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) [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 12 2:33 PM
    • 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.