Author: Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Upload time: Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 9:15 am 9 Reading time: about 5 minutes
At around 5 pm on March 13, 2020, commuters got off the train at Palo Alto Caltrain station. Stanford University proposed the concept of building up to 500 housing units near the downtown transportation center. The photo was taken by Magali Gauthier.
For decades, the transportation center in downtown Palo Alto has been the focus of the city's ambitious office development, housing construction, and rail improvement plans.
Now, as the city has drafted a plan to accommodate 6,086 new homes between 2023 and 2031, the site has once again become the focus of attention. Stanford University, which owns the property, has identified it as one of three locations that can accommodate approximately 1,000 apartments, another location on Pasteur Avenue, near the Stanford University Medical Center, and the property at 3128 El Camino Real. This is near Palo Alto Plaza, where McDonald’s restaurants are currently located.
Among the three sites, the University Avenue site, including the Palo Alto Transportation Center, has the most potential because it is the gateway between Stanford University and Palo Alto downtown and is the most traffic-friendly area in the city . However, given the city’s plan to continuously improve the railroad crossing, which is also the biggest unknown, this work may involve realigning the Palo Alto Avenue intersection so that the street no longer intersects the railroad tracks.
"This site is like a gold mine for us," planning director Jonathan Lait said in a recent discussion about adding housing to the transportation center site. "It wants to do everything we want to do in Palo Alto because it is close to public transportation. I think there is a lot of interest in the way it is developed-not only from a housing perspective, but also transportation and sustainability. The benefit of development."
However, any new development project will inevitably lead to familiar debates about height, density, and parking restrictions. When demonstrating their transportation center site concept, Stanford University officials made it clear that any new development project will far exceed the city’s 50-foot height limit and may require the city to relax its height and density restrictions. The most conservative alternative proposed by Stanford University is to build a seven-story building with a height of 75 to 85 feet, with the bottom two floors dedicated to parking and accommodating 180 to 270 apartments.
What is the value of local news to you?
Palo Alto Online can be supported for only $5 per month.
A slightly more ambitious concept includes a 105-foot-tall building—the same height as the Hoover Hall—with 360 to 425 apartments.
The strongest choice will be a 137-foot-tall building with 465 to 530 apartments.
When presenting their case to the city’s Housing Elements Working Group (a citizen group that is helping the city develop a new housing vision), Stanford University officials believed that the location is ideal for higher heights and densities.
Jessica von Borck, director of land use at Stanford University, said in a speech on October 21: “It’s hard to imagine a more suitable location for high-density housing.” “It’s located at the train station, next to the city. The center is across the street from the two major employment centers of Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Campus. It is also a place to explore higher heights and its potential significance."
However, city leaders also recognize that any major development will inevitably encounter resistance. This is the lesson they learned in 2012, when developer John Arrillaga proposed the construction of four office buildings—some of them higher than 100 feet—as well as a theater and a series of bicycle improvements near the transportation center. After the public strongly protested the scale of the project and the lack of transparency in the city's negotiations with Arrillaga, the city council quickly cancelled the plan.
Send daily headlines directly to your inbox in our Express newsletter.
Send daily headlines directly to your inbox in our Express newsletter.
Now, the staff has taken a more cautious approach. Although they acknowledged the great potential of the site, city staff and most Housing Element organizations said last week that they are in no rush to rebuild the transportation center. In a decision that frustrated housing advocates, the group passed the decision not to include the transportation center site in the city's housing inventory for the 2023-2031 cycle by a vote of 9 to 4 on November 18. However, members also agreed that the city and Stanford University should continue to work together to develop a long-term plan for the site, which may involve housing.
The biggest problem faced by most group members is parking. Stanford University suggested that for the development to be financially viable, the city must lower its parking standards. This usually requires one parking space for each studio and one-bedroom apartment, and two for each apartment with two or more bedrooms. parking space. Stanford University’s plan requires that all apartments, including those with two or more bedrooms, be restricted to one parking space.
Several members of the working group, including Kathryn Jordan and Keith Reckdahl, questioned the assumption that residents of this convenient site would not buy cars. Randolph Tsien, a member of the working group, said that he was concerned that adding housing at 27 University Avenue might require relocation of some transportation services. Another member of the working group, Hamilton Hitchings, said the city should determine its grading plan before considering major housing redevelopment in the transportation center.
"I don't know how we do this when we do grade separation," Higgins said at the November 18th meeting.
Hitchings and Reckdahl also believe that residential development should be 100% affordable housing, which is inconsistent with the plan of Stanford University. They pointed out that even if the city does not include the location in its next housing element, it does not mean that it cannot plan housing here.
■ After the Embarcadero flew by mistake at a speed of 80 mph, the man knocked the stolen Mini Cooper into a tree
■ Palo Alto uses industrial land to solve housing shortage
■ The police thwarted a robbery attempt of 30 to 40 people in the city center
■ Housing near the California train? Stanford’s proposal elicited a different reaction
■ Burlingame City Council members race to succeed Jackie Speier
■ After the Embarcadero flew by mistake at a speed of 80 mph, the man knocked the stolen Mini Cooper into a tree
■ Palo Alto uses industrial land to solve housing shortage
Others believe that the organization's decision not to include the location as a housing element in the city is a lost opportunity. Sheryl Klein, a member of the working group, one of four dissidents, said she was disappointed by the working group’s decision not to include the location in its housing plan.
"Given the city's environmental goals, this is the ideal place to build some kind of housing," said Klein, chief operating officer of Alta Housing, a housing non-profit organization. "We don’t have to promise height, but I think it’s a very livable location, and it’s well located-people can walk to the shops and amenities in the city center. I can’t believe we are canceling it and we will push it into the future ."
Although the group also supports the inclusion of Stanford-owned Pasteur and El Camino sites into the new Housing Element, its decision to abandon the transportation center plan has frustrated some residents and housing advocates. Robert Chun, a board member of the advocacy organization Palo Alto Forward, pointed out that the working group had approved the concept of building housing near a train station in California at a previous meeting. In view of this position, he urged the team members to include the transit center in the city's housing plan.
"No matter what the California train station is like, we can't let Palo Alto's most popular housing option disappear so quickly," Chun said.
The decision on whether to include the downtown transportation center in the city’s housing plan will ultimately be made by the city council, which plans to adopt the housing element in the fall of 2022. Early signs indicate that the Stanford University proposal will be difficult to implement. According to a report by Tim Wong, a council ad hoc committee composed of Mayor Tom DuBois and council members Eric Filseth and Greer Stone considered the university’s housing concept and generally agreed that the city’s 50-foot height limit should remain unchanged. Change. Leading Housing Element updates. Although this position would effectively kill Stanford’s proposal, Wright suggested that the city and universities continue to discuss ways to increase residential development in the area.
"I think we are all interested in seeing the housing here," Wright said. "This is a good place to live, but it may also be a good place for other things. So can these things fit together well? I don't think we will solve this problem immediately."
The front row seat of the local high school sports.
Check out our new newsletter Playbook.
Follow Palo Alto Online and Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.
Author: Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Upload: Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 9:15 AM The transportation center in downtown Palo Alto has been the focus of the city's ambitious office development, housing construction, and rail improvement plan for decades. Now, as the city has drafted a plan to accommodate 6,086 new homes between 2023 and 2031, the site has once again become the focus of attention. Stanford University, which owns the property, has identified it as one of three locations that can accommodate approximately 1,000 apartments, plus another location on Pasteur Avenue, near the Stanford University Medical Center, and the property at 3128 El Camino Real , This is near Palo Alto Plaza, where McDonald’s restaurants are currently located. Among the three sites, the University Avenue site, including the Palo Alto Transportation Center, has the most potential because it is the gateway between Stanford University and Palo Alto downtown and is the most traffic-friendly area in the city . However, given the city’s plan to continuously improve the railroad crossing, which is also the biggest unknown, this work may involve realigning the Palo Alto Avenue intersection so that the street no longer intersects the railroad tracks. "This site is like a gold mine for us," planning director Jonathan Lait said in a recent discussion about adding housing to the transportation center site. "It wants to do everything we want to do in Palo Alto because it is close to public transportation. I think there is a lot of interest in the way it is developed-not only from a housing perspective, but also transportation and sustainability. The benefits of development.” However, any new development project will inevitably lead to familiar debates about height, density, and parking restrictions. When demonstrating their transportation center site concept, Stanford University officials made it clear that any new development project will far exceed the city’s 50-foot height limit and may require the city to relax its height and density restrictions. The most conservative alternative proposed by Stanford University is to build a seven-story building with a height of 75 to 85 feet, with the bottom two floors dedicated to parking and accommodating 180 to 270 apartments. A slightly more ambitious concept includes a 105-foot-tall building—the same height as the Hoover Hall—with 360 to 425 apartments. The strongest choice will be a 137-foot-tall building with 465 to 530 apartments. When presenting their case to the city’s Housing Elements Working Group (a citizen group that is helping the city develop a new housing vision), Stanford University officials believed that the location is ideal for higher heights and densities. Jessica von Borck, director of land use at Stanford University, said in a speech on October 21: “It’s hard to imagine a more suitable location for high-density housing.” “It’s located at the train station, next to the city. The center is across the street from the two main employment centers of Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Campus. It is also a place to explore higher heights and potential significance.” However, city leaders also realize that no major development is possible. Avoid encountering resistance. This is the lesson they learned in 2012, when developer John Arrillaga proposed the construction of four office buildings—some of them higher than 100 feet—as well as a theater and a series of bicycle improvements near the transportation center. After the public strongly protested the scale of the project and the lack of transparency in the city's negotiations with Arrillaga, the city council quickly cancelled the plan. Now, the staff has taken a more cautious approach. Although they acknowledged the great potential of the site, city staff and most Housing Element organizations said last week that they are in no rush to rebuild the transportation center. In a decision that frustrated housing advocates, the group passed the decision not to include the transportation center site in the city's housing inventory for the 2023-2031 cycle by a vote of 9 to 4 on November 18. However, members also agreed that the city and Stanford University should continue to work together to develop a long-term plan for the site, which may involve housing. The biggest problem faced by most group members is parking. Stanford University suggested that for the development to be financially viable, the city must lower its parking standards. This usually requires one parking space for each studio and one-bedroom apartment, and two for each apartment with two or more bedrooms. parking space. Stanford University’s plan requires that all apartments, including those with two or more bedrooms, be restricted to one parking space. Several members of the working group, including Kathryn Jordan and Keith Reckdahl, questioned the assumption that residents of this convenient site would not buy cars. Randolph Tsien, a member of the working group, said that he was concerned that adding housing at 27 University Avenue might require relocation of some transportation services. Another working group member, Hamilton Hitchings, said that the city should determine its grading plan before considering major housing redevelopment in the transportation center. "I don't know how we do this when we do grade separation," Higgins said at the November 18th meeting. Hitchings and Reckdahl also believe that residential development should be 100% affordable housing, which is inconsistent with the plan of Stanford University. They pointed out that even if the city does not include the location in its next housing element, it does not mean that it cannot plan housing here. Others believe that the organization's decision not to include the location as a housing element in the city is a lost opportunity. Sheryl Klein, a member of the working group, one of four dissidents, said she was disappointed by the working group’s decision not to include the location in its housing plan. "Given the city's environmental goals, this is the ideal place to build some kind of housing," said Klein, chief operating officer of Alta Housing, a housing non-profit organization. "We don’t have to promise height, but I think it’s a very livable location, and it’s well located-people can walk to the shops and amenities in the city center. I can’t believe we are canceling it and we will push it into the future Although the group also supports the inclusion of Stanford’s Pasteur and El Camino sites in the new Housing Element, its decision to abandon the transportation center plan has frustrated some residents and housing advocates. Robert Chun, a board member of the advocacy organization Palo Alto Forward, pointed out that the working group had approved the concept of building housing near a train station in California at a previous meeting. In view of this position, he urged the team members to include the transit center in the city's housing plan. "No matter what the California train station is like, we can't let Palo Alto's most popular housing option disappear so quickly," Chun said. The decision on whether to include the downtown transportation center in the city’s housing plan will ultimately be made by the city council, which plans to adopt the housing element in the fall of 2022. Early signs indicate that the Stanford University proposal will be difficult to implement. According to a report by Tim Wong, a council ad hoc committee composed of Mayor Tom DuBois and council members Eric Filseth and Greer Stone considered the university’s housing concept and generally agreed that the city’s 50-foot height limit should remain unchanged. Change. Leading Housing Element updates. Although this position would effectively kill Stanford’s proposal, Wright suggested that the city and universities continue to discuss ways to increase residential development in the area. "I think we are all interested in seeing the housing here," Wright said. "This is a good place to live, but it may also be a good place for other things. So can these things fit together well? I don't think we will solve this problem immediately."
For decades, the transportation center in downtown Palo Alto has been the focus of the city's ambitious office development, housing construction, and rail improvement plans.
Now, as the city has drafted a plan to accommodate 6,086 new homes between 2023 and 2031, the site has once again become the focus of attention. Stanford University, which owns the property, has identified it as one of three locations that can accommodate approximately 1,000 apartments, another location on Pasteur Avenue, near the Stanford University Medical Center, and the property at 3128 El Camino Real. This is near Palo Alto Plaza, where McDonald’s restaurants are currently located.
Among the three sites, the University Avenue site, including the Palo Alto Transportation Center, has the most potential because it is the gateway between Stanford University and Palo Alto downtown and is the most traffic-friendly area in the city . However, given the city’s plan to continuously improve the railroad crossing, which is also the biggest unknown, this work may involve realigning the Palo Alto Avenue intersection so that the street no longer intersects the railroad tracks.
"This site is like a gold mine for us," planning director Jonathan Lait said in a recent discussion about adding housing to the transportation center site. "It wants to do everything we want to do in Palo Alto because it is close to public transportation. I think there is a lot of interest in the way it is developed-not only from a housing perspective, but also transportation and sustainability. The benefit of development."
However, any new development project will inevitably lead to familiar debates about height, density, and parking restrictions. When demonstrating their transportation center site concept, Stanford University officials made it clear that any new development project will far exceed the city’s 50-foot height limit and may require the city to relax its height and density restrictions. The most conservative alternative proposed by Stanford University is to build a seven-story building with a height of 75 to 85 feet, with the bottom two floors dedicated to parking and accommodating 180 to 270 apartments.
A slightly more ambitious concept includes a 105-foot-tall building—the same height as the Hoover Hall—with 360 to 425 apartments.
The strongest choice will be a 137-foot-tall building with 465 to 530 apartments.
When presenting their case to the city’s Housing Elements Working Group (a citizen group that is helping the city develop a new housing vision), Stanford University officials believed that the location is ideal for higher heights and densities.
Jessica von Borck, director of land use at Stanford University, said in a speech on October 21: “It’s hard to imagine a more suitable location for high-density housing.” “It’s located at the train station, next to the city. The center is across the street from the two major employment centers of Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Campus. It is also a place to explore higher heights and its potential significance."
However, city leaders also recognize that any major development will inevitably encounter resistance. This is the lesson they learned in 2012, when developer John Arrillaga proposed the construction of four office buildings—some of them higher than 100 feet—as well as a theater and a series of bicycle improvements near the transportation center. After the public strongly protested the scale of the project and the lack of transparency in the city's negotiations with Arrillaga, the city council quickly cancelled the plan.
Now, the staff has taken a more cautious approach. Although they acknowledged the great potential of the site, city staff and most Housing Element organizations said last week that they are in no rush to rebuild the transportation center. In a decision that frustrated housing advocates, the group passed the decision not to include the transportation center site in the city's housing inventory for the 2023-2031 cycle by a vote of 9 to 4 on November 18. However, members also agreed that the city and Stanford University should continue to work together to develop a long-term plan for the site, which may involve housing.
The biggest problem faced by most group members is parking. Stanford University suggested that for the development to be financially viable, the city must lower its parking standards. This usually requires one parking space for each studio and one-bedroom apartment, and two for each apartment with two or more bedrooms. parking space. Stanford University’s plan requires that all apartments, including those with two or more bedrooms, be restricted to one parking space.
Several members of the working group, including Kathryn Jordan and Keith Reckdahl, questioned the assumption that residents of this convenient site would not buy cars. Randolph Tsien, a member of the working group, said that he was concerned that adding housing at 27 University Avenue might require relocation of some transportation services. Another member of the working group, Hamilton Hitchings, said the city should determine its grading plan before considering major housing redevelopment in the transportation center.
"I don't know how we do this when we do grade separation," Higgins said at the November 18th meeting.
Hitchings and Reckdahl also believe that residential development should be 100% affordable housing, which is inconsistent with the plan of Stanford University. They pointed out that even if the city does not include the location in its next housing element, it does not mean that it cannot plan housing here.
Others believe that the organization's decision not to include the location as a housing element in the city is a lost opportunity. Sheryl Klein, a member of the working group, one of four dissidents, said she was disappointed by the working group’s decision not to include the location in its housing plan.
"Given the city's environmental goals, this is the ideal place to build some kind of housing," said Klein, chief operating officer of Alta Housing, a housing non-profit organization. "We don’t have to promise height, but I think it’s a very livable location, and it’s well located-people can walk to the shops and amenities in the city center. I can’t believe we are canceling it and we will push it into the future ."
Although the group also supports the inclusion of Stanford-owned Pasteur and El Camino sites into the new Housing Element, its decision to abandon the transportation center plan has frustrated some residents and housing advocates. Robert Chun, a board member of the advocacy organization Palo Alto Forward, pointed out that the working group had approved the concept of building housing near a train station in California at a previous meeting. In view of this position, he urged the team members to include the transit center in the city's housing plan.
"No matter what the California train station is like, we can't let Palo Alto's most popular housing option disappear so quickly," Chun said.
The decision on whether to include the downtown transportation center in the city’s housing plan will ultimately be made by the city council, which plans to adopt the housing element in the fall of 2022. Early signs indicate that the Stanford University proposal will be difficult to implement. According to a report by Tim Wong, a council ad hoc committee composed of Mayor Tom DuBois and council members Eric Filseth and Greer Stone considered the university’s housing concept and generally agreed that the city’s 50-foot height limit should remain unchanged. Change. Leading Housing Element updates. Although this position would effectively kill Stanford’s proposal, Wright suggested that the city and universities continue to discuss ways to increase residential development in the area.
"I think we are all interested in seeing the housing here," Wright said. "This is a good place to live, but it may also be a good place for other things. So can these things fit together well? I don't think we will solve this problem immediately."
The fact is that any new development project will always increase parking problems. Regardless of whether each unit has 1 or 2 spaces, there will always be visitors, babysitters, cleaners, overnight guests, daytime guests, etc., as well as Amazon or furniture delivery vans. Any recent (10 years) new development projects have caused parking impacts on local streets. Residential or commercial areas will be affected by the parking of these new residential units. I am not against the new house, I am just being realistic.
A few key points. Most importantly, the sites included in the RHNA are the sites that the organization believes are most likely to be developed in the next 8 years. In any case, Stanford University can submit proposals for the development of the site to the City Council at any time. In addition, this site is a public facility, which means it can only be developed for greater benefit. Therefore, Stanford University’s proposal to include office space and market price housing does not meet this standard. On the contrary, it should be 100% lower than the market because it is a public facility zone. In addition, the staff suggested to wait and use grading as one of the reasons. I do think that considering the strategic significance of this website, it should be carefully designed to maximize its value to the community.
The advantage here is that the site has an owner who is willing to build a house in the next 8 years. Many other sites will be more difficult to attract builders. RHNA is looking for housing at all levels of affordability. The city does not have to build all new housing for the lowest income level. Once the state Su becomes a city due to insufficient RHNA plans, the city will have to plead with Stanford to develop the site. This city now has more influence than when the country really put it at gunpoint in the future.
This is a good housing location. Head to Redwood City-a large apartment next to the shopping mall track. It looks really good. Woodside Road and Industrial are undergoing a new development. There is a track leading to the end of the bay, where there will be a ferry system connecting San Francisco, Oakland and other places. This development project supports RWC's new SU campus. Every other city builds major buildings near tracks and stations-we are already behind the times.
It seems dumbfounding not to use this site to build high-rise residential buildings. The high-rise will not block the view of any house, cast a shadow on anyone's house, and will not infringe on anyone's privacy. Those who live and work in the city center can walk to work, those who work at Stanford can ride a bicycle, take a Margaret shuttle, or walk to work, while those who work in remote locations can take a bus, a California train, or a Margaret to work. . The need for automatic parking should be minimal, which helps us reduce the use of fossil fuels. The City Council and any groups involved in housing issues should reconsider their objections and do not delay using this website. Harvey
The residential area near CalTrain station seems reasonable, although it may become noisy due to passing trains. The only place to go out is MacPark, there are no real foodies seriously dining in the chain.
It is ridiculous to hear Randolph Tsien insult fair housing practices. The current upgrade, because of the cost of renting housing in this universe, he complains about the potential scourge of the downtown full of "HUD" families and has an ugly "public housing project". In his opinion, the underlying idea is like "Buena Vista Mobile" Park". I am shocked that he is a member of the HEWG committee and should be removed immediately. Reporting his obvious personal prejudice and apparently paranoid comments about the poor, their living environment prevents singles from owning their own homes-unbelievable However, he was selected to serve the Palo Alto RHNA cycle and sit at the HEWG table. Similarly, GS did not list upcoming HEWG meetings for public comment to increase public participation. Obviously, net zero, sustainability and Climate change elsewhere-2500 multi-family homes in the ROLM GM area in the direct path of sea level rise and flooding are okay for the local R1 NIMBYS. Look at East Petaluma. In the late 1960s and 1970s A huge new public K-12 school, a shopping mall, and a shopping mall were built-it flooded from the river in the upper reaches of San Pablo Bay.
So, if the station parking lot becomes residential, where will all commuters and other train passengers park?
Will we park commuters? In their driveway. In the east coast suburbs, commuters rarely stop at the train station. They walk home or take a bus or someone picks them up. Since when will a commuter get a designated parking spot for all-day parking? It is absurd to think that personal wa carbon-fuel vehicles get "free" parking spaces at train stations because one person travels to and from get off work by train. Even at Bart Station in Oakland, commuters have to pay for parking. The yellow safety bicycle lock storage box is now vacant at the California train station. I would absurdly suggest converting them into sleeping boxes for affordable housing. Obviously, parking lots are more important than 50 years when it comes to creating holes in houses. The viewing angle is 20/20. Obviously, parking an empty car that can accommodate 5 people is better than accommodating one person without a car.
Don't miss the discussion! Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
To encourage respectful and thoughtful discussions, registered users can comment on stories. If you are already a registered user and the comment form is not below, you need to log in. If you haven't registered yet, you can do it here.
Please make sure your comments are true, relevant to the subject, and don’t disrespect other posters. Don't be mean or belittle. All posts are subject to our terms of use and may be deleted if our employees think they are inappropriate.
Please refer to our announcement on requesting comments for registration.
HomeNewsTownSquare BlogA&E Community CalendarSports Home and Real Estate Visitor Information
Send news alerts, subscribe to the printed version/file express/weekend express promotion, special bar obituary circulation and delivery
About usContact usAdvertising informationTerms of usePrivacy policyVoice of Mountain View TheSixFifty.com
© 2021 Palo Alto Online All rights reserved. Embarcadero Media PR MediaRelease Sponsored Content Mobile Site
© 2021 Palo Alto Online. all rights reserved.