatwaves, we stay there to enjoy peaceful surroundings and air conditioning. I’m not particularly fond of the Creekside tower rooms, but the rooms by the creek and the fountain (not in use when we recently stayed there) are the most tranquil rooms that we have found in this area. The developer requesting a fee waiver is insulting and outrageous. I would be very sad to see this hotel become a huge housing development, especially if few units are for low income tenants. Has the owner already decided to tear down the hotel, the restaurant, and the market?

Palo Alto needs LESS housing, not more housing. Reduce housing from current levels. Create more parks, open space. Reduce pollution, crowding, noise and traffic.

There are so many vacancies at most of the new apts. that have been recently been built.With workers utilizing home/work options , the projections (Steven Levy)seem very far off the mark.
Why should residents have to pay the price(reduced quality of life) while developers and their political allies make obscene profits and walk away to their expensive homes in Woodside, Atherton and Los Alros Hills? We are tired of being hoodwinked time and time again. [Portion removed.]

To clarify -
For years, Steve Levy was on the steering committee of Palo Alto Forward. I don’t remember he has ever “met” a housing development he didn’t love.

Matadero Ave. can’t be widened due to infrastructure on both sides.

At Mondays meeting, commenters were informed, reasonable, with most welcoming housing on the site that respected the Creek, allowed for the survival of Driftwood Market, that kept the designated bike route safe, and wouldn’t cram the area with overflow parking. So not this proposal.
They expressed good critical thinking.

Although far bigger, I have to wonder how this proposal compares to the San Antonio Village Center in Mountain View? That has 330 apartments which is on par with this proposal. But it has parking, shops, and other amenities (including a dog park!) on a 56 acre lot. It has a distinct canyon-like feel, but not in an outdoorsy way.

However, it also doesn't directly border on neighbors single-story homes and duplexes. This one does, on Chimalus and Matadero.

The Driftwood Deli has a direct analog to that situation. It was the beloved Milk Pail Dairy. It now lives on as a shell of its former self and has been shunted off to a backstreet (Wyandotte) in Mountain View.

"There are so many vacancies at most of the new apts. that have been recently been built.With workers utilizing home/work options , the projections (Steven Levy)seem very far off the mark.

Why should residents have to pay the price(reduced quality of life) while developers and their political allies make obscene profits and walk away to their expensive homes in Woodside, Atherton and Los Alros Hills? We are tired of being hoodwinked time and time again."

Lobbyists and advocates are not paid to be objective; they're paid to work on behalf if their backers' interests, not ours And they've been very successful for far too long in defeating a real business tax and placing their acolytes on ABAG, MTC, the city's Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council and in Sacranento.

To quote Doria Summa, "Palo ALto's a community, not a commodity." Or it should be.

@Resident3 - there is a business registry. Businesses are required to fill it out annually and submit a modest fee. The questionnaire includes questions about company basics such as name and address, # of employees, # of parking spaces, square footage, year the company was founded, days and hours of operation, etc.

I have no idea what the city does with the information or if the city goes after businesses that do not comply with the requirement. My guess is nothing and no, but someone from City Hall will or should have those answers.

@Annette,

"there is a business registry. Businesses are required to fill it out annually and submit a modest fee. The questionnaire includes questions about company basics such as name and address, # of employees, # of parking spaces, square footage, year the company was founded, days and hours of operation, etc."

Thank you for this. The state housing quotas if I recall are based on pre-Covid/pre-Exodus from CA due to work-from-home preferences (like younger people moving in search for quality of life). The unaffordable studios would be solely to house the large tech company workers.

In a related thread, someone in the know I said that the biggest company in Palo Alto refused to pay more taxes or I suppose was what drove the City busienss tax negotiation to where it is.

@Weekly,

Have you written about the business registry and where the largest need for Market Rate studios is coming from?

@eileen, that is the point. No one knows who the target is for the housing that everyone is proposing. Everyone has their own idea of what the terms mean.

Bottom line, City Council needs to define the terms affordable housing and below market housing. What does this mean? Who is the target owner?

LIke the fake news crew, and the election deny'ers, the housing deny'ers abound here.

The SF Chronicle this morning reports that Palo Alto has had the highest decline in housing prices in the state. The economy is changing and we need to be aware of that.

I completely agree that we have no consistent idea of who we are building housing for. Are we really building for teachers, firemen, nurses, families, etc., or are we building for more affluent audiences? What kind of housing are teachers, firemen, nurses, and families looking for? It doesn't appear that projects like Alta Locale are filling these needs. Imagine paying over $3K a month (in rent - not toward a mortgage) for a studio that has no parking, and trying to raise a family there. Not every project has to fit families, but some must if we want to keep our community healthy. Lower income people are most likely to need their cars as they often work more than one job. Thus, there is no real benefit to locating more affordable homes only along transportation routes. Instead, smaller scale duplexes and four-plexes could be integrated into current residential neighborhoods and spread throughout the city without overwhelming any single one. Think of the very large lots in some neighborhoods, for example.

The other possibility is to provide some kind of housing that seniors would like to move to that would make economic sense for them. Many would like to remain in the area, and would like to downsize and free up their larger homes for families, but the capital gains tax and the inability to find smaller homes that make sense, among other factors, mean that seniors have little alternative to remaining in their larger homes. Some serious study of this issue might be warranted. With the current capital gains taxes, if senior do downsize, it is likely to be out of the area and they are likely to rent their current homes rather than put them on the market.

@Evergreen Park @cmarg The City Planning and development Dept has no clue (solid data) about low-income housing, or any total numbers of residents who live in by the skin of their teeth. Or if they do, they are not sharing this important demographic for our city leaders to make viable, feasible, educated decisions and good plans. Alta Housing is the City's go to low income housing developer. Yet we are unaware of not supplied, given data on how many of Alta residents are on rent subsidies. Yet there are other low-income housing Mid-Pen,Eden etc here in PA too. What I do know are seniors citizens and families and individual rents are getting raised (as property prices decline to what level?). One gent I know is paying 50% of his retirement fixed income for rent. He no longer can support local arts like plays at Lucie Stern, or recreational swims at Riconada or shop local retail. Because there is no cross town shuttle, he's unable to get around to do errands. The census was completed in 2020, yet our city has not given us the hard data on the poverty rate here in PA. PAUSD serves about 12-15% student body (families) free and reduced lunch.. How do these numbers compare to the overall city's poverty through the census? I also understand it may be flawed because of the Pandemic. Get it together Planning Department (Mr. Lait). There is always a huge gap in numbers. Many people were plunged deeper into poverty in Palo Alto over the course of the Pandemic. There too is not much data on this front either. HOMES for Humans now. Not more autocad fancy designs for market rate townhomes. Humans need, safe, quality, with amenities near schools, shopping, city services and or on top of or directly adjacent to alternate transit bike ways. Not warehouse housing on freeways on toxic manufacturing commercial zones.

There have been many concerns raised and good questions asked by posters. One question that sticks out to me, and it appears in different forms, is "Who are we building these housing units for?" And then the puzzling data from research done by at least two posters, citing the unoccupied rate of Curtner Ave apartments and the fact that there are unoccupied apartments at Alto Locale. That project was finally approved with the new definition of Workforce Housing. I could dig back into my archived posts when discussion was going on about that project, but I know from memory that I posed the question of who would be living there because of affordability, and would the residents not own cars? We got AMI numbers and %'s which added to the confusion, in my mind, of the State's mandate and the required distribution of housing by incomes. My question now is "Who is living there?". Thank you Deborah, Annette, resident3, cmarg, and Evergreen Park Observer for your posts. I also agree that Dubois and Filseth will be missed on CC. They did their homework and seemed to have thought things through thoroughly before they spoke and cast their votes on issues. They were clear thinking and analytical and made decisions, I believe, that were for the good of us Palo Alto residents. There was never a need to guess their political party affiliation.

@GaleJohnson. "I could dig back into my archived posts when the discussion was going on about that project, but I know from memory that I posed the question of who would be living there because of affordability," There is so much conjecture and bold assumptions & NO oversight. So to "pan" the Oxford 100% rental plan based on preliminary sketches is simply wrong. Opines might approach the "study" session w more inclusion. Like "yes" we want, we need the housing. This is a great location. We don't want to bury this entirely. Let's have a balanced approach. Perhaps even maximize the area floor plans 2 iincrease family size dwellings, reduce micro units, mitigate parking w/ such amenities, as transit passes, or less rent for not taking up a parking space. There are tons more creative & imaginative ways to approach much-needed rental housing other than slamming it down. From a predominant amount of negative comments from the public & the council concurring, this project was excluded from a forward, feasibility, & dire fact: rental housing. As for VRent vacancies. They do not answer their real estate phones, they require out of reach requirements. Minimum a prospective renter for a 2B/1B 4 a 1960's near teardown is 3 times the income to rent, 700 credit score, $60 application fee, proof of 3X cash reserves in the bank Essentially for a low-bottom apartment, VRent require a minimum $125,000.00 income. For a family of three. A single service-wage worker w one or two children under the age of 18, hello! This is an impossible requirement. Yes. VRents has many vacancies all over town. For a senior on social security or an individual on disability insurance or a family who works at your local Shell Gas Station or Molly Stones, let's get real a Drift Wood Deli sandwich maker are shut out all over town. And since Alta Housing wait lists r under lock & key. VRents has the curb appeal to your SFHowner passing by, yet the interiors lack good, quality, safe amenities.

I truly hope this project doesn't go through. There are fewer and fewer pleasant spots in Palo Alto, and it seems they are all to be destroyed. With the loss of the trees and Creekside Inn, El Camino will be even more of an eyesore. This project could be moved elsewhere to an existing empty building. Quality of life in our town matters!

"Who are we building these housing units for?"

Why does it matter?

And since when did you Gale become a developer? If not, then why use the "we" pronoun?

In any case, trying to dictate from the top down who does what never ends well. It smacks of Soviet-style (or Chinese Communist) top down planning that never works. (Which is why I'm not worried about China - with Xi at the helm, that country is going down the economic and demographic toilet)

Not saying this is a good project, but, jeez, what a lot of hot air.

(and don't believe everything you read on the internet -- especially when it comes to vacancy rates)

@Me2 - I think the "who" piece matters b/c there's limited space to build in Palo Alto, there isn't a shortage of housing for people with robust income, there's not much affordable housing for people with community-serving jobs, and it makes little sense at this particular point in time to build that which is not critical, potentially increasing the vacancy rate but not solving the housing problem. Hopefully present circumstances will not last too terribly much longer, but as long as this is our reality I think it makes sense to build what will help.

The above is not specific to the Creekside project.

@Me Too,

“(and don't believe everything you read on the internet -- especially when it comes to vacancy rates)”

According to the print publication The Daily Post, “one fifth of offices in San Francisco are expected to remain vacant through at least 2026”

“We” actually don’t have to build anything but “we” - through our elected form of government with 7 Council members are being asked to subsidize developers who want to build and profit from building. These requests (for effective subsidies to build) are a demand on “we” the voters. It’s fair to ask what “we” are being asked or coerced to support.

I don’t support building housing for millionaires that mostly benefit companies who refuse to carry the burden of managing the costs from just building and adding concrete. We could use more information to see what “we” should know about the choices our elected government is being asked to make.

Not to mention, “we” were given the ….when the same lobbyists for building drove down a negotiation for business taxes to practically nothing.

I'm in total agreement with the last two posters. These big companies spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against paying their workers fairly and for years have classified them as contractors, consultants and gig workers, thus denying them benefits and unemployment insurance. Then they shift the burden to us, the taxpayers to house the homeless and subsidize "workforce housing" for THEIR highly oaid workers.

I'm so tired of listening to the selfish and.or oblivious "housing justice warriors" pretend they're all about equity while they demand MORE market rate housing instead of truly affordable housing.

To quote Doria Summa, "Palo Alto is a community, not a commodity" to be sold to the highest bidder backing these hypocritical, illogical and divisive campaigns. Building more market rate housing won't reduce housing prices on the most expensive land in the US while institutions like Stanford continue expanding WHILE being allowed to keep buying up housing stock for their people, thus increasing competition for what;s left.

When are we going to get more housing (and affordable housing) in Palo Alto?
It seems to me that PA should start paying fines.
That would for sure motivate the city council.

" I think the "who" piece matters b/c there's limited space to build in Palo Alto, there isn't a shortage of housing for people with robust income, there's not much affordable housing for people with community-serving jobs, and it makes little sense at this particular point in time to build that which is not critical"

It's this kind of mindset that sends the middle class packing to Manteca. If we only focus on BMR developments, then only the rich, their help, and service folks will live in Palo Alto. BMR = bad public policy.

"I don’t support building housing for millionaires"

Given your Indigenous Palo Altan tendencies, you probably mean, "I don't support building housing"

And that's ok. Just be honest with yourself.

@Me 2

“Given your Indigenous Palo Altan tendencies, you probably mean, "I don't support building housing"

The use of “indigenous” in the housing context is cold. For years we have all seen friends lose their jobs and housing in the Bay Area and Palo Alto to people with bigger money or bigger jobs and it’s a ticking clock for whose next. That’s just a fact and the only thing that keeps showing up like a bad penny are those who use the plight of real people to divide the community into pro or against housing. The proposals by developers are actually often “obscene”…average concerns like traffic or safe routes to school become drama. Applying the narrow filter of pro/con housing for these situations will not build housing either, developers must be against housing in that case.

resident3 makes an excellent point which shows how ludicrous it is to justify more housing "SO people can be close to their job and bike to work" as if people never change jobs, get fired etc. And I doubt that the entities that are supposed by tracking income and/or employment status are keeping up with who works where, how much they make, if they suddenly got huge raises and/or stock that would elevate them beyond the income levels.

Similarly, are teachers going to get evicted from teacher housing if they get fired, retire or move to a school system in another county?

@OnlineName @Annette @ Let me count the ways. VRent has a HOA so therein is the reason they have sooooo many vacancies because of their stupid asks 3Xincome to rent. It's to keep "the other" out. And @Me2 SFH HOA's and Neighborhood Associations are systematically destroying rental housing plans in our city. Why? Because of their selfish property values based on future, air, and silicon. Did we not cross the Atlantic on the Mayflower to escape the lords and lands of greed and taxation on the commoner? Apparently, we just moved over here to do the same. Boycott Neighborhood Associations and HOA's. Band together say no to the value of property over people and rental housing. Even being surrounded by a protective mote (Madadero Creek, a dry ditch) full of blackberry stickers and non-native weeds is not protection enough for your precious private property. Please. Return to what can be won on your front: fighting airplane noise, banning leafblowers, ticketing rampid car idling. Or are these seemingly massive issues the days of yore problems? Seriously. I'd worry more about the deadly human-destroying bombs being designed at Lockheed Martin a couple of miles from your neighborhood than some rental housing coming in. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. " to return to a 20th Century cliche replaying itself.

@Native to the BAY: I think it was right to shut this down at the meeting because the proposal was overwhelming and overreaching. CC sent a message. I think Oxford was badly mistaken to think this could have been a good entry into the start of negotiations. I have a hunch Oxford will be back again with a more reasonable scaled down proposal. I didn’t get the feeling that CC said “we don’t want to hear from you anymore!”

Thank you Annette and resident3 for explaining very well my “who” and “we” references to English major/Political Science minor posters.

@Me2: Please provide the income range for the “middle class” that you say will be heading to Manteca? I would like to see, although I think it’s impossible to get, a breakdown of incomes and occupations of all renters in Palo Alto. On the subject of vacancies? I’ve seen articles in print publications as well as online. Another thought/question I’ve had is “How are companies that own large apartment complexes surviving with 20% vacancies?” I can only conclude that the rental rates and incomes from the occupied units are what makes it possible. And I’m sure Oxford has a group of experts in real estate finance, economics, and law, that can come up with numbers that show what it takes to pencil out.

If only middle class income could get a family into decent affordable housing in Manteca... been there lately? It ain't all waterslides and bovine excrement any more. It's huge (and NOT affordable) developments that have taken over the agricultural fields.

We have PLENTY of undeveloped land in Palo Alto. Every time I go to the VA I look toward Page Mill Road and ask myself... WHY NOT BUILD THERE? Can't we get a bus route to establish service there?

And then I wake up.

Perhaps you woke up and remembered the land probably belongs to Stanford University who are by far the largest land owner in Palo Alto, and also the county.

And who are buying up housing in PA and surrounding communities for their growing popilation, taking units off the market and increasing competition and prices for everyone else WHILE fighting building housing on their own land. They recently bought the Oak Creak apartments on Sand Hill Rd, 759 apartments gone, poof.

@Online name. Monday Night City Council agenda item 9. FRY's!!! 15 acres of RM30 NVCAP discussion. Simply put. What about PA CC Kuo and Fillseth frittering away RM30 15 acres of a residentially zoned parcel of land? An unprecedented opportunity for multi-generational,mixed-income rentals, near train, bus, school, jobs, & city services. Once in a Century chance!!! Never to come again. Yeah yeah yeah Sabroto owns it since 2010, yet the city can control the zone. Now this Billionaire Sabroto threatens SB330. So the city meekly accepts a tiny portion for unplanned very, very low-income 71-unit complexes in exchange for 71 very posh townhomes & 30,000 downzoned commercial for a hotel and/or a Mercedez Benz dealership. Not a plan, not a non-profit developer (It'll probably be Alta Housing since Sabrato gives their Alta a great price on rent for their headquarters). And we expect the poor end of the lot to live in peace with the very very rich end of the Fry's lot. Not. Sabroto will build a high concrete wall between the two sections so the two demographics can't see or pass each other. It's past time for PA to get this one right. 30 years ago the PA CC did us a gigantic service. Thinking ahead, zoning for residential. Now Shakado, Lait, and CC are going to throw it all away. Sabroto will look very very very bad in their community! with all their philanthropy literacy for the poor, and disadvantaged, donations of clothes to kids. Yet really what matters is where these kids can live, thrive, grow and become. I don't give a hoot if they throw money at literacy. It's homes for humans that will take these children into the future. I can learn to read, even in prison. Just like the CC and Lait and Shakado are going to toss the University transit site to the highest price home buyer developer. Instead of putting teeth into a business tax, it's milk toast measure on Nov 8. Pennies at this point better the zero w our housing emergency. And still no guarantee $$ will go to housing.

@mjh everybody in PA is pwned by Stanford. Some realize it, some don't. The haves and have nots have been feuding since the feudal era. The haves always win but it's not because they're better at doing or being anything. They just have more money to use to push their weight around. I mean heck, Stanford just got around to admitting they've been discriminating against Jewish people since before the 1960's. If anybody can't read between those lines as to how that admission came to be, they need a tutor. And yeah, it's only moments when I'm in a phantasmagoric fugue state that makes me think anything is ever going to change to allow affordable housing development in vast open spaces. They'll just keep trying to cram them into congested areas because the wealthy can easily avoid those areas.

"Palo Alto is a community, not a commodity."

That's why Doria Summa's quote above resonates to those of us who are tired of PA being sold to the highest bidder and City Council members and staff who've never seen a development project they won't support.

Check their endorsements and vote accordingly.

"Thank you Annette and resident3 for explaining very well my “who” and “we” references to English major/Political Science minor posters."

It's the foundation of the infamous Palo Alto Process. Also why we get a ton of useless -- and dangerous -- Propositions on the ballot. Direct democracy doesn't work, though we try very hard to do it here in California (and in Palo Alto specifically).

"Please provide the income range for the “middle class” that you say will be heading to Manteca?"

How do you define the middle class? Income range without family sizes to consider is a flawed statistic, but one that we seem to be bleating about.

"I would like to see, although I think it’s impossible to get, a breakdown of incomes and occupations of all renters in Palo Alto. "

Ah, a renters registry. Everyone wants a rental property registry, so let's start tracking the renters.

Gee, that's a good idea.

Ha Ha, @ Me 2. It's been 20 years since the city codified a landlord registry and it STILL doesn't exist. Check back in 2042 to see if it's still being brushed aside like a pesky gnat.

The landlords know all the income and the sources of their tenants. Otherwise they wouldn't rent to them. Maybe they could just add a couple of more columns on the spreadsheet where the landlord puts his information on the landlord registry. Seems simple.

Oddly @MyFeelz I was thinking a similar type of registry as you astutely suggest. It would be more of a collaborative rental application experience between tenant, landlord and city. Like: I give you my information and you give me and the city yours... The reason there are horrid rental fees and asks is because of HOA's and rental control caps imitations on city blocks. There is rent control FYI. Controlled by HOA's and Neighborhood Associations. PA has been discriminating (redlining) for decades and getting aways with it by offloading poor people to Alta Housing and hiding true poverty numbers (or low-wage incomes). The Planinng and Developpment Department planned and developed it that way. Here is the Calif Real Estate Association's formal apology this weekend for redlining. Let's see how this advances homes for all incomes in transit-"rich" areas and on parcels of land within walking of schools, trains, bus, and libraries. West Page Mill would be amazing to develop housing. The boundaries are skewed out there. Stanford owns some, PA owners some, and some of it is county land...

Web Link

@Native to the Bay,

“There is rent control FYI. Controlled by HOA's and Neighborhood Associations.”

This is silly. You’re amusing sometimes but not when you make stuff up.

Here are some significant parcels for integrated climate friendly housing for all incomes, ages and abilities:

University Transit site
Creek Side
Any of the weeded lots, quanza huts, abandoned for lease buildings between Page Mill and Maybell
Fry's 15 acres are already zoned as residential
City-owned parking lots -- near empty all the time and a total waste of surface land
Cambridge ave (empty, run-down two-story buildings)

@resident3

Web Link

"Common interest communities (aka “HOAs”) are attractive to homebuyers because of quality standards, architectural conformity, higher maintenance standards and other restrictions preserving a certain quality of life for owners within the community. At the same time, legislation increasingly limits the ability of communities to make their own decisions about their community such as last year’s enactment of Civil Code 4741 regarding rentals."

AKA Not in the character of our neighborhood or it just doesn't pencil out".

@Native to the Bay,

"Common interest communities (aka “HOAs”) are attractive to homebuyers because of quality standards, architectural conformity, higher maintenance standards and other restrictions preserving a certain quality of life for owners within the community.”

These HOA’s don’t exist in Palo Alto, where there’s no uniformity of homes, famous for having million dollar shacks with overgrown weeds. If you’re referring to height restrictions, these are city wide, not discriminatory. You’re confusing redlining with gentrification (urban area taken over by richer people) odd term for Palo Alto so just call it the market. It’s the market that redlines so if you want to see it that way, subsidizing market housing is discriminatory. Consider the biggest real estate owners like Stanford buying up million dollar properties, taking that out of the supply, or the rich paying jobs that drive demand for rich people homes. These big players are the real “common interest” groups.

Most people don't move here and pay premium prices to be close to jobs. They move here for our excellent public schools. Proximity to any job is a very temporary thing for most people these days as large corporations push people into "contract" jobs.

@Native it would be so easy to create an all-in-one registry BUT there's one catch as far as capturing data about the tenants that were housed when the landlord joined the registry. The landlord only has to join once. It would be nice if they had to also list the rental rate and any time it changes, make them update. But the fact almost no one has signed up in the last 20 years, getting a LL to make the jump even once seems impossible. p.s. theres a paywall on that realtor article :/

@C.Y.O.: I am not here for the schools. I am here because it's a Burger King free zone.

@consideryouroptions We moved here to take care of our elderly parents so they could age in place without moving to "an old folks home" and so could stay in the homes they sacrificed so much to keep and raise a family in. the weather and schools are a bonus, I don't take for granted either. And no. I don't inherit any of the "property". Yet thier grandchildren inherit the love, history, proximity to their blood relatives.

@MyFeelz Web Link

try this link

or key word "California Realtors apologize for role in racist housing..." It's practically in every news media source, except for the PA Weekly or Post hahaha

[email protected] 2: I’ll put a size on the “middle income” family moving to Manteca. A family of four…husband and wife and two kids, ages 4 and 10. Please give me your income range for their situation.

Sorry, I meant ‘middle class” although middle income would normally be associated with middle class.

@Consider your options,

“Most people don't move here and pay premium prices to be close to jobs. They move here for our excellent public schools. “

I agree that most people who moved here (years ago) paid premium for the schools. As giant employers moved in though, many of them send their kids to private schools. The recent news of Fletcher middle is that it could close for low enrollment (why they are using a new choice program to attract students). Enrollment has come down because families who can pay premium have choices.

Below Market Housing for families would support schools and local businesses, and have real people supporting the schools. Something that can’t be said for faceless investors and lobbyists who work City Hall.

Mountain View is nearly paved over with high-density, six-story, complexes WITHOUT adequate parking. And people forget that most of these apartments are NOT affordable, in fact, they are EXEMPT from rent control, they provide temp housing for affluent tech workers who stay for a couple of years and then move on to a real community to settle down. This does NOT solve the housing crisis, and the idea that a city has to house ALL of the employees within city limits is ridiculous. Clearly bucolic Los Altos remains bucolic because the don't have the corporate workers that we have in Mtn View. Yet it is ON THE BORDER. And most LA employees do not work IN Los Altos. So cities like Mountain View are subject to ridiculous rules to provide housing for ALL who work in the city.

Redwood City just approved a new complex of 500 unites, 70 at a "subsidized rate" of $3,320 for one-bedroom apartment. No market rate rents were cited in the front-page article in today's Daily Post but one can sure wonder about how much higher they'll be.

@Online Name: And the landlord/developer factored in a vacancy rate that would still make the project pencil out profitable. They’ll swizzle numbers around to claim it’s affordable housing.