Why don’t we have a honest City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” that will honestly say “Developer (Contractors) Lobbyists , Developer (Contractors), donate to us and we will approve!!!!”

It would be great if the City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” learned a new word – NO or new phase – DISAPPROVED….

There is no sane reason for this PROBLEM except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Sound to me like DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT !!!! Gee, the CITY has messed up “University Avenue.", West Charleston Road & El Camino Real, butcher San Antonio Road and let’s not forget San Antonio and East Charleston Road.

Like I said ABOVE - There is no sane reason for these PROBLEMS except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Yeah, Look what the city allowed at the corner of Charleston and San Antonio with that monstrosity jewish center being built. It's way too big and comes so close to the streets it ridiculous.

Vickie--that project underwent years of review, input etc. Remember it is in an industrial area of town also.
People in PA are so against change or anything new--they feel that what we had 20 years ago is still good today--no change, no progress. Just constant whining.

Parking is already a big problem in this part of town. If the city wants to increase density like this, then they should be forced to relieve the parking problem, rather than make it worse. The added retail and housing will bring several hundred cars to the neighborhood and therefore needs to bring several hundred new parking spaces. The 800 High project was required to provide 200 spaces for 60 units and a small retail space. The new project is proposing 83 spots for 96 units and 30,000 square feet of retail. What is wrong with this picture?

The Planning and Transportation Commission did an outstanding job. They are so competent and clear! They don't pontificate and posture, and the chair made everyone be concise. It was fascinating to watch, I learned a lot.
I think Channel 26 repeats these meetings. Really worth watching if these issues interest you.
By the way, the headline "Neighbors Split" attracts attention but it is misleading. Only one neighbor spoke in favor. The others who were in favor live in other parts of town and would not be affected by the added density, the parking shortage and school overcrowding.

More retail and commercial development would be welcome to me at 801 Alma. I love the proximity of Palo Alto Hardware and Whole Foods near there. Dense housing up against the tracks is good too. It'll be close to the trains and buses, and if it's 5 stories, it'll help block the train noise. Sounds like what our city should be doing. Not in my backyard? Please! in my backyard.

There's that close to train tracks mantra again. So what's the benefit? The tracks are only as useful as the places the trains go to, which are very, very limited. Ever taken the train to the beach? Los Gatos? Cupertino? Los Altos? The universal push to build housing near the tracks means train riders will be pretty much SOL unless their destination happens to be someone else's housing project near the tracks.

And get a load of our smug suburbanites, enjoying their autos, pontificating others into a second-class transit-based existence. Maybe New Urbanism is really all about keeping those people near the tracks and out of the tonier neighborhoods.

I'll believe this town is serious about BMR housing when advocates start buying houses in the suburbs and converting them into diplexes and triplexes. Think of the possibilities in those palaces in Prefessorville, Crescent Park, and Old PA. Any of them could accommodate several tenants and make a real contribution to our housing needs.

It's really disappointing how biased this article is. Having also attended the meeting, I'm somewhat shocked by the spin of what is written here. The Post also ran an article on the meeting, theirs titled "Officials rip Alma project" -- that feels *much* more accurate, as does the body of the article.

Frankly, I expect more from the Palo Alto Weekly.

Don't we already have an overflow of people in PA? Let's have some smaller scale buildings. Not everyone has to live in Palo Alto. Let's let some people live somewhere else and let's stop with all this posturing about political correctness and having to take everyone in from everywhere. Our infrastructure of the schools, the streets, the businesses can't take anymore.

Enough already. Do a feasibility study to see if our town can support any more development.

"Think of the possibilities in those palaces in Prefessorville, Crescent Park, and Old PA. Any of them could accommodate several tenants and make a real contribution to our housing needs."

That will never happen--that would mean change in a neighborhood and we in PA are against any change. Look at the big to-do about the Google guy tearing down an old home to build a new green one--one council member is already talking about new regulations about that since some neighbors are upset (honestly, when haven't some "neighbors" in Palo Alto not been upset about some issue or another)


"The Post also ran an article on the meeting, theirs titled "Officials rip Alma project" -- that feels *much* more accurate, "

According to the Weekly article, Lee Lippert said:
"But Commissioner Lee Lippert called the proposed complex a "dynamite project."

"This project really exemplifies the principle of living communities," Lippert said. "It follows the three Ds and the T: density, diversity, design and transit.""

Doesn't sound he was ripping the project.
When has Karen Holman ever liked any project (she is a true Palo Altoan--dislikes any new proposals or plans)

I also sat through the whole meeting and was equally disappointed
with the biased reporting of the Palo Alto Weekly. At least 5 of the 7 Commissioners expressed very serious concerns about (1) the accuracy, bias and usefulness of the applicant's Draft EIR and the City's Staff Report and/or (2) the applicant's unwillingness to make appropiate compromises to fit into the neighborhood. Hats off to the Post for being
honest!

Sure, you'd think that Midtown wouldn't be affected. It's not this particular project; it's that the City Council will vote for anything that raises taxes ... whether or not it adds to our quality of life. We've already got problems with school populations, traffic, parking, and so forth. The result ... we've got the 'uglies' like the Charleston/San Antonio abomination, the end of East meadow, the end of Loma Verde, and so on.
Thirty-five years ago we moved into a small town to raise our kids in good schools. I don't want to come across like an old fart who's afraid of progress. However, the quality of life that attracted us to Palo Alto is rapidly deteriorating ... all through overbuilding and overpopulation.
Enough is enough!
We need a new City Council with a new (old) view of quality of life!

No, no, no. Enough is enough. Downtown has already been saddled with the High St. behemoth. There's no reason for yet another one of these monsters when the schools are already overloaded and residential real estate's been in freefall around us. Low-income housing isn't the priority it was. There's plenty of affordable housing in the county right now. Not to mention over the freeway.

This is developer greed--looking to build in one of the few places where there's some demand.

some people wrote: "And get a load of our smug suburbanites, enjoying their autos, pontificating others into a second-class transit-based existence. ""..............and other nefarious comments about things like "developer greed".

"Second-class, transit-based existence"? Tell that to the Europeans and most urban Asians; they love their trains, subways and buses; who aren't stuck driving gas-hogging SUV's; who don't have to spend hours in traffic every day because there is no other choice. And, I wonder how many that complain about new housing were concerned when someone built _their_home. I wonder if they were concerned about _their_ impact on schools. All those who whine about new housing-made impacts when they moved here have not made positive contributions to our community? Have they not been good, responsible neighbors and contributors to the common good? They probably have, and our city adapted nicely to their presence. their presence _also_ changed the nature of the neighborhoods they lived in. So what's the problem? Change is a constant; the most successful ways to deal with change are to plan for the most efficient and optimal adaptations to change. It's not easy for some people to adapt, depending on the circumstance. I'm convinced that most persons who complain about new housing don't really understand the underlying issues involved, as they choose to remain stuck in their negative assumptions and perceptions, without getting out and looking around. "Second-class, transit-based existence"? Give me a break! Bring on the trains; bring on the improved inter- and intra-city transit (public and private); bring on the BMR units; bring on the smaller, cheaper homes that don't hog energy; being on housing over retail; bring on more effective use of school space, including building schools up, if necessary; bring on developers who are willing to take less return on investment in order to ally their impacts (and if they don't, find more nurturing developers); bring on the new citizens that will make our community more diverse, and the new businesses that will bring in revenue. It's all good, as long as we don't get hung up thinking about ourselves as victims. Adaptation takes energy, and innovative thinking. Let's make good change happen, and lets - for heaven's sake - get as many people out of their cars as possible!

Explain: affordable housing. Units priced in what way? Based on an inflated rental market? Rents still based on the tech highs of 5 years ago? At an artificial high based on those previous rates when a 2 bedroom one bath house was renting for $2700? And who gets to rent these units? Usually a ton of red tape and hoops to jump through, and as usual, malfeasance.

More shops when the more interesting stores like Z Gallerie have closed?

""Second-class, transit-based existence"? Tell that to the Europeans and most urban Asians; they love their trains, subways..."

I'm talking about the American context: If you ain't drivin' you ain't.

So why this big push to segregate affordable housing near the tracks? To give its lucky residents the transit that is so far away from suburbia?

I don't think so. I think this enthusiasm for transit *for other people* is only a code phrase for: put those people by the tracks, not in my neighborhood.

Pardon my frankness. It's a mild autistic thing. I never could overlook an elephant in the room.

There are no new businesses being created. Ace Hardware will move from the corner of Channing to the corner of Homer. While they would get a nicer store, this fine store is doing very well where it is.
The Channing corner will be for one of the businesses now on the current block.
No new businesses are being created.

Dear Another Concern Retiree, I totally agree with you. I moved to Palo Alto in 1970. I left in 2008 for economic reasons and also for the reasons you describe. My love affair with Palo Alto was over.

May I recommend McMinnville, Oregon, where we've re-located. It is much like Palo Alto was, back when it was a great place to live, not like it is now.

" I think this enthusiasm for transit *for other people* is only a code phrase for: put those people by the tracks, not in my neighborhood."

That's your reading, but then of course you are in love with your car. It's no surprise that most Americans don't take to public transport - not yet anyway. Why? Because public transport in America sucks. That will change; that along with the creation of more housing in close, so we don't depend on 2 tons of metal propelled by the power of 200 horses to get us where we want to go, Can you spell w-a-s-t-e-f-u-l and e-x-p-e-n-s-i-v-e? That's what the current scene has brought us. You probably don't remember the horse and buggy, and how that died when alternatives that people _wanted_ to use were made possible. Don't count out mass transit, because gas _will_ get to $5+ per gallon again, and higher. When you and others really start to hurt from that, mass transport will start to look good. remember how ridership mushroomed on CalTrain during the last gas price gouging? So, whine all you want about who will buy small units,, and transit near pedestrians, etc. etc. It's all going to happen, eventually, and you will learn to love it.

Greed is a two-way street. If developers are considered greedy because they want a high profit making project, why are homeowners with a high profit motive not considered greedy as well?

Most of the talk about this project is not about the merits of the project itself, it is about
homeowners wanting to make sure that they and only they can benefit from all the public amenities that are payed not only by themselves but many others as well. Hardly altruistic!
Hardly fair!

I do not expect unbiased observations on this, but let us keep in mind that public policy is not and it shouldn't be taylor made to keep a few happy and increase the value of their houses.

Home owners aren't immune from greed but their primary motivation is usually quality of life, or rather, opposition to the reduction of their quality of life.
Developers have entirely different motivation: More, More and More.
By the way, how much money has the city already put into this project? I've heard ten million and fifteen million. What is the actual number?

You know, it's sort of alarming how different these buildings and structures look once they are in place. Yeah, we all knew the JCC was going to be built, etc, but the extent and in your face right up to the street nature of that gargantuan place is a shock every time we drive by! Not a very attractive place either. Hope they plan to do some major landscaping, to distract the eye. Nice to see though, that the housing units are open to all.

I agree with others here. It is shocking that something is being built in palo alto! don't they know that nothing should ever be built in palo alto, the place is one residential housing unit away from becoming a hell hole. they should be tearing buildings down (apart from my house) and making parks.

And no -- I am not a nimby! I just care about this place.

Yeah, let's just flatten the place and start over, with the caveat that a little piece of dirt will cost you $800K, minimum. Creative destruction!

The Neighborhood group NFLS2 loves to welcome soon our new neighbors in a building that has ~45 units (not 50) which will give more room for an expanded courtyard and children play area. The building should store the bikes (100+) on the first floor and has a secured garage with ~74 parking spaces with additional storage cabinets for our neighbors (e.g. Christmas ornaments)

NFLS2 would like to sit around the table with the applicants (City of Palo Alto and Eden Housing from the East Bay) and discuss with our future neighbors the above highlights and more smaller details.

We can do it and this will have lots of support of many Palo Alto residents, whom need to know that they contribute direct for this project, with the City's paying $10.25 million or $636,000 per unit, while the rest is our State and Federal money.

Please get the word out to our City Council and support the neighborhood group NFLS2 (NFL-S2, email us: NFLS2.Alma@GMail.com )