Challenge accepted; here’s my long-overdue Yelp review of our local Fry’s:

Palo Alto Planning Commissioner Michael Alcheck says of this Fry's, "You have to go back 3 years to find a good Yelp review on it. The reviews are shockingly and consistently abysmal," which is largely true but not quite the whole story. When I moved to Silicon Valley, long before Yelp existed, this Fry's was a revelation to me. Somewhat later, it was conventional wisdom at Palm that you should go to their Sunnyvale location instead, even if you lived in Palo Alto. But that's not always practical, for instance if you're biking or walking; and this Fry's does still have some of the old magic, or at least gadgetry. Please, Mr Commissioner Alcheck, don't take our local Fry's away. And pretty please, Mr Fry, bring back your Palo Alto store to its former glory.

I live in Midtown/Palo Verde, South Palo Alto, and I find the contention that moving city hall to the Calif. Ave area and thus involving me more or altering my view of the city government, to be totally ridiculous. Maybe there are other valid reasons to do this, but that is not one of them.

As long as they keep the Tech Corridor away from the residential areas, and retain the bedroom community aspects of Palo Alto, I am okay with it. please respect zoning.

Please do not make me go to Sunnyvale for my tech and computer needs. Staples is no substitute for Fry's which is unique.

Fry's. Ugh. You guys really need to move on to Monoprice, Newegg, Amazon and B&H Photo.

It's called the Internet. Maybe you guys have heard of it.

That being said, I do get the need to for sales tax revenue. We need to feed the pig that is CPAU so they will stop raising rates to keep up with their printing and junk mail needs.

Maybe that's where we need to have our own mega-Safeway or something like that. Of course, Palo Alto city council was stupid enough to follow the flawed BS plastic bag ban that could have been a differentiator that would draw people from surrounding areas from other idiot cities that the greenies were able to fool earlier.

I mean, really. The plastic bag ban in Mountain View and Menlo Park has pissed me off enough not to shop in those cities anymore.

The proposed tech corridor would thrive on Frys, commissioner Alcheck is out of touch with the community and people who shop at Frys. Please Mr. Alcheck, stop by Frys and you will see how many people go there shopping, instead of browsing the Internet.

This is a bike boulevard, and must be kept safe for bike transportation. I can wholeheartedly support this plan, if bikes are prioritized in transportation planning over cars. Current traffic studies do not even require that the counts include bikes as one of the users of the street, which has lead to some dysfunctional traffic research.
Loading a bunch of condo housing, and now contemplating a bunch of office space on a bike transportation corridor is asking for accidents, and let me clue you, it is not the car driver that ends up injured.
I do think this area is perfect for mixed use.

Sometimes one can only wonder what mindset the Boards and Commissions operate under in Palo Alto? As in this case, the idea of turning Park Blvd. into a “Startup Alley” seems very odd. Why? Well, because the City has ever-growing costs, and startups don’t actually generate any money for the City, for the most part.

We have the software these days to simulate just about anything. So, before wasting our time, why not analyze the area under consideration for:

Current/Future Property Tax Assessments.
Current/Future Retail Sales Tax Generation.
Current/Future Traffic Conditions Under Various Land Use Scenarios.
Current/Future Housing Needed To Facilitate Various Land Use Scenarios.
Current/Future Needs For Educational Services.
Current/Future Needs For “Infrastructure”?

While building a lot of new buildings will benefit the Developers—how will all of the “externalities” impact the City/School District, and ultimately the taxpayers?

For such a small area—given the right software, and some meaningful estimates from the City Planning Staff—the Cost/Benefits for any land use could be readily seen. Sadly, we seem to have no one on these Boards/Commissions, City Council, of City Manager’s Office that has pushed to use simulation software in our planning process.

On face value—this idea does not seem like a good one to me. But without a lot of analysis—who knows?

People like "Toady" who think that Fry's can be replaced by the Internet have a very distorted view:
1. The arrival of Fry's in Palo Alto changed how local companies practices on spare parts for things they carried. Why have an (expensive) inventory and (expensive) storage space when you can quickly scoot by Fry's on an as-needed basis? And being close to such a source is an advantage that gets factored in when a tech company is choosing its location.
2. Because the published descriptions of many products are inadequate for many purchasing decisions, the notion that you can just use the Internet reveals an incredible ignorance of how purchasing is actually done.

The plastic bag ban must be bad for merchants. Now I limit my purchases to what I can stuff into the bags I bring into the store.
The bag ban is slowing down the check-out lines in stores and I'm sure it encourages shoplifting.

On Fry's getting bad Yelp! reviews:
Although the City claims that it wants the tax _income_ from Fry's, the City has made it clear through its zoning processes that it wants Fry's gone from that site. If you were Fry's, would you believe what the City says, or what it does?

If you were a retailer in this situation, would you invest in updating a store that you were likely to be forced out of. With no alternative locations in Palo Alto -- the City has _said_ it wants such, but has _done_ nothing -- I expect that Fry's is looking for alternative locations in nearby cities and would leave when a suitable opportunity presents itself, rather than waiting for its option on the current site to run its course.

On a tech start-up corridor:
I have been in two early phase start-ups and that experience is at odds with what I hear from City leaders, both in presentations and discussions.

1. _Successful_ start-ups don't waste money on peripherals. Expensive office space is one thing to be avoided. Yet the City's notion of how to attract start-ups is to aggressively replace its existing stock of lower-priced office space (older buildings) with premium-priced new buildings.

2. In the early stages, there are lots of meetings with other organizations: funders, prospective employees, potential customers, collaborators, suppliers,... With both start-ups, we crossed off University Avenue as a potential location because the congestion was too heavy a tax -- time for the key employees was far more difficult to come by that funding. With the City moving to massively increase the densities in the Cal Ave area despite the existing congestion and having no plan for handling the increase. Of course, they assume that most of these new employees will use public transit, but they resolutely ignore that ABAG/MTC/VTA defines good service from public transit for a commute as being less than 90 minutes each way. If you are a start-up with valuable Intellectual Property, do you want employees working while on public transit where they are trivially overheard or their screens read? You certainly can't afford employees who spend that much time and energy (+stress) driving.

and ...

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"Most people are very much able to make purchases on the Internet using the descriptions provided"

That's what Webvan thought.

EBay, amazon, zappos and many, many more, musical.

Since people like "The pot" and "Toady" lead such uninteresting lives in terms of what they buy, let me illuminate them:

1. There are a wide range of items, such as TVs, which are both subject to individual perceptual difference plus the online pictures may fail to capture the differences. For example, attempting to show the quality of an HD picture on a standard definition TV.

2. Items where grip and balance are crucial features. For example, cameras.

3. The descriptions of many items are missing dimensions that are crucial to determining whether it will fit. The online pictures of many items miss or misrepresent many features.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Doug-- people buy plenty of TVs and cameras and the like online. Many go to stores, checkout the product and then purchase online. There are plenty of online retailers that people buy from.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

RE: "The pot"
Your argument is of the form: Some people can buy some things on the Internet, therefore everyone can buy everything on the Internet.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Hundreds of startups for many, many years? If there's one thing we should learn is that change is inevitable. Build for adaptability, not for a specific usage.

Do what Mr. Martin suggests. Analyze before committing to a rigid idea.

Will Gryphin Music be impacted?

I agree with Kirsten!

The designated "Bike Boulevard" is already impacted by endless big rigs hauling dirt from the Park Plaza project site at Page Mill and Park. This will host 82 new apartments and R&D space. They've closed the sidewalk so now it is VERY dangerous for folks walking to/from California Ave. & CAlTrain. Pedestrians are using the bike lane.

Current usage often has a block or more of cars waiting to turn onto the underpass at Park and Page Mill.

And now Jay Paul wants to build two 4-story towers to replace the AOL building AND add a police station next to Park Plaza!

Add in the Pollack Project (4 story tower replacing the VTA parking lot at Page Mill and El Camino) and we're talking major growth in a 3 block area.

They need to minimize cars on Park Bl. and force them to use the El Camino Real entry of the Fry's parcel.

I agree w/ W Martin re running various simulations and cost/benefit scenarios before making any decisions. I am disappointed to know this is not what actually happens before initiating ANY projects in this hi-tech town. You mean they're not used for traffic flow, or disaster planning, or anything? Wow. Not doing so is absurdly irresponsible, and tells me why so much tax money is wasted. This needs to be mandated.
Mr Moran has interesting points as well. The city would be wise to seek input from those who have experience in the various projects it undertakes. Again, not sure why this isn't being done.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

I've purchased at Ebay, Amazon, and Zappos. They are great for items difficult to locate anywhere else, and when you have time to wait for shipping. My 501 Levis and Classic Reeboks come from Zappos, but I'm already familiar with the product and know the color I want and the size that fits. I'd buy locally but local retailers seem to have a poor selection lately. Drifting more to topic -- Fry's is my go-to place when I need 50 feet of coax cable, a spare soldering iron, odd sized battery, or just ideas for a project. On-line retail will never replace Home Depot, or groceries.

Bike Boulevards -- yes, they do not mix well with heavy development.

@Question about Gryphon Music: that site appears to be just outside the boundary of the project area which looks to extend up to but not across Lambert. Maps start on page 10 of the staff report (Web Link for this past Wednesday's PTC meeting.

However, for sites that ARE within the concept area boundary, it doesn't mean anything is going to happen to that site within any given time. My understanding is they are changing the zoning of what should be allowed in that area. In this way, as landowners choose to redevelop, these future site changes are directed to meet current and future needs of the city. Such as more housing, shopping reachable by foot from surrounding residences, and offices that support the new economy.

Of course, as outlined above, it would be reassuring if they engaged in scenario modeling to try to predict which of these zoning plans have the most benefit and least impact.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Yelp removed my review. Their grounds were not unreasonable, but this does suggest not basing major decisions on Yelp statistics.

The point of this thread isn't about Fry's or Yelp. The important issue that's been lost is what happens to the Cal Ave neighborhood. How much and what kind of growth should there be?

Do you really want a bunch of white male architects, lawyers and developers deciding that Cal Ave should be a "tech corridor" which is just another way to say high density offices? Does anyone care about what happens to the people who live nearby that want to do their daily shopping within walking distance? Does anyone care about traffic or parking? Does anyone care about the fact that more offices means the demand from ABAG for more housing down the road? School impact? FOCUS!!!

You should FOCUS on what is actually in the proposal not on what you fear is in there. Take a look at the plan on pages 10-12 (Web Link To facilitate my own comparison of the maps, I scaled and cropped them identically, and posted them here Web Link

While you raise a few valid concerns, you also spread a few misunderstandings, specifically:

1. the "Tech Corridor" is NOT on Cal Ave, it is between Park Blvd and the tracks, from Oregon to just a bit north of Lambert (the electrical substation). That area is currently entirely zoned "Light Industrial". In the plan, the north half of that swath would be mixed use.

2. You raise a concern about loss of shopping within walking distance, a value we both share, but arguably this proposal would have MORE walkable shopping, not less. For instance, the Fry's area would change from the current zoning of "Multi-Family Residential" to "Mixed-Use" in Alternative 1 or "Service Commercial" in Alternative 2. (Actually, the only difference I can see between alternatives 1 & 2 are that Fry's site.) Other proposed changes are rezoning along Olive and Ash south of Oregon from "Light Industrial" and "Single Family" to "Mixed Use". Finally, the Cal Ave area, between Sherman and Cambridge and El Camino to Park, would go from its current "Regional/Community Commercial" to "Mixed Use".

3. So, what does the plan mean by "Mixed Use"? From what I can tell, there's generally more small-scale commercial, more housing, an area preserved for technology, emphasis on connectivity, parking, and bike/ped connections. For the California Avenue Sub area, pages 6 & 7 state:
 Maintain existing character and scale of California Avenue frontage (generally up to three stories in height and similar maximum floor area ratios);
 Initiate a design competition to provide innovative concepts for use of the City’s parking lots and structures, including but not limited to parking structures, open space/community gardens, retail/services, affordable housing, hotel, etc.;
 Encourage mixed use with retail on the ground floor. Where mixed use, generally not more than 50% office and not more than75% housing;
 Require active uses on ground floor, such as retail or personal service uses only; retain smaller scale by restricting storefront widths
 Provide for increased parking opportunities;

.

For the Fry's site, page 8 states:
 Retain Fry’s or similar commercial use (Alternative A);
 Encourage retail and office focused mixed use, with some housing component, especially towards the interior of the site;
 If mixed use, housing should be between 20-50% of the total square footage of development;
 Study ways to better connect this property with overall area;
Provide for open space to serve area residents and occupants;
 Provide better bicycle/pedestrian connectivity through the site, and
 Encourage reconfiguration to provide better El Camino Real frontage for interior lots.

Thank you Cedric for burning the midnight oil to clarify the proposals.

Is there a new more environmentally correct phrase now for "burning the midnight oil"?

"Working in the light of a single red LED powered by PV/Wind/Biogas." Not too catchy. "Feeding the neighborhood digester" could happen any time.

Here is Palo Alto's definition of "Mixed Use", on page 19 of the staff report but sourced from page L-12 of our Comprehensive Plan:

Mixed Use: This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide other variations to Mixed Use with Retail typically on the ground floor and Residential on upper floors. Design standards will be developed to ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of the street and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. The FAR above 1.15 will be used for residential purposes.

One of the problems with discussion of zoning in Palo Alto is that the City and advocates presume that their desired outcome is what will actually occur (magical thinking), despite the zoning allowing far different outcomes, and experience demonstrating that the desired outcomes are unlikely.

For example, "mixed use" is routinely portrayed as reducing the jobs-housing imbalance, but the actual projects tend to have multiple floors of office and token number of housing units (which will be reduced as the project moves closer to final approval).

For example, retail "benefit" from a "mixed use" building that is predominantly office too often turns out to be a coffee shop for the building's occupants (eg 101 Lytton).

For example, in the previous go-round on retaining Fry's as part of mixed use, the City's assumptions included: (1) Fry's would accept a decrease in space (of a store that is already much smaller than its others), (2) Fry's would accept being spread over multiple buildings, (3) Fry's customer traffic would be complementary with housing residents (low in evenings and weekends), (4) Fry's would accept less parking and that parking would be more inconvenient, ...

Doug has it right. Look at Steve Reller's "mixed use" development
at 524 Hamilton. Two floors office 7300 sq ft and third floor a single 4145 sq ft residential unit. Total parking spaces 8 including two for the residence.

The commission cannot decide whether frys stays or goes. Like the property owner said at the hearing, frys has 2 five year extensions left and its up to them to use them. What that commissioner Alcheck said was that the city shouldn't spend time worrying about it because its not a worthy concern. If they stay they stay. If they don't they don't. The fact that the majority of shoppers who review the place hate it is just more evidence that this frys isn't some coveted city resource and the city needs to worry about preserving.

If the zoning changes in that area no retailers will be kicked out. Just because the land will be rezoned doesn't mean that frys couldn't continue operating there for at least 10 years if not more.

I'm not sure about the tech corridor but I like the idea of more restaurants and shops.

@ Missing the point. The new tenants won't be restaurants and shops. The new tenants will be offices that pay higher rents because of all the venture capital money. Retail in Palo Alto is losing ground.

Don't believe everything that proponents of smart growth tell you. Environmental groups have been hijacked by big money interests. Developers fund environmental groups and politicians that support growth and the infrastructure projects that enable growth (neighborhood digestor.

If "Environmental groups have been hijacked by big money interests," I haven't seen a dime of it. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble, but we're all just concerned citizens like you, each with our own unique set of priorities, some of them overlapping yours and some not. For instance, I share your concern about offices encroaching on retail. But re-read the specification of Mixed Use above: it's specifically NOT just office, but typically offices above shops, and/or housing around either. In addition, the Council has taken actions in the past and recently to prohibit land owners in certain areas from renting their existing retail fronts to offices. The approach may not be flawless, but you can be sure they value retail, both as a service to the residents and as a tax generator, of which Fry's is a very big one.

(Regarding off-topic digestion: currently the city spends $1M/year to incinerate our sewage, burning $0.8M in natural gas. Digestion [or Gasification should it prove effective for wet sewage] would generate valuable energy from our waste instead of just consuming it. Keep in mind that the existing incinerator is reaching the end of its usable life and needs to be replaced with SOMEthing. So if you gripe, "yeah but which "big money interest" is gonna get paid to build the digester?" I will rejoin with "yeah, but who's gonna get paid to build the new incinerator? and further, who's gonna pay to keep burning gas instead of generating it? The rate payers, that's who.")

"Environmental groups have been hijacked by big money interests,"
That was my inference when the local Sierra Club testified to the Council to REDUCE the required parking for the 101 Lytton mega-office building.
Otherwise I couldn't explain such a biased, foolish, prodeveloper, position.

No, that policy is not a developer-money-driven policy. It is based on the theory that buildings with lots of free parking encourage tenants to come with lots of cars. Just as adding lanes to highways to relieve congestion has been shown to just draw more drivers to use those highways. The idea is to build near transit, reduce the amount of parking on site, and create financial and other incentives or disincentives to encourage employees to not-drive to work or residents to not own a car, such as transit passes, alternative commute payouts, parking fees, free shuttles, free after-hours/emergency taxi rides home, access to pools of bikes and/or cars, etc. Look at SF, for instance, by its very nature it is difficult and often expensive to park, and there is a very strong transit system and the user base to support it. The result is that, compared to Palo Alto, many more SF commuters get to work by means other than driving. Of course, Palo Alto isn't SF and nor do we want it to be, so transit struggles, but on the other hand, biking is much more pleasant. I am not familiar with the current studies on the effectiveness of these policies in a place like Palo Alto, but the point is that the Sierra Club's position in that matter is driven by a reasonable theory on how to reduce driving (and thus traffic), and is not dictated by a crass money influence.

"Missing the point...." misses the point

The issue about retaining Fry's is not about retaining that particular retailer, but retaining a mix and range of retail needed by a healthy city. While the City pays lip-service to wanting retailers that produce large sales tax revenues, its zoning practices are to push them out of town. And the City pays lip-service to wanting "walk-able neighborhoods" while watching neighborhood-serving retail out-of-town (postponing action until it is too late to matter and is simply a perfunctory CYA).

The City is all to happy to encourage a shift in retail to that which caters to employees and then is surprised during each down-turns when those businesses are particularly hard hit.

Fry's could stay there and expand, AND we could have more startups. We just have to go higher density in that already dense area. Density is actually more energy efficient, more economically efficient, and more vibrant. Fry's owns but uses none of the parking out back of it's building (behind Olive ave). I know, I work in a new startup in the area. That Fry's building could be made bigger (multi-story) and a bunch of office space could be put in that space behind Olive Ave. Make alternate trains express to the California ave stop.

The Park Ave neighborhood will be destroyed badly enough when the HSR comes through. Let's not rush the ruination with offices and startups and the like. We will lose our bike boulevard AND our property values. Remember, high density development always means more risk and more crime. Ask any insurance agent.

Park Avenue resident - the HSR is not going to come through the peninsula corridor. That is a fiction for the purposes of building more buildings and stirring the pot. Forget it and focus on what needs to be done now. I thought the police department was suppose to move into this area - they need more than a single lane and bicycle lanes. Batman is not going to fight crime on a bicycle. The Police Dogs needs a car. Why isn't the Police Department defining what it needs?

The city Planning Department needs to provide a overall planning grid that lays out what is suppose to go where, how many people are expected to occupy the space, and what the transportation goals are for that space - routes, etc. The Weekly should be printing the planning grid as it represents a legal action - inform the public through a recognized published vehicle.

The stated goals above of trying to encourage residents to not own cars may be good for a major city that has multiple well developed transportation options, NY, LA, SF - but that does not exist in PA. Any major transportation option will have to serve the peninsula in total. Time to focus on BART - that is the bay area people mover along with Caltrain.