Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ALPA_Forum] Sat. PA Daily Post: P.A. Housing Mandate Cut (from 12,500 to 7,140 homes)

Expand Messages
  • Gita Dev, FAIA
    Irv I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood. *The solution they want is
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Irv
      I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood.
      The solution they want is Resident Parking Permit which Palo Alto already has in another neighborhood.
      The solution is to work with the neighbors and demand RPP -not allow more free parking . This is serious. They are already suffering from Stanford starting to charge for parking on campus and CalTrain parking.

      Gita Dev, FAIA
      Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
      415.722.3355      650.851.3355
      www.devarchitects.com 
      

      On 3/10/2012 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:  

      Steve, et.al:

      It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
      If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

      On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

      This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

      The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>) that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



      Irvin Dawid
      753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
      650-283-6534 (cell)



      On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
       
      There is no mystery.

      In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

      Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

      I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

      I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

      Steve

      Sent from my iPad

      On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...> wrote:

       

      on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


      Irvin Dawid
      753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
      650-283-6534 (cell)


    • Steve Levy
      I did read the article. I don t comment on things like this without reading it. If anyone wants to read the actual report it can be downloaded from the ABAG
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I did read the article. I don't comment on things like this without reading it. If anyone wants to read the actual report it can be downloaded from the ABAG home page at www.ABAG.ca.gov





        Sent from my iPad

        On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...> wrote:

         

        Steve, et.al:

        It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
        If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

        On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

        This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

        The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>) that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



        Irvin Dawid
        753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
        650-283-6534 (cell)



        On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
         

        There is no mystery.

        In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

        Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

        I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

        I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

        Steve

        Sent from my iPad

        On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...> wrote:

         

        on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


        Irvin Dawid
        753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
        650-283-6534 (cell)


      • Jeff Rensch
        Gita this brings up a reated issue. Much of the parking is used by low wage restaurant workers who can t afford all day parking, prob have no transit options
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Gita
          this brings up a reated issue. Much of the parking is used by low wage restaurant workers who can't afford all day parking, prob have no transit options and have ben excluded from living nearby. If parking becomes permitted how can they afford to work here?  
          Jeff

          Sent from my iPad

          On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

           

          Irv
          I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood.
          The solution they want is Resident Parking Permit which Palo Alto already has in another neighborhood.
          The solution is to work with the neighbors and demand RPP -not allow more free parking . This is serious. They are already suffering from Stanford starting to charge for parking on campus and CalTrain parking.

          Gita Dev, FAIA
          Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
          415.722.3355      650.851.3355
          www.devarchitects.com 
          

          On 3/10/2012 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:
           

          Steve, et.al:

          It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
          If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

          On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

          This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

          The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>) that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



          Irvin Dawid
          753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
          650-283-6534 (cell)



          On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
           
          There is no mystery.

          In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

          Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

          I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

          I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

          Steve

          Sent from my iPad

          On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...> wrote:

           

          on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


          Irvin Dawid
          753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
          650-283-6534 (cell)


        • Gita Dev, FAIA
          Hi Jeff, Yes this is indeed a problem and I know workers in Redwood City who were suddenly confronted with this issue. I recall one young woman who said she
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Jeff,
            Yes this is indeed a problem and I know workers in Redwood City who were suddenly confronted with this issue. I recall one young woman who said she had to find a job elsewhere once the meters went in.
            Redwood City has a graduated parking payment. i.e the meters are more expensive the closer in you are to the central , hi-demand streets. There are about 5 different levels. So workers figure out which lots or structures are the cheapest. Usually the farthest out. In one lot, the first 1.5 hours is free so if they move their cars once a day they get about 3 hours free parking and 5 hours cheap parking.
            The businesses also recognize that their workers have to pay for parking and maybe some help out. I am not sure.

            Of course, RWCity's entire system is computerized so the parking rate also varies by time of day. Friday and Saturday evenings are most pricey because the theaters bring in people and there are almost daily public events in the main Courthouse Plaza that bring in lots of people - public outdoor dancing, outdoor movies, music, art shows, school teams dancing, you name it!!

            Bottom line is, everyone adjusts and- if neighborhoods are not protected with Res. Permits- they park in the neighborhoods for free.
            Gita
            Gita Dev, FAIA
            Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
            415.722.3355      650.851.3355
            www.devarchitects.com 
            

            On 3/11/2012 3:26 PM, Jeff Rensch wrote:  
            Gita
            this brings up a reated issue. Much of the parking is used by low wage restaurant workers who can't afford all day parking, prob have no transit options and have ben excluded from living nearby. If parking becomes permitted how can they afford to work here?  
            Jeff

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

             

            Irv
            I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood.
            The solution they want is Resident Parking Permit which Palo Alto already has in another neighborhood.
            The solution is to work with the neighbors and demand RPP -not allow more free parking . This is serious. They are already suffering from Stanford starting to charge for parking on campus and CalTrain parking.

            Gita Dev, FAIA
            Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
            415.722.3355      650.851.3355
            www.devarchitects.com 
            

            On 3/10/2012 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:  

            Steve, et.al:

            It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
            If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

            On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

            This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

            The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>)that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



            Irvin Dawid
            753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
            650-283-6534 (cell)



            On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
             
            There is no mystery.

            In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

            Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

            I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

            I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

            Steve

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...>wrote:

             

            on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


            Irvin Dawid
            753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
            650-283-6534 (cell)


        • Jeff Rensch
          Thanks Gita. That indeed seems a good approach, wish Palo Alto would study it carefully. Jeff Sent from my iPad
          Message 5 of 10 , Mar 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Gita.
            That indeed seems a good approach, wish Palo Alto would study it carefully.
            Jeff

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:17 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

            Hi Jeff,
            Yes this is indeed a problem and I know workers in Redwood City who were suddenly confronted with this issue. I recall one young woman who said she had to find a job elsewhere once the meters went in.
            Redwood City has a graduated parking payment. i.e the meters are more expensive the closer in you are to the central , hi-demand streets. There are about 5 different levels. So workers figure out which lots or structures are the cheapest. Usually the farthest out. In one lot, the first 1.5 hours is free so if they move their cars once a day they get about 3 hours free parking and 5 hours cheap parking.
            The businesses also recognize that their workers have to pay for parking and maybe some help out. I am not sure.

            Of course, RWCity's entire system is computerized so the parking rate also varies by time of day. Friday and Saturday evenings are most pricey because the theaters bring in people and there are almost daily public events in the main Courthouse Plaza that bring in lots of people - public outdoor dancing, outdoor movies, music, art shows, school teams dancing, you name it!!

            Bottom line is, everyone adjusts and- if neighborhoods are not protected with Res. Permits- they park in the neighborhoods for free.
            Gita
            Gita Dev, FAIA
            Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
            415.722.3355      650.851.3355
            www.devarchitects.com 
            

            On 3/11/2012 3:26 PM, Jeff Rensch wrote:
             
            Gita
            this brings up a reated issue. Much of the parking is used by low wage restaurant workers who can't afford all day parking, prob have no transit options and have ben excluded from living nearby. If parking becomes permitted how can they afford to work here?  
            Jeff

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

             

            Irv
            I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood.
            The solution they want is Resident Parking Permit which Palo Alto already has in another neighborhood.
            The solution is to work with the neighbors and demand RPP -not allow more free parking . This is serious. They are already suffering from Stanford starting to charge for parking on campus and CalTrain parking.

            Gita Dev, FAIA
            Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
            415.722.3355      650.851.3355
            www.devarchitects.com 
            

            On 3/10/2012 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:
             

            Steve, et.al:

            It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
            If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

            On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

            This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

            The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>)that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



            Irvin Dawid
            753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
            650-283-6534 (cell)



            On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
             
            There is no mystery.

            In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

            Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

            I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

            I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

            Steve

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...>wrote:

             

            on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


            Irvin Dawid
            753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
            650-283-6534 (cell)


          • Cedric de La Beaujardiere
            The Gateway project on Lytton at Alma would provide funding for a downtown residential permit parking program, as one of its community benefits (I think
            Message 6 of 10 , Mar 12, 2012
            • 1 Attachment
            • 1.9 MB

            The "Gateway" project on Lytton at Alma would provide funding for a downtown residential permit parking program, as one of its "community benefits" (I think one of the benefits in exchange for development exceptions).  Attached is a short pdf about the project and parking issues provided by the developer.

            Cedric


            2012/3/11 Jeff Rensch <jrensch@...>
            Thanks Gita.
            That indeed seems a good approach, wish Palo Alto would study it carefully.
            Jeff

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:17 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

            Hi Jeff,
            Yes this is indeed a problem and I know workers in Redwood City who were suddenly confronted with this issue. I recall one young woman who said she had to find a job elsewhere once the meters went in.
            Redwood City has a graduated parking payment. i.e the meters are more expensive the closer in you are to the central , hi-demand streets. There are about 5 different levels. So workers figure out which lots or structures are the cheapest. Usually the farthest out. In one lot, the first 1.5 hours is free so if they move their cars once a day they get about 3 hours free parking and 5 hours cheap parking.
            The businesses also recognize that their workers have to pay for parking and maybe some help out. I am not sure.

            Of course, RWCity's entire system is computerized so the parking rate also varies by time of day. Friday and Saturday evenings are most pricey because the theaters bring in people and there are almost daily public events in the main Courthouse Plaza that bring in lots of people - public outdoor dancing, outdoor movies, music, art shows, school teams dancing, you name it!!

            Bottom line is, everyone adjusts and- if neighborhoods are not protected with Res. Permits- they park in the neighborhoods for free.
            Gita
            Gita Dev, FAIA
            Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
            415.722.3355      650.851.3355
            www.devarchitects.com 
            

            On 3/11/2012 3:26 PM, Jeff Rensch wrote:
             
            Gita
            this brings up a reated issue. Much of the parking is used by low wage restaurant workers who can't afford all day parking, prob have no transit options and have ben excluded from living nearby. If parking becomes permitted how can they afford to work here?  
            Jeff

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

             

            Irv
            I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood.
            The solution they want is Resident Parking Permit which Palo Alto already has in another neighborhood.
            The solution is to work with the neighbors and demand RPP -not allow more free parking . This is serious. They are already suffering from Stanford starting to charge for parking on campus and CalTrain parking.

            Gita Dev, FAIA
            Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
            415.722.3355      650.851.3355
            www.devarchitects.com 
            

            On 3/10/2012 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:
             

            Steve, et.al:

            It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
            If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

            On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

            This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

            The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>)that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



            Irvin Dawid
            753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
            650-283-6534 (cell)



            On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
             
            There is no mystery.

            In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

            Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

            I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

            I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

            Steve

            Sent from my iPad

            On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...>wrote:

             

            on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


            Irvin Dawid
            753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
            650-283-6534 (cell)




          • Irvin Dawid
            Thanks, Cedric. I think that this issue may weigh on what is adequate parking for the site. According the attachment, sq. footage = 49,000 SF Office 4,500
            Message 7 of 10 , Mar 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Cedric.
              I think that this issue may weigh on "what is adequate parking" for the site.  According the attachment, sq. footage = 

              49,000 SF Office
              4,500 SF Retail
              14 Residential Unit

              and:
              Per City Code and proximity to rail, Project required to park 
              123 cars on site,
              Project is providing capacity to park 164 cars (41 more than the required)

              Is this adequate - in response to a letter in the Daily Post today that suggests it is not - and the neighbors indicate it isn't....but how do we determine what is adequate?

              Of course, I'll go with the existing city code - which they have met, and then some.
              Are neighbors being "unreasonable" in asking for more, and where should that parking come from - the cafe, the residential units, the office - wouldn't this be an enormous set back to the developers to satisfy the fears of the neighbors?  


              Irvin Dawid
              753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
              650-283-6534 (cell)



              On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedricdlb@...> wrote:
               
              [Attachment(s) from Cedric de La Beaujardiere included below]


              The "Gateway" project on Lytton at Alma would provide funding for a downtown residential permit parking program, as one of its "community benefits" (I think one of the benefits in exchange for development exceptions).  Attached is a short pdf about the project and parking issues provided by the developer.

              Cedric


              2012/3/11 Jeff Rensch <jrensch@...>
              Thanks Gita.
              That indeed seems a good approach, wish Palo Alto would study it carefully.
              Jeff

              Sent from my iPad

              On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:17 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

              Hi Jeff,
              Yes this is indeed a problem and I know workers in Redwood City who were suddenly confronted with this issue. I recall one young woman who said she had to find a job elsewhere once the meters went in.
              Redwood City has a graduated parking payment. i.e the meters are more expensive the closer in you are to the central , hi-demand streets. There are about 5 different levels. So workers figure out which lots or structures are the cheapest. Usually the farthest out. In one lot, the first 1.5 hours is free so if they move their cars once a day they get about 3 hours free parking and 5 hours cheap parking.
              The businesses also recognize that their workers have to pay for parking and maybe some help out. I am not sure.

              Of course, RWCity's entire system is computerized so the parking rate also varies by time of day. Friday and Saturday evenings are most pricey because the theaters bring in people and there are almost daily public events in the main Courthouse Plaza that bring in lots of people - public outdoor dancing, outdoor movies, music, art shows, school teams dancing, you name it!!

              Bottom line is, everyone adjusts and- if neighborhoods are not protected with Res. Permits- they park in the neighborhoods for free.
              Gita
              Gita Dev, FAIA
              Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
              415.722.3355      650.851.3355
              www.devarchitects.com 
              

              On 3/11/2012 3:26 PM, Jeff Rensch wrote:
               
              Gita
              this brings up a reated issue. Much of the parking is used by low wage restaurant workers who can't afford all day parking, prob have no transit options and have ben excluded from living nearby. If parking becomes permitted how can they afford to work here?  
              Jeff

              Sent from my iPad

              On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "Gita Dev, FAIA" <gd@...> wrote:

               

              Irv
              I think that - from the letters I read- the residents really want protection from people parking all day in their neighborhood.
              The solution they want is Resident Parking Permit which Palo Alto already has in another neighborhood.
              The solution is to work with the neighbors and demand RPP -not allow more free parking . This is serious. They are already suffering from Stanford starting to charge for parking on campus and CalTrain parking.

              Gita Dev, FAIA
              Dev Architects . 485 Mountain Home Road . Woodside . CA 94062
              415.722.3355      650.851.3355
              www.devarchitects.com 
              

              On 3/10/2012 5:29 PM, Irvin Dawid wrote:
               

              Steve, et.al:

              It would be best to read the article - it's very numbers oriented - which I'm not good at relating.
              If anyone would like, I can scan and post.....

              On another note, the "Lytton Gateway" building goes to council on Monday - it appears that the neighbors are mounting a "we want more parking" campaign due to their "too much parking in my neighborhood" concern.

              This is really a stellar project - we all should note that it "breaks the height limit", adds housing to a 'fifth floor" - half being BMR (all rentals).

              The site is literally across the street from the northbound Caltrain platform.  If any site is going to be transit convenient - this is it.  It would be good to simply email a short note to Mayor Yeh and council ("Palo Alto City Council" <city.council@...>)that you support the project for the transit orientation and mixed-use with ground floor retail - that is will live up to its name, "Gateway". 



              Irvin Dawid
              753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
              650-283-6534 (cell)



              On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@...> wrote:
               
              There is no mystery.

              In a previous round ABAG had identified a planning target of 12500 units for the 25 years ending in 2035. In the current round they extended the horizon to 30 years ending in 2040, increased their projection of regional job growth, reduced their projection of regional housing need and reduced the planning target for PA to 7140.

              Previously the regional housing projection was more than is needed to match the job and population growth and I helped them correct the relationship.

              I do not know the details of why Palo Alto's housing target was lowered so much And it is interesting to note that our expected job growth was increased.

              I cannot fathom was was in greg's mind when he talked to the reporter--fewer houses over a longer time period is the new scenario.

              Steve

              Sent from my iPad

              On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...>wrote:

               

              on front page - above fold.  Rather than elation, Councilman Schmid did not seem pleased with the new figures because of the timeframes involved for the planning (for the years out in which to attain the numbers).  Perhaps Steve Levy can lend some clarification to the Post's report.


              Irvin Dawid
              753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
              650-283-6534 (cell)





            • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.