Town Square

Post a New Topic

Elks property division delayed to study access

Original post made on Jan 23, 2008

A neighborhood debate over pedestrian and bicycle linkages between new developments along El Camino Real and adjacent older Palo Alto neighborhoods was reopened Tuesday night by the City Council as it grappled with a proposed division of the Elks Lodge property.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 23, 2008, 2:51 AM

Comments (10)

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2008 at 3:02 pm

The too much traffic crowd have put up delaying tactics yet again.

It is ludicrous that these two developments are not walkable to adjacent neighborhoods. If Palo Alto wishes to be considered a bicycle pedestrian friendly city, then making walkways between neighborhoods is a must. Otherwise, by experience elsewhere, shortcuts will be found across private property or other means to get access through. The only way to prevent this is to put it there in the first place.

Enough of this time wasting. We may not want the housing in the first place, but since it is there we want it completed not left in construction zone state ad infinitim.


Posted by Jeremy Loski, a resident of Ventura
on Jan 23, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Resident is exactly right - CONNECT our city, and our people. Get it done, without delay and cost. OVERRULE OBSTRUCTIONISTS!


Posted by Mickey, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jan 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm

The only obstruction was by Jim Baer representing SummerHill, who refused to create a walk through.
Jeremy, you sound so much like Mike! Have you talked to him?


Posted by Amy, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Mickey, you are wrong it was the previous City Council who voted 5 to 4 to close off the access to Wilkie way at the urging of some local residents. Summerhill simply proceeded with their plans in accordance with that vote.


Posted by Micery, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jan 23, 2008 at 8:08 pm

"Jeremy Loski" is Mike.

That said, we can get back to discussing the city. Not a city of developers, but a city by developers and for developers.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 23, 2008 at 9:29 pm

The development of the condos on the Elk's property, plus the Rickey's development, plus the new Elk's Lodge that is to be built in the front of the property is too much for that area. A new stop light, and southbound left turn lane must be installed on El Camino between Arasadero,and the Cabana Hotel to access the area.

It is necessary to created through street to Wilke way in order
to handle the traffic. Has anyone looked at the Rickey's new
development. Is that what the Council wants for Palo Alto?


Posted by Joe, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 23, 2008 at 9:30 pm

The development of the condos on the Elk's property, plus the Rickey's development, plus the new Elk's Lodge that is to be built in the front of the property is too much for that area. A new stop light, and southbound left turn lane must be installed on El Camino between Arasadero,and the Cabana Hotel to access the area.

It is necessary to created through street to Wilke way in order
to handle the traffic. Has anyone looked at the Rickey's new
development. Is that what the Council wants for Palo Alto?


Posted by Post Reader, a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 23, 2008 at 9:46 pm

If "Jeremy Loski is Mike". He must not have a full time job since he posts on every subject on this forum day and night, except when the Library Commission Meetings are held. Coincidence?

Someone who has too much free time and thinks he is an expert in everything. What a huge ego! No one cares what Mike or Jeremy has to say. I just read right over them.


Posted by Jeremy Loski, a resident of Ventura
on Jan 23, 2008 at 11:02 pm

"Has anyone looked at the Rickey's new development. Is that what the Council wants for Palo Alto?"

Boy, the anti-development obstructionists are out in force today. :))

I've been in the Hyatt development, and looked at several units - it's really quite nice. Also, it's pre-sold, which puts the lie to those who say that it's not a desirable complex. The interior landscaping will be very attractive once it's fully built out.

Jim Baer has completed some good development, but his failure to create that walkway is a failure to encourage community.

Palo Alto is going to grow; if developers who have built here in the past cannot find ways to be "responsible citizens" re: their developments - using the best in green materials; doing everything they can to ensure future easy access to mass transit; offering BMR housing that is not formulaic; making sure that their developments *encourage* community; and so on - if they can't do that, then we need to find a new crop of developers who will deliver to the increased constraints that population growth demands.

Also, we have to make sure that a few local neighborhood obstructionists don't keep our city stalled.

We can grow, and at the same time retain neighborhood character - at the same time that we add new layers to our city.

It will be a challenge to keep everything in balance, but the old guard developers and neighborhood activists must be put on notice that "business as usual" will not be tolerated if it means extraordinary delay, or lack of sensitivity to new community realities in development.




Posted by Long Time Resident, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 29, 2008 at 12:21 pm

To set the record straight: the Chareleston Meadows neighborhood is not against bike/pedestrian access perse between Wilkie Way and the 600+ new residents in the DRHorton/SummerHill developments. The neighborhood is against the parking and traffic that would occur on Wilkie due to (1) the fact that the DRHorton development does NOT HAVE ENOUGH on-site parking, so these residents are going to park on Wilkie and walk through the access path to their homes; and (2) the vehicular entry/exit into these developments has HUGE DELAYS, so the residents are going to park on Wilkie in order to avoid the delays. If the developer or the City had addressed these issues adequately during the planning stages, there would exist a bike/pedestrian path today. The residents clearly pointed out these problems to the City and the developer. The City made a choice many years ago to sacrifice bike/pedestrian access in favor of low parking requirements and fast-but-cheap traffic design for these developments.

It is completely unfair to blame the neighborhood for trying to protect the quality of their lives and homes. The City has all the power in this game and has made these choices; unfortunately, the new Council has different priorities than the Council that made the choices.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scott’s Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 4,218 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 21 comments | 1,425 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,065 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 779 views

When Grandparents Visit
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 776 views