Posted by too much traffic, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 4:39 am
THIS WILL create too much traffic in the area--what we need to do is organize a la ALMA plaza opponents and delay a final decision for years by playing the "too much traffic" and "the store is too large--the store is too small" game. KNOWING our city council they will be more than happy to put off making a final decision once they her that neighborhood groups are opposed to it.
Posted by Get on with it, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 6:46 am
"We will stick with that element and will follow with the Eichler theme"
There is nothing more crass than imitation Eichler.
If Garland is to be reopened as an elementary school - overcrowding solves. Since Paly is taking all Gunn's overflow there is obviously room in the high school.
Posted by fireman, a resident of another community, on Jul 30, 2008 at 7:08 am
Now for all this redevelopment and added value for the owner of this property, the City and Citizens will get a new,fire station, Work on the streets in that area, improvements to the schools in PA. NOPE!
No just a bunch of GOOD Old BOYS&GIRLS GETTING thier friends perks. So as to later have a GET OUT OF JAIL CARD.
Why not have the groups in on it now. Before it gets out of hand, Again!
Posted by Yes Retail No Homes, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 9:17 am
The reason people move to Palo Alto are the great schools. Don't mess that up by building homes that put a strain on an already over crowded education system. I love the idea of a walkable retail, Palo Alto needs more of that.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 10:51 am
Edgewood is probably the only location for homes that I would imagine should not cause the "too much traffic" argument as it is right beside the ramp for 101, particularly if there is a grocery store right there. In fact, a decent Safeway like Menlo Park's new one, would be an asset.
The impact on schools is real. At present that area is hard for elementary, but as stated before, Garland re-opening as elementary would be ideal. Jordan is big, but no more so than the other middle schools particularly as Terman can't be made bigger. Paly has a little more space than Gunn, but unless it takes space from Churchill (which could be done if Churchill gets office space elsewhere) it could grow. The problem then is that we would end up with high schools of different sizes which can cause problems to some points of view.
If we do need to get more housing (debatable in my opinion) then Edgewood doesn't create too many fresh problems.
Posted by Not a problem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Resident: There is plenty of space at both Paly and Gunn to increase the size of the schools. In fact plans are already in the works to create two story classroom pods at Gunn. There has also been talk of relocating the Administrative offices to Cubberley so Paly will have more room.
Posted by WilliamR, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Maybe Sand Hill Properties could team up with McNellis at Alma Plaza and offer a grocery chain some kind of "two-fer" deal. I haven't heard if McNellis is having any luck finding a grocery tenant for Alma Plaza. If they're neighborhood-oriented stores, they're far enough apart that they wouldn't directly compete with each other.
Posted by futureedgewoodshopper, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I would rather see something a little more high-end than Safeway put in at Edgewood. I would prefer something like Market Hall in the Rockridge area of the east bay. It has a bakery, cafe, wine shop, meat market, produce market and fish monger, all housed under one roof.
And as far as I know, Edgewood is not zoned for housing. How can they get their plans through?
Posted by Shopper, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The larger new Safeways that have been revamped lately are magnificent. They have in store bakeries, Starbucks (sorry I haven't seen a Peets) butchers, delis, salad bars, wine stores which are so good that they are locked and you have to get a clerk to come in with you, and more. They even have a cafe type area and a couple of couches for internet surfing or something. Don't knock the possiblity of a super Safeway something along the lines of the new one in Menlo Park (which I haven't been in or the Redwood City (which I have been in).
Posted by Do Something, a member of the Duveneck School community, on Jul 30, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Almost anything done would be an improvement over the urban blight there now. I heard the Menlo Safeway is 65000sf which is a huge contrast with the 17,000sf proposed here. The proposed grocery is very small by modern standards. It would be lovely to have a decent shopping center within walking distance. Family homes will impact Duveneck and necessitate re-opening Garland. What is the status of the Stratford School lease?
Posted by No More Housing, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Jul 30, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Do Something: My son attended Stratford preschool and we were given a letter in the Spring about it losing its lease and having to relocate three years from now. PAUSD is reclaiming it.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Would love new non-Eichler structures to take the place of this eyesore! Nothing would be better than a grocery store, even a small one, just around the corner. Maybe our school district would have room for their students if we weren't giving residents of other school districts cutsies to get into the schools?
Posted by Mama, a member of the Duveneck School community, on Jul 30, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I don't get it. Why do we need more housing when our schools are overcrowding? Does the city collect more property taxes from residences vs. commercial? Or is it just the builder who wants to make more money on selling the houses?
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Shopper: So long as Palo Alto continues it's restrictive building code of only allowing 20,000 sq. ft. retail store to be built you'll never get all the goodies provided in the 65,000 sq. ft. Safeway store in Menlo Park.
Personally, I think it's high time Palo Alto allowed larger grocery stores of 40,000 sq. ft. or even bigger. If only 20,000 sq. ft. of store space can be built in Palo Alto we will soon have no decent grocery stores at all. I shop at the much larger Safeway in Mountain View.
Posted by a long time resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Just like what happened at Alma Plaza. This really tells you who is running the city from behind the curtain.
There were about 1000 people who signed a petition to keep a large grocery store at alma plaza but about 3 dozen (agents of the developer)protested the big store plans. So it is being converted to housing for the most part. I imagine Piazza and whole foods are behind the no competition policy also.
We in the South Palo Alto need bus service to Mt.View shopping, Safeway, etc. and now N Palo Alto will need bus service to Menlo Park Safeway, etc..
The city should be collecting fees of $100,000 to $200,000 each housing unit to pay for the services they expect to get free or on the backs of the present homeowners. The developers expect to make $400,000 profit on each unit of housing as the cost per sq ft is in the range of $300 to $400 and that is high compared to other areas of the country.
This site is also in the Flood Zone and water could easily be 8'deep as in the recent past. We fools in the non flood area of Palo Alto are now paying with the storm drain assessment like $20 to $30 Million dollars to help prevent flooding in the Flood Zone.
We in the non flood zone need to get a ballot measure to set up a assesment district for those in the flood zone to pay all of the costs of repairing, fixing the creek to prevent the flood problem. Do the non flood zone people want to come up with maybe $10,000 or $20,000 each to help the million to 4 million dollar homes in the flood zone? Thats what may be planned. $100 million in tax money to help the multimillionairs living in the flood zone (or "WET LANDS OF PALO ALTO".
Posted by laura, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 5:12 am
Every one of the above comments is valid. First of all, Eichlers are ugly. Second, a small grocery will never have all of the amenities people want these days. There is not enough space there for a large grocery and Palo Alto forbids megastores. Palo Alto is built out. Looks like we will be driving to Mountain View and Menlo Park to shop for the rest of our lives, wasting expensive gas and polluting the air while idling on Alma. I'm getting in line for a Prius.
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 8:13 am
Long time resident: I don't think Piazza's is behind keeping grocery stores small. When they moved into Charleston Center they would have liked to increase the size of their store but it came at the time Albertsons was refused a 36,000 sq. ft. store. Since the future of Charleston Center is unknown at this time, they are not going to waste time and money attempting to get a zoning code change.
Lets face it, there is more money to be made from building housing units than there is from building retail. Palo Alto plays right into the hands of the developers when they limit the size of a grocery store to 20,000 sq. ft. which is simply uneconomical. Millions of retail dollars are leaving this City because many of us go to our neighbors much larger grocery stores and buy taxable items.
As to whether those living outside the flood zone should pay for flood control. Any ballot measure would have to include the whole City.
Posted by Yes Retail No Homes, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 8:42 am
People focused on the "physical space" available in our schools are missing the point. Class size and intimacy is what makes Palo Alto schools great.
In the 60's and 70's Palo Alto tore down schools to build new homes. Now they are going after all of the neighborhood shopping areas. Let¡¯s not allow this. A fundamental change needs to occur to keep our neighborhoods livable.
Posted by gordon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 10:58 am
laura,
if Eichler's are ugly, tell me which post-war developer built better looking tract homes in Palo Alto?
also, if they're so ugly, why do major national insurance companies, food companies and cleaning product companies routinely film their national, prime-time advertising spots inside Eichlers?
Posted by Janet, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 11:19 am
If people are so concerned about traffic, why not have increased and accessible public transit? The problem with our planning, or lack thereof, is that America is built for the automobile, not for "community." As a result, people hop into the car to buy milk. For a neighborhood to be more than a collection of homes, we need to rethink what belongs in a neighborhood. A grocery store should be high on the list.
Posted by Maria, a member of the Duveneck School community, on Jul 31, 2008 at 11:44 am
We need a grocery store, but not more one-family homes. Why not build a large grocery store with a second story of offices? That would cut down on new traffic, especially after business hours, would not put more strain on our schools and still make a profit for the owner.
Posted by John, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Our City Council has approved over 1,000 new housing units presently being built on Charleston between East Meadow and El Camino - The campus for Jewish Life, Bridge/Built, Tumark, Echelon, Alma Plaza, Ricky's and The Elk's Club. All these children will have to funnel into Fairmeadow, Juana Brione and Barron Park.
It is high time North Palo Alto took it's share of redevelopment and took the children into their schools.
Posted by Anne, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 12:52 pm
YEAH! It will be wonderful to see Edgewood return - with new retail to serve the community, and new homes bringning new families to Palo Alto. The scale is correct too - no monster homes.
Let's support bringing back the grocery store and a place for local merchants who will build our community. Better that than vacant buildings, a big box store, or generic office buildings. Homes generate far less traffic than commercial uses, less crime than vacant buildings, and enhance our neighborhood.
Let's support this. Don't make the same mistake they did in south Palo Alto: They strangled Alma Plaza until even the small merchants failed. We can do better with Edgwood!
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I'd love a Piazza's at Edgewood and a cafe.
I don't think the number of houses in this cases is a huge problem--primarily because Garland should be open by the time the development's finished. And that should ease the serious overcrowding and overflow problems at Duveneck. There are more kids living in the Triple El and the Triangle than there would be in 27 houses.
I assume the "up to" means there's room to negotiate downwards--20 houses and a large store might be more palatable. I'd suggest townhouses, but around here families squeeze into townhouses for the schools. Single-family homes would probably create more stability and cause less congestion.
Ideally, I'd like it to be all retail, too--but at least this doesn't make me tear out my hair.
Posted by Racist, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Sitting in a cafe located across the bridge from a high crime area is not my idea of a relaxing time. If a grocery store is built there, not all shoppers will be Palo Altans. How many Palo Altans shopped at Albertson's? I vote for the generic office buildings.
Posted by Richard Clark, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2008 at 7:35 am
"Anne, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood" and "OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood" have it right.
We live on St. Francis Drive and are NOT worried about the traffic issues. Preserving the Eichler style is silly - move on. We need a design that maximizes the space in order to attract the best tenants.
Posted by Mary G, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2008 at 10:58 am
I am in full agreement with those who say "Let's get on with it!" To always use the problem of over-full schools to close down housing projects is not valid - the problem of overcrowded schools has been coming on us for years. We need more infilling housing to meet our housing needs with minimum traffic impact, and thus need to increase our school capacity.
Edgewood Plaza has been a problem for years. Housing and retail sounds like the best solution, so let's do it! And yes, I used to shop at Lucky's/Albertson's and would like to be able to shop there again. I realize we will never get a big grocery there, but a small one would be great.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I don't pass Edgewood often and never shopped there, but I do use the gas station to buy gas as it is the nearest gas station to me before I get on the highway. It strikes me that this location is one place where a large grocery store would make sense. It has great access to an area of Palo Alto where there is no retail and good access to the highway for deliveries. In fact, a superduper Safeway or big grocery store may actually attract me to shop there instead of Mountain View where I go now.
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2008 at 11:14 am
To John of Greater Miranda"
WHERE north of Oregon would you do all of this building? WHERE is there any open space that is not already taken north of Oregon? You've made this North vs. South old-wound challenge, so take a drive around and specifically say just where all of this housing should be built. It's one thing to pull this statement out of the sky and another to be specific.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2008 at 2:17 pm
John,
I think you also need to look at the north cluster schools--they're overflowing to the south and there's little in the way of playing fields at them.
The North *has* been shouldering the bulk of the overcrowding. It's the older part of the city and was built out a long time ago.
The Jewish Campus isn't the problem. As I recall, it's senior housing and the movement of the JCC to it will actually free up half of Greenfell.
I do think the city needs to get more out of these mega-developments. It's crazy that we're putting housing units on El Camino and not creating more retail. I mean, honestly, the Elks site is one that would make a decent big box store site. And there aren't too many of those.
I have to wonder if the district should think about reclaiming the Ventura school site. I know there's childcare there, but perhaps a site for that could be created at one of those umpteen developments.
Posted by Parent without handles, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2008 at 5:37 pm
OP
Just a little thing, but I thought I would tell you it is Greendell not Greenfell.
Ventura is privately owned and if it is ever up for sale PAUSD has first option, but I don't think it can be reclaimed like the others. (From what I remember being told). Otherwise, it would be a great addition to the mix.
Posted by Grandma, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2008 at 8:10 am
Parent without handles: Ventura is owned by the City in much the same way Terman was owned by the City. Several years ago the City stopped the Day Care Center from expanding over the playing fields for two reasons. We need the playing fields, and there is always the outside chance the School District may need those facilities in the future If they do, they will have to buy the Ventura site back from the City at the appraised value.
Ventura was closed by the PAUSD in the 1970s to aid the District integrate the elementary schools. Integration would have to be considered in the future if it is ever re-opened. So long as there is space available in Barron Park, Lucille M. Nixon and Escondido new schools will not be opened.
OlonePar: The reason developers build housing units and not mega-stores is profit!!! There is more profit to be made in building housing than retail. Also, PA has a code restriction which will not allow stores bigger than 20,000 sq. ft. This restriction will apply to Edgewood Plaza.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 1:21 am
Grandma,
Thanks for the detail. I was pretty certain Ventura was owned by the city.
Please be,
My memory's not perfect, but it's not a question of bias. Next time, be more cautious about using loaded terms without cause. I have nothing to do with the Jewish Campus and don't expect to.
Posted by Grandma, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 6:52 am
OhlonePar: I am not "Please be accurate" from South of Midtown. I did not write the bias criticism of your reference to the Campus for Jewish Life.
However, for the sake of accuracy that whole development, the CJL and Bridge/Build, will have nearly 400 housing units. Some of it will be for Seniors in both developments, Bridge/Build will have BMR units, and both developments will have for sale regular condos.
You are correct the JCC will leave both Greendell and Cubberley which will free up space at both locations.
Posted by One more Yes vote, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 2:56 pm
This is great progress. Mixed use office/ retail with a few more houses sounds fine. We need more shopping nearby, so we can walk or bike to the store instead of drive.
Couple more additions to the list of good grocery stores to have here -- PW Market & Trader Joe's.
One question: why are houses more lucrative to the city than retail? I thought the property taxes on houses goes through the state and back down to mostly fund schools, while retail taxes stay with the city.
Posted by One more Yes vote, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
FYI,
Thanks for the clarifications. As part of the give and take here, perhaps the city can get the neighborhood some more out of this deal -- like repaved roads in the neighborhood.
I will leave just PW Market on the suggestions list, then :)
Posted by Density is green, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I thought this was an environmentally friendly town.. we need density to reduce our carbon footprint and make public services cheaper on a per capita basis.
If school overcrowding is the problem, give out vouchers to people --the private schools around here will welcome the new kids and be perfectly happy to plan for the increased enrollment instead of crying about more kids in the neighborhood being a problem.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 5:53 pm
"How about condos/apts above stores like in San Diego?"
anon, are you serious? San Diego is a very large city, compared to Palo Alto. Those condos are many stories high. Their inhabitants also own their own (expensive) cars, and park them below those condo complexes. They also use those expensive cars a lot, when they are tootling off to anything other than a few blocks away. Yes, you will see foot traffic in the morning, as the condo residents get their coffee, but you will not see many of them on the trolley.
I know, becasue I lived there for a couple of years.
Posted by Density is green, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Density is not LA -- LA is what you get when density is not planned and implemented well. That is why we have people living in Evergreen and Tracy and driving in to work in our towns.
Buying groceries on the way home is cool, as is biking or walking to the supermarket. Implying that new families that move into the neighborhood are a burden and not resources for the community is not cool.
I hope we can work together to make this a beautiful, functional space for all of us: the new, the not-so-new and the old residents of our fair city.
Posted by Density is Third World, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Density makes people leave their home countries.
I know many immigrants who have told me that they moved here to drive. Can you believe this? Believe it! They are afraid to drive in their own countries, so they come here and pollute this place up.
We increased our carbon footprint when we opened the flood gates to the developing world.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle for the developing world to move here and trash up this place. Own second homes, properties, and take take take. We don't have enuf places in our FREE schools, food, water, and energy.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2008 at 6:41 pm
One thing about senior housing to add to the mix, the idea of senior housing according to developers is that the seniors to some extent will be moving out of Palo Alto homes and leaving their homes available for new families to move in, either by renting or selling. This is what I have heard from talk due to the development at Oregon/El Camino and also the JCC. We might be getting seniors to move here from out of area, but that is not as likely as elderly PA residents deciding they want to stay in the area and using the income from their property to pay for their new senior housing. This would mean that there would be more family homes available for families to move into PA and into PAUSD.
Posted by palo alto parent, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Density is green -" the private schools around here will welcome the new kids and be perfectly happy to plan for the increased enrollment" you obviously don't know anyone with kids who have applied to private schools in this area - Menlo had more siblings (who are almost automatic acceptances) then they had openings for, most of the private schools are just as full as PAUSD.
Edgewood Plaza - I used to shop at the Albertson's and would love another grocery store. Who cares if it used by non-Palo Alto residents? No one asks you for ID as you are going to the Safeway in Menlo Park, do they?
Posted by Long Time Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Palo Parent -
We have shared the grocery store and shops with shoppers from East Palo Alto ever since Edgewood was built. My mom never had a problem, and the kids in the neighborhood used to bike up there to buy candy all the time.
It is important that a liquor store/lottery/video combo store like the one which exists there now, not be allowed into the plans. This will invite trouble and people may drink and get right onto the freeway.
Alcohol could be purchased inside a grocery store.
I hope we can find a decent locally owned market that is willing to work with the developer and wait out the Palo Alto Process.
We do not need another high end grocery store in Palo Alto!
We need one with coupons, ads, and competitive prices to make sure that it will meet the needs of everyone in the community.
Posted by Density is green, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2008 at 6:22 pm
palo alto parent -- Menlo and Phillips Brooks aren't the only private schools around here. Plenty of people we know send their kids to Challenger, Stratford, Keys, Castilleja, International School of the Peninsula, Pinewood, Woodside Priory and other church run schools. Availability will only get better if parents aren't "double taxed" if they choose to send kids to private schools -- once for property taxes and the second time for tuition.
Density is Third World -- sorry, but you are wrong on many fronts. But especially so on what drives immigrants, particularly the ones who can afford to buy in Palo Alto (am one myself). The people who buy these new houses will be paying $15K - $30K a year in property taxes, a lot more than long timers whose cost base is protected by Prop 13 -- they aren't the freeloaders, the ones passing on their tax burden to the newcomers are.
Posted by One more Yes vote, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Long Time Resident, Agree with you. we don't need another high end store, we need one with reasonable prices. That is why I suggested PW Market. They have great produce and groceries at much more reasonable rates than Whole Paycheck, I mean Whole Foods.
Posted by Randy, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2008 at 11:44 am
I have lived in this city for over 15 years, and I still cannot understand the sense of entitlement people here feel.
If you want a particular store to be or not be in the plaza, then write a check and buy the plaza. Otherwise, you should just wait to see what shows up. The market will determine if it was a good investment by the shop owner or not. Personally, I am tired of seeing that pathetic shopping center in a shambles and the sooner it is torn down and replaced with *anything*, the better.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
