Thirteen Palo Alto residents, including two former mayors and numerous prominent housing advocates, are vying for two seats that will soon open up on the city's influential Planning and Transportation Commission.
The City Council is set to vote on the two new members -- who would replace Commissioner Przemek Gardias and Vice Chair Susan Monk -- on Nov. 5. Both Gardias and Monk will see their terms expire at the end of this year and neither has reapplied.
Looking to fill the seats are former council members Dena Mossar and Bern Beecham, who served as mayor in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Also on the list is Elaine Uang, an architect who co-founded the housing-advocacy group Palo Alto Forward and served on the citizens group that in 2017 worked on updating Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan.
Kelsey Banes and L. David Baron, who have been regularly advocating for more housing at City Council meetings -– particularly affordable housing -- also applied for the four-year terms on the commission. So has Rebecca Eisenberg, a resident of Old Palo Alto who last week urged the Planning and Transportation Commission to support zoning policies that would include more housing near public transit stops and retail.
Michelle Kraus, a resident of President Hotel who talked about the city's need for more housing during her brief consideration of a council bid in 2016, is another applicant.
Claude Ezran, former member of the city's Human Relations Commission and founder of the local annual World Music Day celebration, is on the list of candidates, as are residents Brian Hamachek, Giselle Roohparvar, Thomas Siegel, Carolyn Bloodworth Templeton and Craig Yanagisawa.
Though the seven-member Planning and Transportation Commission is an advisory board, it is widely viewed as the city's most influential citizens board and, for some, a steppingstone to the City Council. Current council members Adrian Fine, Karen Holman and Greg Tanaka all served on the planning commission before joining the council.
Related article:
• Dysfunction, polarization mar influential city commission (Aug. 3, 2018)
Comments
Barron Park
on Oct 19, 2018 at 9:50 am
on Oct 19, 2018 at 9:50 am
It is unclear from this article who is the PAF co-founder who seeks to serve on the influential PTC.
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 19, 2018 at 10:37 am
on Oct 19, 2018 at 10:37 am
PAF leader is Elaine Uang. Architect/development advocate, any development.
Mossar and Beecham are long-time development supporters.
And developers support them. No mystery there.
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 19, 2018 at 11:40 am
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2018 at 11:40 am
More foxes in the henhouse. Looks like the development majority on the council will once again be in a position to appoint two pro-development Planning Commissioners. Which will swing the Commission majority firmly in the pro development camp and who appear to give little thought to impacts as long as it is build baby build.
University South
on Oct 19, 2018 at 12:08 pm
on Oct 19, 2018 at 12:08 pm
This is not just a power play by Palo Alto Forward. They have been closely aligned with Palantir who now appears ready to take their next step in taking over our downtown, Web Link
Wolbach led the council majority last year in completely eliminating the downtown cap on new commercial development and to officially allow giant companies downtown rather than in the Stanford Research Park where they have been zoned to locate historically. This gives Palantir carte blanche proceed with squeezing out the remaining small support businesses and start-ups. Removal of the downtown cap also enabled the speculators to buy the President Hotel and convert it from residential to commercial use.
But we don't need to worry since Wolbach is again campaigning as a slow office growth advocate.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 19, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Another Palo Alto paradox. While we can so easily see (and decry) Trump's SCOTUS appointments we somehow do not recognize that similar tactics are employed right here in our own home town. And so the kettle meets the pot.
Ideally, our Planning Commission should be comprised of residents who represent a mix of philosophies about planning and transportation matters so that applications are thoroughly and thoughtfully vetted. Populating key commissions with people who have an agenda is not a constructive approach to government.
Anyone want to bet on what our Council Majority will do?
Community Center
on Oct 19, 2018 at 2:04 pm
on Oct 19, 2018 at 2:04 pm
>>More foxes in the henhouse.
What is their incentive for being on this advisory board?
Civic duty or ulterior motives & extrinsic opportunities?
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 19, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2018 at 2:33 pm
It would be nice if CC could pull something like McConnell did on Obama. No appointments until after the election.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm
on Oct 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm
[Post removed.]
University South
on Oct 20, 2018 at 9:40 pm
on Oct 20, 2018 at 9:40 pm
[Post removed.]
University South
on Oct 20, 2018 at 9:44 pm
on Oct 20, 2018 at 9:44 pm
Also, @Resident, it is not the case that "Wolbach led the council majority last year in completely eliminating the downtown cap on new commercial development". The annual cap on downtown development that Wolbach and most of the rest of the Council voted for just three years ago remains in place at 50k sq ft/year. So the remainder of the comment doesn't follow - not that the office cap had anything to do with hotels to begin with.
Sounds like more conspiracy theories to me.
University South
on Oct 20, 2018 at 10:26 pm
on Oct 20, 2018 at 10:26 pm
@False Claims
You are confusing two different office caps. The one you are talking about is the "annual" cap on office in much of the city, excluding Stanford research Park and some other areas. That one was enacted in 2015 and remains mostly in place, although Wolbach also voted to water it down, Web Link
The "downtown" office/commercial cap that I referred to had been in place for over 20 years and covered only the greater University Ave downtown area. It set a maximum on the total amount of new commercial development that was allowed. There was only 25,000 sq ft of new development remaining on that cap when Wolbach made the motion on 1/30/17 to remove it. Since the President Hotel is 50,000 sq ft, its conversion from housing to a high end hotel would not have been allowed without Wolbach and the pro-development council majority eliminating the "downtown" cap.
Sorry if the facts spoil your theory about conspiricy theories.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 20, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Registered user
on Oct 20, 2018 at 11:26 pm
[Portion removed.]
"It would be nice if CC could pull something like McConnell did on Obama. No appointments until after the election."
And 400 days thereafter.
No wonder so much money's being thrown at our local races.
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 21, 2018 at 7:33 am
on Oct 21, 2018 at 7:33 am
[Portion removed.]
Rather extreme views on some of our current and past council members.
One question for the pro-growth people: Why is it when they extoll large cities, it's always: You can ride a bus (why not a subway), it's expensive to park downtown, so people don't, etc., it's great for the companies. It's never: There are great museums, great theaters, wonderful bookstores, other funky shops, galleries, markets, great public parks. Oh, and the big companies actually join in supporting those things.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:13 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:13 pm
Hmm, that essay is simply Kate Downing 2.0. Reemember when she claimed former Mayor Burt said PA didn't want tech companies when what he really said was that huge companies like Palantir were pricing out small startups.
Miraculously with no pr budget, her "alternate facts" got local and then national and then international media coverage. Rather than correcting the obvious error, the CC [Portion removed.] rushed to pass that "PA is safe for technology" proclamation.
University South
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:42 pm
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:42 pm
[Post removed.]
University South
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:53 pm
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:53 pm
> What is their incentive for being on this advisory board?
> Civic duty or ulterior motives & extrinsic opportunities?
Ask them. Good luck getting a straight answer.
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:57 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:57 pm
[Post removed.]
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:59 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 1:59 pm
[Post removed.]
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 2:05 pm
[Portion removed.] If you don't know what Palantir does, bone up on it since barely a day goes by that we don't see an article about trolls manipulating the news, presenting alternate facts and organized attacks on critics on FB and elsewhere.
As for HMM's excellent points about pro-growth claims, they also claimed Uber/Lyft would cut car trips in SF when they increased them by 200,000 a day and that SF's car-light developments were car-light until nearby neighbors wouldn't shut up about neighborhood encroachment.
And of course, we've been told PA doesn't have traffic or parking problems. Which reminds me, if anyone bothering to go tomorrow night?
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 2:31 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 2:31 pm
Elaine Huang [Portion removed.] is a development extremist who is a follower of an urban ideologue who claims that suburbs and small towns are immoral because they keep young people from acquiring housing. The new urbanists' model is Hong Kong, and at this rate, with the planning commission staffed with PAF members and supporters and a cc majority, Palo Alto will resemble Hong Kong sooner rather than later.
Charleston Meadows
on Oct 21, 2018 at 2:42 pm
on Oct 21, 2018 at 2:42 pm
>The new urbanists' model is Hong Kong, and at this rate, with the planning commission staffed with PAF members and supporters and a cc majority, Palo Alto will resemble Hong Kong sooner rather than later.
Hong Kong though crowded make good use of available land.
Crowded yes, but many shopping and dining conveniences. No need to own car.
Available land left in Palo Alto like Ponderosa on TV show.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Huang, we're not Hong Kong. Or even San Francisco or San Jose. THEY are major cities; PA isn't. How would you suggest I get to visit my friends in Portola Valley or Los Altos Hills? Should I take the train? Would my Lyft not add to the traffic?
[Portion removed.]
another community
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:07 pm
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Atherton, Portola Valley and the Los Altos hills don't have a major jobs to housing imbalance. Building housing anywhere else than where the jobs are located will only make traffic worse. Palo Alto made its bed long ago, you can't finger point to other cities that didn't go on a jobs binge and complain about why no one is pestering them to build housing.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:20 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:20 pm
Gee, I keep hearing it's a regional problem. Or are you saying the people in Portola Valley, Atherton and Los Altos Hills don't work or drive and create traffic?
So it's ok if they drive to visit me in PA but I shouldn't drive to visit them?
Either way, they were lots smarter than we are.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:34 pm
By the way, is Mr. Alcheck planning on staying the PA's P&T Commission?
Web Link From 4 years ago
Los Altos official blasts Palo Alto planning commissioner
Palo Alto planning Commissioner Michael Alcheck is perhaps the city's most strident advocate of growth, but his pro-development message proved to be a hard sell at the Dec. 4 meeting of the Los Altos Planning and Transportation Commission, which was reviewing a mixed-use development in the Loyola Corners area where he works.
After more than a dozen speakers criticized the proposal, Alcheck said the opposition "is exaggerating every angle here because they oppose change." "They hear the word 'developer' and they start picketing,'" Alcheck said.
In response, Commissioner Ken Lorell said it was "really amusing to me that a member of the Palo Alto planning commission would come here and lecture us on how we should build our buildings when the stuff that has been going on in Palo Alto is absolutely amazing." The commission ultimately turned the project down."
So is Mr. Alcheck planning on staying the PA's P&T Commission?
Los Altos
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:48 pm
on Oct 21, 2018 at 5:48 pm
> How would you suggest I get to visit my friends in Portola Valley or Los Altos Hills?
(1) Use a telephone; (2) Have them visit you in PA; or just drive there and wait out the traffic like everyone else. One positive...traffic is usually lighter in one direction because...
>> Atherton, Portola Valley and the Los Altos hills don't have a major jobs to housing imbalance.
>>> Should I take the train?
If one is readily available, why not?. It's your call. There used to be one awhile back as I recall.
Palo Alto screwed up. Blame your visionary PACC members. Might as well learn from other cities like Los Altos, Atherton and Portola Valley. We don't have homeless RV transients, major traffic issues (although it could be better) and Millennials vs Baby Boomers fighting over affordable housing issues.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 21, 2018 at 9:29 pm
Registered user
on Oct 21, 2018 at 9:29 pm
@View From Main Street, I was being sarcastic about taking the train to Portola Valley and/or Los Altos Hills because there obviously isn't one and isn't likely to be one in our lifetimes. That's my point. We're not a city and it's delusional to develop policies around such illogical magical thinking.
"Palo Alto screwed up. Blame your visionary PACC members. Might as well learn from other cities like Los Altos, Atherton and Portola Valley. We don't have homeless RV transients, major traffic issues (although it could be better) and Millennials vs Baby Boomers fighting over affordable housing issues."
Absolutely. Our "visionaries" would have us believe developers are chomping at the bit to sell $500,000 affordable housing units to make the housing crisis go POOF.
Re using the telephone instead of visiting, we can all just become PIMBYs -- PRISONERS in My Back Yard -- to accommodate development extremists who want more housing yet don't want to restrict office growth or "developers' freedoms" because their "freedoms" are so much more important than ours.
another community
on Oct 22, 2018 at 1:30 am
on Oct 22, 2018 at 1:30 am
[Post removed.]
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 22, 2018 at 6:31 am
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2018 at 6:31 am
Palo Alto, like Woodside, Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley is not suitable to b a real city. Does anyone see wide boulevard and avenues capable of accommodating heavy traffic? The other communities were much smarter, and didn't allow themselves to become job centers. Palo Alto politicians over decades, due to a combination of stupidity, hubris and corruption, have. It doesn't mean that Palo Residents should pay for the crimes of their politicians. Elect politicians who would put pressure on companies to relocate and expand elsewhere.Politician who would drastically limit commercial development, who would force Palantir out of downtown where it does not belong, limit foreign buying of P.A real estate, won't stack the planning commission with PAF members, etc.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2018 at 8:57 am
Registered user
on Oct 22, 2018 at 8:57 am
[Post removed.]
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 22, 2018 at 4:56 pm
on Oct 22, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Hilarious. The Developer Truthers are out in force. No wonder I couldn't find any tin foil at the Middlefield Safeway. Now I know where it all went.
Community Center
on Oct 22, 2018 at 5:41 pm
on Oct 22, 2018 at 5:41 pm
> Available land left in Palo Alto like Ponderosa on TV show.
What tracts of land in PA are we referring to here? Palo Alto Foothills, Foothills Park?
Certainly not the area from Foothill Expressway onwards to 101 and between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road.
Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 23, 2018 at 2:37 pm
on Oct 23, 2018 at 2:37 pm
>> What tracts of land in PA are we referring to here? Palo Alto Foothills, Foothills Park?
Clear out some of the timber and you've got room for some housing tracts along with a bucolic view.
Nothing lasts forever.
another community
on Oct 23, 2018 at 7:16 pm
on Oct 23, 2018 at 7:16 pm
> Clear out some of the timber and you've got room for some housing tracts along with a bucolic view.
You build. We buy.
Downtown North
on Oct 24, 2018 at 11:14 am
on Oct 24, 2018 at 11:14 am
Everyone talks about more housing to make up for the jobs deficit. But that leads to an overcrowded, unsafe, dirty city.
It is time to decrease some of the businesses and workers to even the imbalance.
We need a large enough business tax that only those companies who can afford it will stay. Sort of like our housing prices. Keep raising the business tax until we have parity between jobs and housing.
Simple - no need to build any more housing and destroy the city, no need for new streets since fewer people driving in to work, no need for new schools to educate the kids, and maybe the city can find room for all the park space that they owe us and have not yet provided. This used to be a nice city until people got greedy and city council let every developer come here.
Of course we still have Stanford next door dumping their workers all over us with their massive growth machine.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 24, 2018 at 3:08 pm
on Oct 24, 2018 at 3:08 pm
> You build. We buy.
Get back in the kitchen.
University South
on Oct 24, 2018 at 3:11 pm
on Oct 24, 2018 at 3:11 pm
"Elaine Huang [Portion removed.] is a development extremist who is a follower of an urban ideologue who claims that suburbs and small towns are immoral because they keep young people from acquiring housing."
I never thought about it that way before. You make a very good point, it is immoral and ageist. Besides, development and modernization are good because they improve people's lives. Maybe we could get a space Needle, too? The one in Seattle is totally cool, but we could do even better.
The Bay Area's population is huge and growing. That is not going to change. There will always be heavy traffic in places like Palo Alto, so we should learn to live with it instead of grumbling.
University South
on Oct 24, 2018 at 3:18 pm
on Oct 24, 2018 at 3:18 pm
"What tracts of land in PA are we referring to here? Palo Alto Foothills, Foothills Park?
Certainly not the area from Foothill Expressway onwards to 101 and between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road."
They are building something there. Earthmoving equipment bulldozed the swamp. Tit looks like it is being turned into a marina of some sort. Or maybe condos? Whatever it is, it has to be better than a swamp.
Palo Verde
on Oct 24, 2018 at 9:45 pm
on Oct 24, 2018 at 9:45 pm
^ No, we are restoring my favorite "swamp". Has to be better than condos.
Web Link -- Section 3: Regional Water Quality Control Plant/Renzel Marsh
"In April, 2018, the City began maintenance activities to repair the constructed freshwater pond. Since 1992, when the pond was built, cattails and sediment have filled in the pond, restricting the flow of water through the site, and the berm constructed nearly three decades ago requires repairs to stop leaks and ensure long-term integrity. To reduce maintenance costs associated with leak repairs, the site will be drained, excess sediment and cattails will be removed, and the berm will be repaired."
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 25, 2018 at 6:11 am
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2018 at 6:11 am
Only about 8 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Palo Alto. The overwhelming majority of those demanding housing in Palo Alto are not Palo Alto residents. Aren't those serving on the planning commission and CC supposed to represent and work only for Palo Alto residents, with the preservation and enhancement of the city's population quality of life the the only thing on their agenda. They have not been entrusted with social engineering. That's not their job and not their mission. It seems like the pro development majorities on the planning commission and CC believe they should represent everybody with the exception of Palo Alto residents.
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 25, 2018 at 6:33 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 6:33 am
@Editor. I believe that the employment and the views of Ms. Uang's husband on development and the City Council are relevant to the discussion of her candidacy for the Planning Commission. His views were self published on Linked-in. Ms. Uang may not share them, although there is no indication that she does not. Still, they are publicly expressed. While I'm clearly no fan, this was not an ad-hominem attack, and should not have been taken down.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2018 at 7:44 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 7:44 am
@Mauricio
Hear Hear
University South
on Oct 25, 2018 at 8:07 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 8:07 am
Elaine Uang “Liked” the Facebook posts by her husband that were referenced above, including accusing some of our local elected official of sharing Trump’s views toward immigration solely because they think our local growth should be more restrained. That’s quite revealing about her extreme views toward much of our community and city council who are also concerned about growth rates.
“Liking” meant she associated herself with them. I am not aware of her ever having retracted or clarified that position.
another community
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:16 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:16 am
Palo Alto government bodies are not homeowners associations. Their purpose is not to enclose the city in a protective bubble and enrich the current residents to the detriment of the region and the state. They must act in good faith with other cities in the region, including meeting housing goals.
Mountain View
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:41 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 9:41 am
> Palo Alto government bodies are not homeowners associations. Their purpose is not to enclose the city in a protective bubble and enrich the current residents to the detriment of the region and the state. They must act in good faith with other cities in the region, including meeting housing goals.
Makes sense to me but try convincing others of this.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2018 at 10:19 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 10:19 am
Posted by Resident, a resident of University South
>> Elaine Uang “Liked” the Facebook posts by her husband that were referenced above,
Sorry, I don't do Facebook. Are her husband's views published under his name in public somewhere? Do they differ appreciably from Palo Alto Forward? (PAF is visible to the public.)
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 25, 2018 at 10:46 am
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2018 at 10:46 am
Palo Alto government bodies are hired by the residents of Palo Alto. For all intent and purpose they are employees of the residents. Their only duty and obligation is to their bosses:the residents of Palo Alto. They do not work for any regional agency. Take ABAG, a regional agency known for its incompetence and corruption. What is good for ABAG is bad for Palo Alto. Imagine if a US politician running for high office actually represented aided and was aded an unfriendly foreign power, Russia, just coming up with a random example.
Community Center
on Oct 25, 2018 at 10:55 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 10:55 am
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.
University South
on Oct 25, 2018 at 11:12 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 11:12 am
Elaine Uang's husband's posts on Facebook are more extremely pro commercial growth than the public face of PA Forward. Web Link He repeatedly accuses Kou and Burt of being xenophobic Trumpites because they advocate for sustainable local growth. Her "Likes" and support for these statements, which demonize those who think we should moderate commercial growth, should be appreciated when she is considered for appointment to the Planning Commission and she should be asked about her views during her interview before the city council. Over the past two years PA Forward leaders have not been making in public the sorts of pro commercial growth positions that they had taken repeatedly before the city council on various issues. They, Wolbach, and the current council majority went out of their way to defend Palantir, Amazon and big corporations virtually taking over the downtown, driving out the start-ups and business service companies that made that area special, Web Link
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2018 at 11:28 am
on Oct 25, 2018 at 11:28 am
Posted by Resident, a resident of University South
>> Elaine Uang's husband's posts on Facebook are more extremely pro commercial growth than the public face of PA Forward.
One of the things about these groups that I find highly annoying is the constant bait-and-switch. Who is against "housing"? Motherhood and apple pie, right? But, what is actually getting built has actually created a massive and increasing jobs/housing imbalance, the cure for which is more "housing" (wink wink nod nod).
The development interests don't actually care about housing. If they really did, they would be in favor of an office-space cap, since that would re-direct any development-capable land to actual housing. When that issue arises, the answer is always that it doesn't pay to do just housing (wink wink nod nod). Traffic and parking will continue to get worse until office space growth is -halted-.
-No new office space-
University South
on Oct 25, 2018 at 2:36 pm
on Oct 25, 2018 at 2:36 pm
"Only about 8 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Palo Alto."
If correct, then that would mean 92 percent of Palo Altans minus non-working people (retirees, housewives, unemployed, etc.) commute to work. Small wonder that we have huge traffic problems. The solution is to build more office space in town. That way more people could walk, bike other take a quick bus ride to work.
"The overwhelming majority of those demanding housing in Palo Alto are not Palo Alto residents."
What percentage constitutes an overwhelming majority? From where did you get this number?
"Aren't those serving on the planning commission and CC supposed to represent and work only for Palo Alto residents, with the preservation and enhancement of the city's population quality of life the the only thing on their agenda."
Preservation of what quality of life? A lack of parking? The parking tax in many areas (cunningly called a parking permit program)? I don't think that the people living in the motorhomes on El Camino have a Beverly Hills quality of life. Why hasn't Palo Alto built enough housing? We have plenty of land area, just look on Google maps if you don't believe me. Just remove the misguided height limits and it is problem solved.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 25, 2018 at 3:20 pm
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2018 at 3:20 pm
"If correct, then that would mean 92 percent of Palo Altans minus non-working people (retirees, housewives, unemployed, etc.) commute to work. Small wonder that we have huge traffic problems. The solution is to build more office space in town. That way more people could walk, bike other take a quick bus ride to work."
What career-minded professional makes career decisions based on whether a company is in walking distance?? Are you going to decide to work at Walgreen's downtown instead of, for example, Google or a hot San Francisco-based start-up?
These arguments are as nonsensical as claims that people suddenly want want car-light housing, that people who "need to live where they work" will never change jobs.
another community
on Oct 25, 2018 at 3:43 pm
on Oct 25, 2018 at 3:43 pm
No matter how much you wish it to be so, Palo Alto not a sovereign city-state entirely separate from everyone else. It is a city in Santa Clara County in the state of California. You elect your own local representatives, but as a city underneath the umbrella of other governing bodies their job is to advocate for your the needs of the city while working in good faith with other cities around it. The State can and has intervened when cities have not acted in good faith, such as the recently passed housing bills removing a cities ability to block housing projects which meet zoning requirements in the case where housing goals have not been met. Go build an artificial island out in international waters if you truly want to do as you please with no regard to anyone else.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 25, 2018 at 3:58 pm
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2018 at 3:58 pm
@mauricio, if it's a regional problem then cities within the region like Atherton, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, etc. should also be providing their fair share of housing.
The pro-housing pro-development pro-jobs advocates should try being consistent in their arguments rather than claiming it's a regional problem when it suits them but only a local Palo Alto problem when asked why they don't bring their cause to other REGIONAL communities.
another community
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:12 pm
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:12 pm
That's a strawman argument. There has been a consistent advocation for building housing near jobs. This is a regional problem now because housing costs throughout the entire Bay Area have exploded, not just in the cities an imbalance of jobs to housing. Building housing around the region is generally helpful as a result, but the best place to put the housing where it will have the biggest positive impact is still in cities where the jobs to housing imbalance is highest.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Have any of you heard even one comment from the mega development lobby, aka Palo Alto should be the new Hong kong, who also vehemently claim that housing is a regional problem, that Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Alto Hills, Atherton and Hillsborough should contribute to solving the housing crunch? For some reason only Palo Alto must build, build and build, not just housing, but more and more offices.
If they ever show up with that nonsense before the governing bodies of those communities, they would be laughed out of town. Only in Palo Alto are they taken seriously.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:21 pm
I'm confused about how some folks get to adopt context-specific names like @online name and @mauricio and "recall mauricio" but others don't and our comments get deleted for "user posting under multiple names" or something.
Either way, Palo Alto shouldn't have to bear the entire burden for the county when we already have more than 3 times the jobs growth as the rest of the county and more than 4 times that of any single county municipality.
Do you really think developers are going to start selling cheap housing here and sacrifice the profits they'd make from more profitable offices?
Have you been on Embarcadero Road between 5PM and 7PM lately? You have people literally pulling u-turns in the middle of the road due to backups, a problem that will only get dramatically worse when / if Stanford expands.
another community
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:29 pm
on Oct 25, 2018 at 4:29 pm
"Either way, Palo Alto shouldn't have to bear the entire burden for the county when we already have more than 3 times the jobs growth as the rest of the county and more than 4 times that of any single county municipality."
Um, yes. Yes you do. For exactly that reason. Otherwise you're pushing housing issues onto other cities and contributing to traffic as people take 237 or the bridge to make it over to all of the jobs in Palo Alto.
"Do you really think developers are going to start selling cheap housing here and sacrifice the profits they'd make from more profitable offices?"
Nope, that housing is going to be pricy. But it's going to take demand off of housing in surrounding cities and put downward pressure on their prices. Eventually instead of people having to move to and commute from Gilroy and Livermore to have affordable rent they'll be able to move to South San Jose or Fremont and closer the more and more housing gets built near job centers like Palo Alto.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 26, 2018 at 11:50 am
Registered user
on Oct 26, 2018 at 11:50 am
What an ugly thread. A little civility (on both sides) might give us the opportunity to have a discussion that moves us toward solutions.
Palo Alto Online, this is unproductive. Please shut it down. Hyperbole and deliberate misinformation is not helpful. So disappointing that a discussion this important has devolved so badly. We can do better.
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 26, 2018 at 1:09 pm
on Oct 26, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Elaine Uang's husband's name is Mike Greenfield.
She is one of the *thousand dollar* donors to PA Forward:
<Web Link
Bryan and Sarah Silverthorn
Elaine Uang
Eric Rosenblum
Mehdi Alhassani
Nicole Lederer and Larry Orr
Sandra Slater (her home is PAF's corporate address)
Stephen Levy
Other well known *public* supporters of PA Forward include
Steve Levy, Mary Anne Hudachek Deierlein, Janis Hom, Steve Raney, Lee Lippert, Adina Levin, Kate Vershov Downing, Amy Sung(real estate), Eric Rosenblum(PAF president and Palantir employee), Marc Berman, Cory Wolbach, Bob McGrew, Elizabeth Wong,(developer), Brett Somers, Daniel Garber (architect,developer), Mehdi Alhassani (Palantir), Sandra Slater (CEO?), Drew Maran (construction co.), John Kelley, Adrian Fine, Kyu Kim, Tony Carrasco (developer), Jeff Rensch, Owen Byrd (developer), Susie Hwang
Web Link
Atherton
on Oct 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm
on Oct 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm
> Palo Alto should be the new Hong kong, who also vehemently claim that housing is a regional problem, that Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Alto Hills, Atherton and Hillsborough should contribute to solving the housing crunch? For some reason only Palo Alto must build, build and build, not just housing, but more and more offices.
With so many new residents arriving from overseas Asia, wouldn't it be only natural for Palo Alto to address its housing issues in a manner that resembles that of Hong Kong? People have to live somewhere and multi-level dwellings are very popular in modern-day Asia.
As far as Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Alto Hills, Atherton and Hillsborough
are concerned, why should they have to contribute to Palo Alto's expansionist issues and concerns? It is not their problem. They are residential communities and most people cannot afford to live there anyway.
Community Center
on Oct 26, 2018 at 5:18 pm
on Oct 26, 2018 at 5:18 pm
> Palo Alto should be the new Hong kong...For some reason only Palo Alto must build, build and build, not just housing, but more and more offices.
The population and office density of PA will eventually warrant this urban configuration. People in Chinese cities are used to compressed living and have no problem with it. Older Palo Altans will just have to get accustomed to it or relocate. The Millennials seem to be in favor of the Hong Kong model as well.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2018 at 6:50 pm
on Nov 2, 2018 at 6:50 pm
So now I'm really confused. Assuming that I want zero additional development and better (not bigger & faster) streets and bike lanes, and I'd like to lose the dangerous roundabouts, and I'm sick to death of busy important Palo Altans driving 50 mph through our narrow little residential streets and I liked downtown the way it was and none of the candidates are entirely truthful, who do I vote for? I thought Id done my homework but now I'm not sure any more. Thanks!
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Nov 2, 2018 at 8:04 pm
Registered user
on Nov 2, 2018 at 8:04 pm
For City Council, you definitely vote for Tom Dubois. Probably also Eric Filseth. You do not vote for Cormack or Wolbach. For specifically your desires, Boone is probably the best third. I don't think we get to vote for the Planning and Transportation Commission -- that is the CC, I think.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2018 at 12:20 am
on Nov 3, 2018 at 12:20 am
Close to you
"The population and office density of PA will eventually warrant this urban configuration. People in Chinese cities are used to compressed living and have no problem with it. Older Palo Altans will just have to get accustomed to it or relocate. The Millennials seem to be in favor of the Hong Kong model as well.
What is an "older" Palo Altan? I'm early 50's and am planning to enjoy the non-compressed living I like about my Palo Alto home hopefully for a few more decades.
If density is built into Palo Alto (which I doubt will happen by the way because it is so expensive) buying into it it will be market decision. It won't be about age, you either will be solvent and up for paying a ton of money to be in a can of sardines just because it's Palo Alto, or not.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 3, 2018 at 12:54 am
Registered user
on Nov 3, 2018 at 12:54 am
I'm not relocating either, thanks. If you want to live in Hong Kong and/or in Chinese cities with compressed living and/or in Japan where they have white-gloved "helpers" to push commuters into crowded transit cars and coffin-like bed slot living spaces, there's a real simple solution -- move there. They've got all the mass transit and high rises and density you could possibly want.
What you're preaching is "religion" -- not sensible planning or even common sense like if you add lots more people while spending a fortune to narrow all the roads you get GRIDLOCK, not nirvana. It's the old proverbial shoving of 10 lbs of XX into a 5lb bag and then trying to shove it into a 2.5 bag while patting yourself on the back for being holier than thou when what you're really creating gridlock. How brilliant and far-sighted.
Just 2 weeks ago ONE truck stalled on the San Mateo Bridge created chaos up and down the entire Peninsula when all the traffic apps sent HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of gridlocked commuters south to the Dumbarton Bridge.
Drivers on Embarcadero were doing u-turns in the middle of the road since 101 was stopped dead at 6:30 on a routine Tuesday night!
How do you think an ambulance or firetruck would have fared?
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 3, 2018 at 12:58 am
Registered user
on Nov 3, 2018 at 12:58 am
Quoting from another topic here on "planning" where glitzy platitudes won out over substance and competence and common sense.
"Posted by Anon
a resident of Barron Park
13 hours ago
We will never forget another Council majority (a lame duck one) with the same bent as the current one with Larry Klein and Nancy Shepherd, etc. who refused to reappoint Arthur Keller to the Commission despite his incredible grasp of land use and planning, because of their agenda and politics. Didn’t matter that these two were about to be off council - he termed out, she lost re-election. They couldn’t wait to appoint less qualifieds to ram their agenda thru beyond their terms inspite of voters or a far better qualified reappointmentment."
another community
on Nov 3, 2018 at 2:29 am
on Nov 3, 2018 at 2:29 am
If you guys didn't want density then you shouldn't have allowed Palo Alto to become a major jobs hub. You don't see Atherton with this problem. At this point you guys can either accept what you've done and start building housing to mitigate it on your terms or let the state continue to pass bills taking the issue of solving it out of your hands.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2018 at 2:58 am
on Nov 3, 2018 at 2:58 am
"Though the seven-member Planning and Transportation Commission is an advisory board, it is widely viewed as the city's most influential citizens board and, for some, a steppingstone to the City Council. "
Questions:
This is a planning commission but sounds like the main planning that happens is how the commission is a steppingstone for City Council?
Housing advocates vie for a seat - do they know about transportation planning? Do they publish a planning report we can look at?
doesn't sound like the City will be helped by real estate lawyers, or political figures on the commission, what about all the good neighborhood people doing the traffic surveys instead? I'd like to see the residents bearing the costs of traffic problems get some role on the commission. Like an advisory board to the advisory board.
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Nov 3, 2018 at 5:23 am
Registered user
on Nov 3, 2018 at 5:23 am
A comment above (from out of town) says we overbuilt offices, and now we need to suck it up and densify the remaining space to provide housing for the workers.
No, no we don't. A much smarter thing to do, for those who don't want to urbanize Palo Alto, would be to rectify the mistake. Convert some of that excess office space to housing, schools, parks, retail, and other services that the new residents will require.
Fix the mistake, don't double down on it.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2018 at 8:18 am
on Nov 3, 2018 at 8:18 am
I was reminded this week on Facebook of the old gas station on Middlefield near the Winter Lodge. I remember it as being very useful for me and it always being well used and busy. There was a great deal of talk at the time as to why such a useful, busy business at a great location should be forced to close. As my memory serves me, that closed gas station was closed and untouched for many years. I seem to remember lots of discussion about what the site should be used for. We have ended up with an upscale yoga studio. We lost a useful gas station/mechanic and got a yuppy business that is not useful to the immediate neighborhood.
This reminder shows me that we have had some really bad planning and decision making in town. Let us not repeat it.
another community
on Nov 4, 2018 at 10:08 pm
on Nov 4, 2018 at 10:08 pm
If that gas station was closed down and untouched for many years, then it doesn't sound like the yoga studio replaced a useful gas station.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2018 at 6:22 pm
on Nov 5, 2018 at 6:22 pm
I spent some time trying to find news items prior to the gas station closing. The only one I could find was this from 2008 stating that it had been closed since 2004. Web Link What I do remember and would like if anyone could clarify was that the very busy, useful gas station was forced to close and the owner of the business who didn't own the land was forced out despite his protests and protests from customers.
It is useful to read the comments on this article as well as the article itself.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 3, 2018 at 11:31 pm
Registered user
on Dec 3, 2018 at 11:31 pm
I attended five hours of commission and board candidate vetting by 7 members of council. (Scharff was absent; Tanaka was tardy).
My scorecard for PATC was Kraus, Eisenberg (and Ezran as third); council tonite picked real estate attorney Giselle P and Democratic functionary and former software exec Cari Templeton. At least I got the gender part correct!
Makes me wonder if the two former mayors (Beecham and Mossar) were there as stalking horses.
Cari has an interesting personal statement, on the Dem Caucus website:
As a proud, progressive, I am passionate about equal rights for women, LGBTQ people, and people of color, and I believe we need to restore the middle class through a $15 minimum wage, free college, “Medicare for all,” and further key reforms. I am a thoughtful leader, an experienced negotiator, and a strong communicator, who wants to make a positive difference in the Progressive Caucus. I have the skills, time, and commitment to lead as the Communications Officer of the Progressive Caucus. Furthermore, I have the passion to develop emerging and upcoming leaders within the caucus through mentorship and identifying opportunities for others to showcase their skills. Together we can grow the participation and impact of California’s Progressive Caucus!
(Sounds more like a candidate for HRC)
Good luck to all the new commishs.
I thought ARB and PRC should have added more new blood. Don't get me wrong, we have a plethora of talent wanting to get involved, regardless of their possbile agendas. (my harshest comments, above, previous, were for the reconstituted former mayors: move on)