Posted by Cynthia, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 6:36 am

Good community input on the 27 University opportunity guided this in a better direction.

In this transit hub, why isn't lodging one of the components? Lodging could be a win for everyone.

For the university which owns the land, lodging would be convenient for the many campus and hospital visitors.

For those coming by rail, bus or car, lodging would provide a one-stop location for shelter and dining while reducing traffic during commute hours.

For theater goers, the same benefits as the paragraph above.

For the city, lodging would provide an ongoing stream of transient occupancy taxes not shared with the county or state.

Posted by John, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 7:43 am

For Councilman Gail Price who said she "felt very uncomfortable with the comments implying some hidden agenda by the staff" is very real. If it's uncomfortable, please do something so the public process is truly a process that is legal and fair. Palo Alto is a chaos of congested merged lanes that back up El Camino to even reconfiguring California Ave, often referred by staff "outdated" is ludicrous. Council members like and staff work closely with groups who will support their cause. The public sees THIS transparency. In recent years, City Council members has been transforming what Palo Alto was known for, it's once small town charm to selling out to developers and certain groups.

Posted by Ray Bacchetti, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 7:43 am

This development could be a boon to Palo Alto, a bold step to redevelop a confused and confusing piece of property and its awkward auto and bus circulation. It also provides a chance to give our great local theatre, TheatreWorks, a permanent home.

The proposal needs more study and assessment of the secondary consequences, as residents and the Council determined last evening. Those efforts should go forward to assure maximum benefits in the future. And they should move with deliberate speed so that the opportunity does not become a casualty of process.

We Palo Altans have a penchant for wanting things to get better but not change. That won't work for our significantly sized and highly desirable city that is beautiful in most of its places but certainly not along much of El Camino.

Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 7:53 am

Ray, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I for one don't think we need to hand over the keys to the stanford affiliated developer, as the university clearly has done, and if you wan't to upgrade el camino why not plant some flowers. Costs a lot less. And nobody needs to get rich from some back room deal. And you might even feel a little better getting those olds hands a little dirty again.

Posted by Just-Say-No!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 8:20 am

> This development could be a boon to Palo Alto,

> a bold step to redevelop a confused and confusing

> piece of property and its awkward auto and bus circulation.

This property is owned by Stanford, and currently leased by the City for use by a restaurant, a Red Cross office, and a park (which now has an underground reservoir for water storage). Is that really so “confusing”? And how will adding this massive complex actually reduce the confusion? Thinking that adding four massive office towers and a theater on this property will somehow take the “confusion” out of it—and be a “boon” to the taxpaying residents of the city at the same time is beyond delusional. Adding thousands of new car trips downtown, will further increase the frustration of everyone who works/lives in this tiny little commercial space.

> It also provides a chance to give our great local theatre,

> TheatreWorks, a permanent home.

TheatreWorks is a private organization—not a ward of the public treasury. If this organization wants a “permanent home”—then let if raise the funds itself, rather than expecting a handout.

Posted by Claire, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 8:38 am

@Gail Price and James Keene - If the sentiment of the public makes you uncomfortable or hurts your feelings, maybe you ought to think about what is being said and take the comments as constructive feedback rather than reacting defensively. There's really no need to make the public the enemy of our local government.

@Greg Scharff who doesn't want Staff to be constrained by the Comprehensive Plan or the Rail Corridor Study- the documents that guide our land use decisions. Just because an act is legal, doesn't mean it is in the public's best interest or is ethical. Your job is to make policies and direct staff to follow those policies. The role of a Council Member is not to meet with Staff and Developers in private to design projects that do not conform to existing land use policies and zoning code.

Posted by common sense, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 8:56 am

Why do all the options that the council want to pursue involve a theatre? what about housing instead, or as the Daily Post editoral suggested - how about putting the tracks underground so that downtown and 27 University could all be integrated together?

And what of the $250,000 the city council voted to spend on site planning? Why isn't the developer paying this (as is typical)?

Assigning grades to council members on this episode, I would give

Karen Holman an A

Pat Burt a D

Gail Price a F

Greg Scharff a F

Assigning a grade to City Staff - I would give them an F

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 8:58 am

Thank you, Palo Alto Weekly, for covering this meeting and the developments.

The Development in question - big "D" - is a major big deal and we, the public taxpayers, deserve to know all about it and have balanced consideration given to merits and faults. The project should not be rushed through, after all, from what I have read and heard from individual homeowners, they go through a costly and lengthy process to remodel/build homes here, so why should an ugly tower complex be rushed through approvals?!

I am concerned about a Stanford-affiliated billionaire developer who is all over this region, not just Palo Alto, from what I read in the local press. Oversight is needed in cases like this where one individual hopes for a major profit yet all of us living and working here may be severely impacted. My sense is that traffic WILL be a major issue, and after this city council goes to such extents posturing about the need to reduce lanes of traffic on certain roads, get everyone on bikes, etc., then to permit a massive tower complex seems inconsistent. At least, let's ask some questions.

Also, many of us are sympathetic to TheatreWorks for their plight of seeking a reasonable venue - as are OTHER performing arts organizations, incidentally, but that should hardly be the driving force behind approving or not approving this massive tower complex.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 9:01 am

Another thing - recused at times or not, too many City Council members are cozy with Stanford, one of the world's wealthiest universities, with which many of us residents here are entirely unaffiliated but from which many of us suffer from speeding cars (101-Embarcadero-right up to the university), yet we highly-taxed local residents are told we must make "concessions" to Stanford!

Posted by I will vote for it, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 9:11 am

"with which many of us residents here are entirely unaffiliated but from which many of us suffer from speeding cars "

Here we go again, the complaints that the "masses" are suffering because of Stanford. It is thanks to Stanford that Palo Alto is what it is today. People knew that Stanford existed before they moved here--yet they still came--now we hear constant complaints from them about "evil Stanford".

But I would like to see anonymous' data showing that the cars "speeding" on Embarcadero are all going to Stanford. Maybe these people did not know that their homes were near one of the main roads in the city.

Also, as expected, the usual contingent of naysayers and the "Palo Alto was so wonderful X years ago" crowd were out at the meeting yesterday attempting to pressure the council to take Palo Alto back into the last century.

We also hear complaints about the "manhattanization" of Palo Alto--for that to occur, Palo Alto would have to have night life, theatres, movies, the arts, world class museums etc. Palo Alto has none--except for an enlarged ego about it's place in the world,

Posted by naive question , a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 10:38 am

Someone mentioned putting the train underground here. Would Arillaga be interested in financing the train to go underground from University to San Antonio Road? Maybe he would put up some of his billions and we could have a vote to fund the rest publicly? That seems like a project that would have a huge impact on the community and pave the way for placing his Arts Center on top of it. I know the high speed train is supposedly coming, but I personally doubt it will ever be built.

Posted by PA Resident, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Dec 4, 2012 at 10:55 am

The proposal is just to big. Period. Maybe that is the developers plan. Ask for something HUGE so that the city can feel good about itself for negotiating it down to big, but not huge.

Posted by awards, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 11:33 am

i will vote for it,

You will not be voting on this plan in June. Council is doing Mr. A and Stanford a favor, delaying this, when most people would rather it go away.

you say

"Here we go again, the complaints that the "masses" are suffering because of Stanford. It is thanks to Stanford that Palo Alto is what it is today. People knew that Stanford existed before they moved here--yet they still came--now we hear constant complaints from them about "evil Stanford".

Nobody said the "masses" are suffering, that is your language. People are pointing out very specific issues relevant to the livability of PA, which have nothing to do with who gets credit for Stanford or Palo Alto's success.

Stanford is part academic institution, part corporate powerhouse. Since Stanford has not said a peep about this project, who is behind it? The school, or the business conglomerate?

Are you the only Stanford voice?

Posted by Herb Borock, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 11:53 am

Palo Alto already has a defined process for developing Coordinated Area Plans that is contained in Chapter 19.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code located in Title 19 (Master Plans) of the Code: Web Link

I wonder if people would feel differently about the original proposal if were located on the other side of El Camino Real in Stanford's Arboretum. The project area would have to be annexed to the City, but Stanford could obtain an amendment to its County General Use Permit to exclude the project's traffic when calculating whether Stanford is abiding by the General Use Permit requirement of no net new trips.

Putting such a project that would generate $15,000,000 revenue for Stanford at the entrance to the university would provide a true gateway project.

Posted by Herb Borock, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 11:57 am

The link in my previous post does not appear to work. So here is Chapter 19.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code:

Chapter 19.10

COORDINATED AREA PLANS

Sections:

19.10.010 Purposes.

19.10.020 Initiation.

19.10.030 Procedures.

19.10.040 Contents of coordinated area plans.

19.10.050 Coordinated development permit required.

19.10.060 Development must be consistent with coordinated area plan.

19.10.010 Purposes.

This chapter establishes procedures for preparation of coordinated area plans. This chapter is intended to achieve, and shall be implemented to accomplish, the following purposes:

(a) To create enhanced opportunities for building a sense of community through public involvement in planning processes which are designed not only to satisfy constitutional due process requirements, but also to provide residents, and business and property owners with early, meaningful opportunities to help shape the physical components of their neighborhoods and community.

(b) To emphasize and enhance architectural qualities, public improvements, and site design by providing a graphic, visual linkage between policies and programs established in the Comprehensive Plan and specific development entitlements and public improvements.

(c) To facilitate physical change by each of the following methods:

(1) Accelerating and coordinating the planning process within selected areas so that private development and re-use can proceed under streamlined city review processes.

(2) Encouraging rational private investment by providing specific, dependable information about the design requirements, development standards, and uses allowed on a particular site.

(3) Analyzing and considering the economic environment so that the planning process works in conjunction with the marketplace, rather than independent of it.

(4) Coordinating and timing public infrastructure investment to facilitate desirable private land uses.

(d) To assure Palo Alto's environmental quality by using the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report to focus environmental review on area and site-specific issues and changed circumstances.

(e) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the city's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.

(Ord. 4454 § 2 (part), 1997)

19.10.020 Initiation.

Coordinated area plans shall be initiated as set forth in this section.

(a) Initiation. Coordinated area plans shall be initiated by motion of the city council, upon its own initiative or upon request of the planning commission. Planning commission or council action may be based upon the request of any person or the director of planning and community environment. The council will consider support or opposition from residents, and property and business owners, but such support or opposition shall not compel or preclude council action. The council will further consider whether the area has been identified in the comprehensive plan for coordinated area planning.

(b) Minimum Area Size. Coordinated area plans may be prepared for any area that includes more than one parcel.

(c) The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements, fees, and such other requirements, administrative guidelines and regulations as will aid in the efficient preparation and implementation of coordinated area plans.

(Ord. 4454 § 2 (part), 1997)

19.10.030 Procedures.

Coordinated area plans shall be prepared in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.

(a) Council Goals and Policies. Council will establish goals, objectives, and a schedule for each coordinated area plan at the time the plan is initiated or shortly thereafter. The goals and objectives will be supplemental to existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. Council may establish goals, objectives, and a schedule during preliminary review pursuant to Chapter 18.97.

(b) Community Involvement. Each coordinated area plan will be prepared pursuant to a program for city-facilitated interaction between residents, business and property owners, and other interested persons. The program shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:

(1) Working Group Formation. The city council shall appoint a seven-to-fourteen-member working group comprising residents, business and property owners, and persons representing broader community interests including, but not limited to, environmental, community design, and business perspectives. The working group shall be advisory to the staff, planning commission, and city council. The working group shall be assisted by a city-designated facilitator who may be a consultant.

(2) Working Group Tasks. The working group shall assist staff in preparing a draft coordinated area plan that contains each of the components set forth in Section 19.10.040. The working group shall, at a minimum, accomplish each of the following tasks to facilitate preparation of the coordinated area plan:

(A) Initial Public Meeting. The working group shall conduct an initial public meeting to accomplish the following:

(1) Establish the general parameters of the plan;

(2) Conduct environmental scoping;

(3) Identify any known public infra-structure needs and plans;

(4) Explain any known private development proposals;

(5) Introduce staff and consultants to the public;

(6) Identify additional important participants;

(7) Identify any other relevant constraints and opportunities.

(B) Regular Public Meetings. The working group shall conduct regular meetings. The working group may also form subcommittees to meet from time to time to address particular issues or components of the coordinated area plan. All working group or subcommittee meetings shall be open to the public, with notice provided to property owners and other persons who have expressed an interest in the matter to the city. At least one regular meeting during the first half of the scheduled working group tasks will be conducted as a joint meeting with the city council. The city council may direct additional or revised goals and objectives during or following such meeting(s).

(C) Community Update Forum. The working group will schedule and notice at least one community update forum designed to keep the larger community informed of progress on the plan, and to seek the ideas and advice of the larger community regarding the content of the coordinated area plan.

(c) Schedule. Coordinated area plans, including review and action by the planning commission and city council, will generally be completed within twelve to fifteen months of the initial public meeting of the working group.

(d) Public Hearings. The coordinated area plan shall be considered at public hearings before the planning commission and city council prior to adoption. Notice of the public hearings, initial meeting and community update forum(s) shall be given in the same manner required by law for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

(e) Planning Commission and Other Board and Commission Advice and Recommendation. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council upon each coordinated area plan. The director of planning and community environment may seek advice of any other city board or commission if such advice is deemed desirable.

(f) Adoption. coordinated area plans shall be adopted by ordinance upon a determination of the city council that the public interest, health, safety and general welfare will be served by the plan, and that the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The city council shall also consider the manner in which the proposed coordinated area plan will integrate with and be implemented by the capital improvement program. The city council may approve, reject or modify all or part of the coordinated area plan.

(g) Amendments. An ordinance adopting a coordinated area plan may establish procedures for amendments of the plan, including but not limited to procedures authorizing minor amendments by the director of planning and community environment.

(h) Fees. As part of the ordinance adopting a coordinated area plan, the city council may impose a coordinated area plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the coordinated area plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they fully recover but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the coordinated area plan, including costs incurred pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The fee charged will be reasonably prorated to take into account the applicant's relative benefit derived from the plan.

It is the intent of the city council to charge persons who benefit from coordinated area plans for the costs of developing those plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized.

The city council may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a coordinated area plan to deposit with the city an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan, amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation.

(Ord. 4454 § 2 (part), 1997)

19.10.040 Contents of coordinated area plans.

Each coordinated area plan shall contain at least the following components.

(a) The distribution, location, and extent of land uses, including, but not limited to, industrial, office, commercial, residential, public facilities and open space, within the area covered by the plan. The land uses established by the plan may be supplemental to or different from the uses permitted and specified in the city's zoning districts. For retail commercial and professional office designations, the coordinated area plan shall also include the preferred and allowable uses, their respective orientation, articulation, and floor area ratio. For housing designations, the coordinated area plan shall also include density, floor area ratio, orientation, setbacks, and graphical design prototypes.

(b) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other public improvements proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.

(c) A program of implementation measures including development regulations, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the plan. This program shall be specifically coordinated with the city's capital improvement program ("CIP"), and may include CIP revisions necessary to implement the plan.

(d) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, if needed.

(e) Specific architectural and site design objectives and requirements, including but not limited to the scale of streets, building orientation, placement and design of public and private parks or plazas, courtyards, arcades, porches, walls, fences, trellises, sidewalk treatments, and parking configuration. Design guidelines that are specific to the conditions of the area shall be included to address each land use type, streets, parks, and any public facilities. Specific objectives and requirements may be adopted in addition to, or in lieu of, existing zoning and design requirements. The coordinated area plan shall include preliminary elevations and information regarding facades, roofs and building materials.

(f) A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives to the desired development product, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infra-structure investments and projected economic benefits to the city and community.

(g) Environmental review, provided that to the maximum extent feasible the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report shall be used as a master or tiered EIR in order to streamline and focus environmental review of the coordinated area plan.

(Ord. 4454 § 2 (part), 1997)

19.10.050 Coordinated development permit required.

A coordinated development permit shall be required before any building or structure is erected, constructed, enlarged, altered on the exterior, placed or installed on any site located within an area subject to an approved coordinated area plan.

(Ord. 4454 § 2 (part), 1997)

19.10.060 Development must be consistent with coordinated area plan.

No coordinated development permit shall be issued, nor shall any building or structure be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered on the exterior, placed, installed or moved within an area subject to an approved coordinated area plan except upon a finding that the resulting building or structure is consistent with the coordinated area plan.

(Ord. 4454 § 2 (part), 1997)

Posted by logical towers, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm

The best way is to go UP!! The towers seem logical.

Posted by observer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm

It isn't totally surprising that Ray Bacchetti, retired vice president of Stanford University, is in favor of the plan.

Nor was it surprising that most of those who spoke in favor are Trustees of TheaterWorks.

Posted by the_punnisher, a resident of Mountain View, on Dec 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm
the_punnisher is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

For all those Palo Altans wearing rose colored glasses: Don't be too quick when replacing an old ROBBER BARON with a new one...

As to burying the trackage, consider the cost DEMANDED by the City of Golden, CO ( yes, THAT Golden ) to bury the C470 highway through the city limits...

Posted by Longtime resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 12:50 pm

God forbid we let a philanthropist build us a beautiful theatre, fix our transit hub, create a nice public space that connects downtown to Stanford -- things the City has been talking about for 30 years with nothing achieved. Arillaga is willing to spend some $100 million of his own money, and instead of making (pleasant) suggestions on how we might prefer for him to adapt his gift to our community, our residents call him nasty names, and revile our own city planners for even speaking to him. Is it any wonder that the last major public building gifted to Palo Alto was by Lucie Stern 80 years ago? Who on earth would want to get involved in this mudfight today? Ashamed to call this town home.

Posted by Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 1:11 pm

"Beautiful" like our current city hall and the office tower on University Avenue alright. (sarcasm intended).

Posted by Repeal Citizens United, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 1:15 pm

>For Councilman Gail Price who said she "felt very uncomfortable with the comments implying some hidden agenda by the staff"

Just look at how Alma Plaza was pushed through despite objections from almost every citizen who spoke. I have no faith in the process being unbiased anymore

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Someone slammed me above because I noted Stanford-bound traffic races up Embarcadero from 101 into the university; I WITNESS the exact cars doing this because of my route (I head off to the right when the road splits) - I have seen this for YEARS. A lot of cars come off 101 at a high rate of speed and this is a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood, not an expressway up to Stanford, as they seem to think. We are constantly lectured about the merits of bicycling, taking the train, and narrowing our roads; yet NOBODY deals with the STANFORD TRAFFIC. We residents who pay taxes are heavily impacted NOW with Stanford traffic; all I am doing is noting this in good faith and asking that it be dealt with if/when Stanford and their developer get their way and push this project through.

Posted by I will vote for it, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Longtime resident--well stated and completely true. Note that it is always the same group of people (bob Moss, Herb Borack, Emily Renzel, Enid Pearson, Tina Peak,Fred Balin etc) that are against any all change to Palo Alto (because it was sooooooo wonderful X years ago!!!!)

"Someone slammed me above because I noted Stanford-bound traffic races up Embarcadero from 101 into the university; I WITNESS the exact cars doing this because of my route (I head off to the right when the road splits) - I have seen this for YEARS. A lot of cars come off 101 at a high rate of speed and this is a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood, not an expressway up to Stanford"

And anonymous, I will ask you again how do you know that all the traffic racing off of 101 is going to Stanford??? And given the nature of the exits from 101 to Embarcadero, I doubt many cars are "racing" off of 101. Maybe the traffic to Stanford is driving the prevailing speed (though it may not be the posted speed) and it is people turning off at Louis, Newell, Middlefiled etc that are "racing".

The problem is that people live next to a major local thoroughfare, knowing that it is one and expect to limit traffic to appease their needs [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Do you have any concrete suggestions on how to deal with the traffic?? Please provide them and your data for drivers going to Stanford.

Posted by He is no philanthropist, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm

We will not get a chance to vote on this because the votes against it would be overwhelming. It's a no-brainer!

Arrillaga doesn't care how it all looks because he does not live here. He just can't stop making money, is all. And he does not need any more of it, as the fifth richest man in California.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by jayne, a resident of Menlo Park, on Dec 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm

To the people who govern Palo Alto:

Stanford is a UNIVERSITY, not a private golden goose organized just to enrich Palo Alto.

And guess what? City government is there to serve the people and a lot of Palo Alto (and area) residents make a buck or two because of Stanford.

But I guess a politician wouldn't necessarily know that. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Longtime listener, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Dec 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm

@Longtime resident -- The concern that you're hearing is that citizens want the public's business to be done in public. This is similar to the school board mess that came out a few months ago, where elected officials collude with staff to treat public process as an unnecessary irritant to getting things done. No one has mentioned the Brown Act, although it does seem like there are a lot of serial meetings happening with city staff as the intermediary, and the "proposal" is getting shaped by those meetings (per the Weekly article last week).

The idea that Arrillaga has to have his tender sensibilities protected from the public is just a symptom of City Council members with stars in their eyes. Arrillaga himself didn't get to be a billionaire by taking his ball and going home because somebody looked at him cross-eyed.

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Dec 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

"No one has mentioned the Brown Act, although it does seem like there are a lot of serial meetings happening with city staff as the intermediary, and the "proposal" is getting shaped by those meetings (per the Weekly article last week)."

The Brown Act issues regarding this project were discussed in some detail on the earlier thread:

Web Link

Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Dec 5, 2012 at 10:20 am
Paul Losch is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

STEWARDSHIP

I am not sympathetic to those amongst our community who cannot deal with changing and adapting.

By the same token, this project proposal also lacks my sympathies.

I generally find the proverbial "Palo Alto Process" to be tiresome. In this matter, it is appropriate.

The presenations I heard at PARC and witnessed at the Council meeting this week were deceptive. It may or may not have intentional, but the merits of this idea did not pass muster with me after what I had presented to me and observed.

My usual inclinations support development and taking a thought process that is out of the "box."

I reluctantly do not believe this project works in its current form.