The long-awaited, long-debated redevelopment of the College Terrace Centre on El Camino Real began with the first cracking and splintering of wood beams and concrete on Thursday, April 10. Heavy equipment moved in to chew up trees, ducts, pipes and plaster on the block-long lot between College and Oxford avenues.
The demolition is taking down office and retail space where the former Futon Shop and JJ&F Market once resided. The site will be home to 66,000 square feet of mixed-use, transit-oriented development.
Set on 1.4 acres at 2100 El Camino Real, the center will consist of one two- and another three-story structure with a full-service grocery store, office space, affordable housing, an outdoor market and a 5,000-square-foot park. A two-floor underground parking structure will have 218 spaces.
The site will also have eight below-market apartment units, according to developers.
"We are delighted to bring a full-service grocery store to the area in addition to providing a first-class mixed-use project that serves multiple needs in our local community," said Patrick Smailey, principal of Redwood City-based Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC.
Blach Construction of Santa Clara is constructing the buildings with Carrasco & Associates of Palo Alto as the designer. Demolition is expected to take two to three weeks, followed by soil and water-sample boring to see if there are any contaminants on the site, said Stuart Young, superintendent for Blach Construction.
A monitoring well near JJ&F Market on College Avenue was found clear of contaminants by inspectors, but Young said the site will be further monitored post-demolition because of the underground parking garage.
Read related stories:
Comments
Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2014 at 7:22 pm
on Apr 10, 2014 at 7:22 pm
""We are delighted to bring a full-service grocery store to the area in addition to providing a first-class mixed-use project that serves multiple needs in our local community," said Patrick Smailey, principal of Redwood City-based Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC. "
If his kid can re-skin himself as a grocer, that is.
Shafted, CT.
College Terrace
on Apr 11, 2014 at 9:33 am
on Apr 11, 2014 at 9:33 am
Demolition for Sellout Palo Alto City Council and Profiting Developer begins. There, fixed it for you.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:52 am
on Apr 11, 2014 at 10:52 am
Citizens create a government to protect them and provide basic services. Once created, however, the government acquires a life of its own: it wants to grow, always grow, gaining staff, increasing revenues, maximizing assets under its management, concerned about it image, its reputation. The residents, now just an annoyance to the government they made, find themselves mahouts riding a wild beast. And few of us my friends have the vision, the commitment, and yes the courage, to bring that beast to heel.
Palo Verde
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Interesting. Out of 1.4 acres they are including a park the size of two Eichlers. This is the beginning of the greening of Palo Alto.
Downtown North
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm
on Apr 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm
"cracking and splintering of wood beams"
Presumably perfectly good, reusable wood that will be replaced in the marketplace with fresh-cut trees. Why does our self-proclaimed capital-G Green city allow this waste?
College Terrace
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm
on Apr 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm
We will see whether this PC will deliver on the so-called "public benefits". More likely, this will turn out to be be yet another example of why Planned Community projects should be eliminated. Loss of ground floor retail is another ptoblem that this project is guilty of.
College Terrace
on Apr 11, 2014 at 5:28 pm
on Apr 11, 2014 at 5:28 pm
I continued to shop at JJ&F after the Garcias left. Yes, the building was a mess, but I still liked the "feel". After it was all shut down, I went over to Molly Stone (still some Garcia guys over there).
This CT block has been a mess for many years. A real eyesore, along with many car camper vehicles. It is, finally, being cleaned up. This is a very good thing. I am very happy to see the demo crew in there, to clean it up. An empty lot is better than what we have had.
I think the reconstruction is a victim of its own design arguments/requirements. It has become "a camel is a horse, designed by committee". Will the new grocery store perform as advertised? Heck if I know. Small grocery stores don't seem to pencil in PA, anymore. The driving force of this deal, along with other deals in PA, is the welfare housing crew...they have had the power to tip many developments to approval, as long as welfare housing is part of the mix. In this particular case, the welfare crew succeeded in eliminating a good-sized plaza, in favor of welfare housing. I,sincerely, hope that their day is over...it is time.
Stanford
on Apr 11, 2014 at 9:28 pm
on Apr 11, 2014 at 9:28 pm
when are the people of palo alto going to realize that small grocery stores can't cut it financially and that all this high density stuff doesn't do anything except cram more people onto el camino. only the developers are benefiting. how is it that they can win over the city council on all these projects?
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 12, 2014 at 11:28 am
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2014 at 11:28 am
"If his kid can re-skin himself as a grocer, that is,” ...
is Curmudgeon's sharp response with regard to the developer’s statement of delight to bringing "a full service grocery store” to the site.
I would add, “and if the city will consent to the plastic surgery."
There is one paramount issue on the table right now within City Hall with regard to this project, and the public should pay very close attention: Does the city accept a lease from developer to his son as satisfactory compliance with the PC condition of approval that the grocery tenant is likely to be comparable in quality of products and service as JJ&F as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009?
Until that decision is made in the affirmative, the developer can demolish, but he cannot build.
If that decision is made in the affirmative, then the options for dealing with non-compliance of other conditions later, (e.g., that the store's space remain in continuous operation as a grocery store) are very limited, because there are no penalties specified in the PC for non-compliance when the project is built and the/a store opens.)
The public awaits word and explanation of this decision.
College Terrace
on Apr 12, 2014 at 1:58 pm
on Apr 12, 2014 at 1:58 pm
One way to help out a small grocery/deli on the CT site would have been to go with the original plans, which included a nice plaza/park for customers to eat their deli sandwiches, perhaps also some late afternoon/early evening (candlelight?)fare. The welfare housing element obliterated that plan...so now we are asking more from the store with less to offer. It became a setup for failure, although I hope it succeeds. Why do we continue to make it so difficult to do straight-forward things?
A healthy deconstruction of the planning demands for this site would, perhaps, be useful for future efforts.
Charleston Gardens
on Apr 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm
on Apr 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Good questions and comments in general but without exact descriptions of the alternatives ideas without a minimum of clear explanation on How To achieve them. After all, we are talking about real estate occupancy. More depth required. jon
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Tinkering at the margins of a developer’s oversized project – first accepted for consideration by staff, and then, until most recently, invariably approved by council – is a large part of what has been degrading our town, wasting staff time and money, and devilishly pitting neighbors against each other.
Residents, and most especially, voting residents, become keenly aware of these individual charades as well as the key loophole that enables Planned Community (PC) District and other over-the-top applications to keep on coming.
Consider this recent data:
On the “JJ&F Block,” formerly part of an unbroken multi-block area zoned “Neighborhood Commercial”: What is it that enables a developer to submit an application to change it into a regional office complex?
At the former Alma Plaza, specified in the Comprehensive Plan as one of only four neighborhood centers in Palo Alto, and a site that was 100% commercial, with 90% retail: What allows a developer to submit an application to change it to 75% housing?
At the built-out 395 Page Mill Road (the AOL site): What gives a property owner reason to think he can file and the city will consider an application to triple the amount of commercial space on the site?
At the 27 University Avenue site, zoned as “Public Facilities”: what leads a wealthy individual and developer to connect with the city manager’s office, have private back-of-the-napkin development discussions, get the city to pay $500 million for developing those plans, parade in a series of council members to see the plans before it finally comes to the public’s light of day to reveal office towers three times the size of the 50-foot height limit and to move a historic building?
The reason is this:
In Palo Alto, as opposed to 75% of California municipalities, all zoning including PCs are required to be consistent with a comprehensive "General Plan".
It is a lovely loophole that development-happy Charter Cities such as Palo Alto can choose to exploit, unless an ordinance or charter amendment is passed to require the same consistency between General Plan (i.e. Comp Plan here) and zoning as in those other "General Law" municipalities.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Correction: Change $500 million in the 27 University section above to $500 thousand
Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:10 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:10 pm
"At the former Alma Plaza, specified in the Comprehensive Plan as one of only four neighborhood centers in Palo Alto, and a site that was 100% commercial, with 90% retail: What allows a developer to submit an application to change it to 75% housing?"
You can thank " The friends of alma plaza" ( an oxymoron if there ever was one ) and a washy washy city council
However I think this will be an excellent development for CT
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm
The Planned Community (PC) allows developers to make a mockery of Palo Alto's zoning regulations.
All current members of the Palo Alto City Council must go. Clean Sweep!
College Terrace
on Apr 13, 2014 at 6:48 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 6:48 pm
>What is it that enables a developer to submit an application to change it (JJ&F block)into a regional office complex?
Fred, my view is that the desire to keep JJ&F (or equivalent) required a significant subsidy (increased density/offices), because such a small store could no longer pencil in the current environment. However, once again, it was the welfare housing element that significantly changed the original plan, eliminating the nice plaza/park concept, and got the backing of the CC...which has been under the sway of the welfare housing political backers for years.
>What allows a developer to submit an application to change it to 75% housing?
Once again, Fred, that magic (voodoo?) word 'housing', as always including some welfare (BMR) housing. Slam dunk.
Take away welfare housing, and then these projects will be under much more scrutiny...will the CC be so reflexive to approve, or to change the zoning?
Regards,
Craig
another community
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:31 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Wow Craig, you always impress me with your ability to fit the Craig Laughton coined "Welfare Housing©" into each of your posts
Midtown
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm
Enjoying your subsidized ( welfare) parking program in CT, Craig?
College Terrace
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:51 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 7:51 pm
>you always impress me with your ability to fit the Craig Laughton coined "Welfare Housing©" into each of your posts
Robert, you shouldn't be impressed, since it is simply about looking at the facts on the ground, then simply stating them. I don't deserve your compliments!
BTW, since your are from another community, what do you know about the facts in Palo Alto? Please inform us.
Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2014 at 8:08 pm
on Apr 13, 2014 at 8:08 pm
"...if the city will consent to the plastic surgery."
The patient has no intention of getting anywhere near a scalpel. It's a cynical ruse to present our ever-willingly-gullible city hall an ostensible fulfillment of the PC conditions. 10:1 "planning" staff will come down with a convenient case of acute simpletonitis and buy it. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
"the developer can demolish, but he cannot build."
Wanna bet?
There is a dogeared Kabuki script for this (and many other) contingencies. It goes like this, with minor variations:
Developer (to the city director of planning and community environment): "I want that building permit in my hand right now."
City director of planning and community environment: "Yes, Sir."
Years pass...
Pesky Neighborhood Activist (to the city council): "Where's the grocery store that your predecessors legally required this developer to provide? That space is all offices."
City council, helplessly: Oh dear, that's too bad. But there's nothing we can do after staff issues a building permit. We'd be sued."
Tralfamadoran chorus (in the distance): "So it goes."
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 13, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Craig,
It is true that a park was first proposed as a public benefit in addition to a “guarantee” of a new market for JJ&F in College Terrace Centre; that the park didn’t fly as sufficient to College Terrace residents who attended the first preliminary review at the PT&C; that the applicant swapped it for 14 BMRs; that the PT&C at its formal hearing denied the request to initiative the zone change to PC, leading to the devilishly successful charade of the “Save JJ&F” campaign and, just before arrival for appeal of that ruling at the council, the removal of 6 BMRs so a larger market could be accommodated if needed; and then, council acceptance of the PC.
And, yes, at Alma Plaza, 37 single-family market rate homes were to be built, as well as 14 BMRs (about half required by Palo Alto’s inclusionary zoning laws and the other half as public benefit in additional to the market)
But I’m not here, Craig, to discuss the merits in general or specific effects on the PC process of BMR housing.
I am here to discuss planning, and how it is AWOL in PC applications.
You cite the developer’s argument that “to keep JJ&F (or equivalent) required a significant subsidy (increased density/offices), because such a small store could no longer pencil in the current environment.”
Harken back to the Alma Plaza developer’s insistence that a neighborhood retail center was no longer viable on the site,
or at 395 Page Mill Road that tripling the office square footage was required to subsidize a new police building across the street,
or that the 162-foot towers at 27 University Avenue were needed to enable a permanent home for Theatre Works.
This is “Let’s Make a Deal,” not planning.
None on these proposals were consistent with its corresponding Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Yet each, following the normal but inverted Palo Alto overdevelopment process, in and of itself, would have amended the Comp Plan.
This is bass-ackwards, because a Comp Plan (referred to as a General Plan in other municipalities) is the long-range blueprint -- a constitution, if you will -- and the community’s view of its future, in order to guide zoning.
And no Palo Alto Comp that has ever been created has had as much productive citizen input than the current one.
A simple ordinance requiring consistency stemming from the Comp Plan to all zoning (which includes the PC zone), and is the law in at least 75% of California cities, would have stopped each of these projects cold (either by staff or quicky and simple in court), and saved the public a great deal of misspent energy, money, and time and unnecessary distraction.
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:24 am
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:24 am
> that the park didn't fly as sufficient to College Terrace residents who attended the first preliminary review at the PT&C; that the applicant swapped it for 14 BMRs
Who were these "College Terrace residents"? I never saw any neighborhood-wide secret survey asking whether a plaza/park was preferred over welfare housing. The developer, recognizing the pressure from the welfare housing groups (and their clout with our CC), figured it might be more productive to give up the plaza/park and replace it with 14 units of welfare housing. The developer was right.
Fred, I understand your complaints about the abuse of the PC zoning option, and how it can violate the Comp. Plan. On the other hand, I don't want to see smart growth suppressed. I think that we would be stuck with that ugly block at the CT site for many more years, were it not for some flexibility.
Charleston Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:38 am
on Apr 14, 2014 at 8:38 am
"Who were these "College Terrace residents"? I never saw any neighborhood-wide secret survey asking whether a plaza/park was preferred over welfare housing. The developer, recognizing the pressure from the welfare housing groups (and their clout with our CC), figured it might be more productive to give up the plaza/park and replace it with 14 units of welfare housing. The developer was right. "
If you had attended the meeting you would have known, Craig. Anyway, the city does not play these little " secret survey" games. And anyway, there is no " welfare housing" in this project-- there is BMR units, which is common in this area. Bt who are these " welfare housing groups" you rant about-- please inform us.
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 9:59 am
on Apr 14, 2014 at 9:59 am
>If you had attended the meeting you would have known, Craig. Anyway, the city does not play these little " secret survey" games. And anyway, there is no " welfare housing" in this project-- there is BMR units, which is common in this area. Bt who are these " welfare housing groups" you rant about-- please inform us.
I saw the original renderings (at the JJ&F market)...they showed a plaza, not welfare housing. Why should I need to attend a meeting, if I basically approved?
CPA has certainly sent out post cards to survey neighborhood opinion on major projects. It did not do so on this welfare housing displacing the plaza.
BMR is one of the worst forms of welfare housing, because it pits one neighbor against another. Any subsidized housing is a form of welfare housing. Best to just call it what it is. Euphemisms are an attempt to hide the reality.
PAHC is the leader of the pack in terms of welfare housing advocates. But there are many more, Including Inn Vision, various churches, our CC and various activist individuals (e.g. Irwin David...who complained loudly against reducing the welfare units from 14 to 8 at the CT site, as I recall).
another community
on Apr 14, 2014 at 11:42 am
on Apr 14, 2014 at 11:42 am
I don't think Craig even wants to engage, he's too busy throwing stones from his glass house (which, coincidentally, he gets a prop 13 property tax break and mortgage interest deduction on).
Charleston Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 12:14 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Why the false claim, Craig, that BMR housing pits neighbor against neighbor? Do you have factual examples to back up that claim? Many people understand the need for BMR housing for certain employees. Stanford west is all BMR housing, if that is the case-- if you are not a Stanford employee you pay higher rent.
And instead of the " top secret survey" game, maybe you and the pcuncil can play hide and go seek
Robert-- do not forget all the other subsidized ( welfare) programs craig benefits from as a CT resident.
another community
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm
I say we come up with other terms for BMR housing.
Employee Discounted Housing.
Housing for non high salary income persons.
Starter Homes for some.
Maybe Milk Pail or something along those lines. Start up funds, hire a manager/buyer who understands the grocery business, out fit store, hire some workers.
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:34 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:34 pm
I prefer to try to stay on track with this College Terrace project, and issues directly embedded in the decision to approve/design it.
I have addressed other tangential issues in the past, on this blog (do a search). I never shy from addressing them, but I just don't think they should be distracting from this particular discussion (e.g. RPPP/welfare in CT, Prop 13, mortgage tax deduction, etc.).
Charleston Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:40 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 1:40 pm
"I prefer to try to stay on track with this College Terrace project, and issues directly embedded in the decision to approve/design it."
In their words, you do not like it ,Craig, when your hypocrisy is exposed for all to see. " distracting from this particular discussion" is code for saying " ignore the man behind the curtain who,is benefiting from subsidies/ welfare.
Why don't you tell us which neighbors were pitted against each other due to BMR housing. We need specific names and incidents, with locations.
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:19 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Delusional,
Start a separate thread, use your full real name, and what street you live on in Charleston Meadows...then I will be happy to address your challenges. In the meantime, I don't want to get distracted from this CT project thread.
Charleston Meadows
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:32 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Note how craig refuses to address the claims thatbthe has made--- neighbor pitted against neighbor over BMR units, is but one example. Instead , he demands information that has no bearing on the matter at hand. Claiming that he does not want to be " distracted" from the CT project thread is more " ignore the hypocrisy ofthe poster". Not the first time he has used this sorry technique to deflect ridicule from his positions. My real name and address are nt any of your business.
Craig also forgets that we live in America. Here a landlord can charge whatever he wants for his property. Same as when you buy on sale at a store. Have you ever bought anything on sale, Craig? Don't you think that is welfare?
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Registered user
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Typing too fast … another mistake in what I wrote in my April 13, 2:56 pm post, which begins with the words “Tinkering at the margins of a developer’s oversized project …”
I wrote:
“In Palo Alto, as opposed to 75% of California municipalities, all zoning including PCs are required to be consistent with a comprehensive "General Plan". “
I should have written (and with replacement text in CAPS):
“In Palo Alto, as opposed to 75% of California municipalities, all zoning including PCs, IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSISTENT with a comprehensive "General Plan".
That’s the loophole crying out for a plug.
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:42 pm
on Apr 14, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Fred,
Leaving aside all the internal politics of generating a Comp Plan, if you had what your want, how would that affect the mess that we have lived with for years at the CT project site?
Craig
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Registered user
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:01 pm
What mess are you referring to?
The council gave final approval to the project in its first meeting of 2009.
After that, rather than save JJ&F and ASAP as promised, the developer could not obtain financing and JJ&F, in the name of the Garcias, closed.
Fortunately for the developer, a few months earlier, the council had extended the maximum window between application approval and start of project. Without that, the PC would have expired and the zoning reverted to Neighborhood Commercial as it had been, and once again be part of an uninterrupted neighborhood commercial zoning band across the entire CT edge along El Camino.
The Futon Shop moved out some time ago; JJ&F under the Khoury Family and the environmental firm World Centric were bounced in September.
In January, four years after project approval, the developer announced he had obtained financing from a group in Southern Cal.
Demolition is now underway
So if the mess you are referring to is the unoccupied spaces or perhaps shades of blight, you know where to look.
The significant matter of the lease for a market, comparable to JJ&F as in 2009, remains. And here, Garrett, in his/her post above, is on to it. Did the applicant even talk with Milk Pail or other experienced and viable grocers, or has the plan always been to keep a “family grocer” on the site, except that family is the developers'.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Registered user
on Apr 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Correction:
I wrote
"The council gave final approval to the project in its first meeting of 2009."
Rather it should read,
"The council gave final approval to the project in its first meeting of 2010."
Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:47 am
on Apr 15, 2014 at 9:47 am
"the plan always been to keep a "family grocer" on the site, except that family is the developers'."
Family - yes.
Grocer - Ummm.
Charleston Gardens
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:36 am
on Apr 15, 2014 at 10:36 am
"Citizens create a government to protect them and provide basic services. Once created, however, the government acquires a life of its own: it wants to grow, always grow, gaining staff, increasing revenues, maximizing assets under its management, concerned about it image, its reputation. The residents, now just an annoyance to the government they made, find themselves mahouts riding a wild beast."
Jon, who is profiting from that and other PC projects? Aren't the developers, constructions companies, retailers, etc. the private capital entities? The government is involved in a least degree here. Even if they are sell-outs they are picking the crumbs from the hands that are feeding them.
Corporations are ordering the tunes ... It is not even about the fact checking, just pull your head out of where it is.
College Terrace
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:15 pm
on Apr 15, 2014 at 2:15 pm
>What mess are you referring to?
That block has been a sad case for many years. Start with the JJ&F store itself (leaking roof, shabby parking lot, external smells...not large enough for good choices, etc.). That unit at the corner of Oxford and Yale was old and somewhat decrepit...and a magnet for the homeless in the alley behind it. The futon store was modern, but it was never a success story (bank then bicycle store then futon...a real duck out of water). The entire lot is better off being scraped, and starting over.
> Without that, the PC would have expired and the zoning reverted to Neighborhood Commercial as it had been
Fred, What is so good about "as it had been"? If it had remained NC, would that have allowed a major refresh? I guess I don't follow your logic. But I may be misunderstanding you.
Craig
College Terrace
on Apr 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm
on Apr 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm
Mistake on my part:
"That unit at the corner of Oxford and Yale was old and somewhat decrepit..."
Should read: "That unit at the corner of Oxford and Staunton was old and somewhat decrepit..."
(Thanks for telling me about the mistake, Susan).
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Registered user
on Apr 20, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Has it been determined how the beneficiaries of the below market housing will be selected? Will it be limited to Stanford affiliates, as noted in one comment, which would help with the culture of low-impact for commuting. Will there be limitations on the number of children in each family who would be impacting the school system? Transportation needs if they are commuting, etc.
As residents, it'll be anything but beneficial to have 320+ new welfare units introduced into our neighborhoods, if it's not done with consideration to the rest of our community, other than the businesses. With the potential of higher taxes for increased enrollments in our schools, extra services needed to provide for these families and the possibility of additional traffic within such a small corridor, we will feel the effects. If we are the ones sacrificing with nothing to gain, at least we need to have a say so by petitioning, to be a deciding component with our charitable, that seems forced upon us. By co-formulating a more refined criteria for the selection process, from what may become a large application pool, the Welfare league can pat themselves on the back for having succeeded in their acceptable quota while cooperating with the community's voluntary charitable hand.