Palo Alto set to adopt new vision for housing

UPDATE:  The video archive of the meeting can be found on the Midpenninsula Media Center website.

(From Palo Alto Online article April 11, 2012)

The article states that this plan will be approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission tonight (4/11/2012), but with some dissent. However, the debate may help you understand the issue. The meeting begins at 6pm (not 7) and is broadcast on cable channel 26 and on the web (and available 2-3 days later in the archive)

Note: The broadcast/webcast schedule lists 7pm, so I don’t know if they will miss the first hour of the meeting or if they didn’t update the schedule for the earlier-than-normal start.

Commentary: This is to start people thinking. (For discussions, use the appropriate forum.)

I am a member of the Technical Advisory Group, and this proposal met NONE of the concerns of the members appointed to represent the residents.

1. It was driven solely by the perceived need to met the ABAG imposed numbers for a massive increase in housing in Palo Alto. There was negligible discussion of what Palo Alto needed.
2. It repeats proven mistakes of offering what are characterized as incentives to create more housing that are actually used to create more offices, with little new housing. That is, programs advertised to decrease the jobs-housing imbalance are almost certain to increase it.
3. Although it claims to support walkability, it continues policies that have reduced walkability by driving out of Palo Alto destinations that existing residents use in favor of more office and housing, with the remaining retail targeted at the office workers (restaurants) and high income shoppers (boutiques). The coming expulsion of Fry’s Electronics is a prime example: Although the City claims it wants Fry’s to stay, it has implicitly imposed conditions that Fry’s will find unacceptable (reducing a too-small store to an even smaller one, even more inadequate parking, severely reduced hours of operation,…). The reason for this: Housing that would generate 5-10 Caltrain riders. What about the costs of many hundreds/thousands of existing Fry’s customers per day having to drive out of Palo Alto for shopping (and the loss of sales tax revenue)? “That’s not a factor / not my problem.”
4. It targets commercial building more than 20 years old for redevelopment as mixed use, which translate into a few housing units, lots of office and a trivial amount of retail on the first floor. When I say “lots of office”, the proposal is to eliminate the 50-foot height requirement near transit and to eliminate most of the review of projects.  A dream for developers; a nightmare for Palo Alto residents. It will drive up rents and drive up costs of shopping in Palo Alto.