With redevelopment looming, businesses prepare to leave Palo Alto | News | Palo Alto Online |


With redevelopment looming, businesses prepare to leave Palo Alto

Six-story Brutalist building at 2600 El Camino Real may be replaced by four-story development

When August comes to a close, it will spell the end of an era for the roughly two dozen Palo Alto businesses that have been occupying one of the city's most conspicuous and unusual buildings.

A concrete giant in a city full of glass and stucco, the six-story Brutalist building at 2600 El Camino Real has been towering unapologetically over its neighbors since its construction in 1966. In some ways, it exemplifies the diverse and eclectic nature of El Camino. A Bank of America occupies the ground floor, Fambrini's Cafe is on the second floor, and organizations of all sizes and functions complete the tenant roster.

Here, DeLeon Realty, a real estate firm at the forefront of the city's exploding housing market, occupies the same building as Project Happiness, a nonprofit that teaches locals to find happiness within. There are small law firms, accounting practices, anesthesiologists and wealth managers. Peter LeVine, whose company Vencoa is a vendor of vending machines, will be leaving after 30 years in the building.

The move has been months in the making and it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. The land, located between Page Mill Road and California Avenue, is owned by Stanford University, and the building has long been owned and managed by the property-management company Allhouse Deaton. In October, the long-term ground lease will expire and Sand Hill Property Company will take over a new long-term ground lease with Stanford. To set the stage of the takeover, Sand Hill filed an application in January to demolish the building a construct a new one in its stead.

In describing the project to the Architectural Review Board last fall and in an email exchange with the Weekly, company officials have emphasized the positive attributes of the replacement. The old building, they note with justification, would not have met current codes and design guidelines. Built before the city established its 50-foot height limit, it exceeds the restriction by nearly 30 feet. If built today, it would also be required to have larger setbacks, offer more parking spaces and be less dense. As such, the building is considered a "non-complying" facility.

At an Architectural Review Board last September, the project's architect, Clifford Chang, described the existing building as "incredibly antiquated in almost every aspect" and an example of what one could construct "if you wanted to make the least expensive building the fastest."

The replacement building, he said, would be "a great improvement." Though the floor area would remain the same (as is allowed for replacement of non-complying facilities), other aspects of the building would be made more consistent with the city's zoning rules. The new 62,616-square-foot, four-story structure would be 50 feet tall, include the required parking and incorporate sustainable features, including solar panels.

This view found some sympathy on the board, with Vice Chair Alex Lew saying he is happy to see the Sand Hill project.

"This building is so big and non-conforming that I thought we'd be stuck with it forever," Lew said at the September meeting.

Allison Koo, Sand Hill's project manager, told the Weekly in an email that the new building would be "more consistent with the surrounding area and buildings."

The project would also include a comprehensive program to limit the amount of traffic its employees generate, which would include Caltrain passes and VTA Go Passes for workers, Koo said. It will have retail on the ground floor and a more friendly environment for pedestrians, she added.

But for some of the current tenants, the replacement project does not represent progress. For LeVine and others, it means an exodus of small businesses from Palo Alto and the latest chapter in the city's transition into an exclusive enclave for wealthiest of the wealthy. Several tenants told the Weekly that they cannot afford any other offices in Palo Alto and are moving to other cities.

When the new Class A office building is developed, most expect it to be occupied by a high-tech giant with pockets deep enough to afford the exorbitant rents the new building will surely fetch -- much like the new office development at 101 Lytton Ave., which serves as headquarters to SurveyMonkey, or the College Terrace Centre, a mixed-use development that is now being constructed 2100 El Camino Real that until recently was eyed by Yelp as a possible site for its new headquarters.

Jan Cummins, an attorney at 2600 El Camino who specializes in elderly law, knows she is unlikely to fit the profile of the new occupant. After scouring for a new location, Cummins is moving to San Mateo after 10 years of practicing in Palo Alto.

"I do think it's not good for Palo Alto because it's basically knocking out small operators, the solo attorneys and the small CPAs," Cummings said. "There's really nothing available in Palo Alto."

Others also are looking elsewhere. And even though they had ample warning that they will have to move out by the end of August, finding a new location in the current real-estate market has proven near impossible, they said.

Project Happiness is moving to Cupertino when the lease expires, the nonprofit's founder, Randy Taran, told the Weekly. Roger P. Kokores, a real estate attorney whose practice has been at 2600 El Camino for more than four decades, will be switching to a home office, though he told the Weekly that he was planning to downsize anyway. LeVine is doing the same, though not voluntarily.

LeVine said he has spent six months looking for a new location in Palo Alto and worked with two different Realtors. He said he currently pays $4 per square foot, which amounts to $2,100 in monthly rent for his office, which he acknowledges is well below the market rate. He is willing to pay twice that, but he couldn't find anything within that price range. (The average asking rate for office space in downtown Palo Alto was $8.74, according to a June Colliers International's report.) Unless a location miraculously emerges in the next month and a half, LeVine said he will work from his home in Menlo Park.

LeVine takes issue with the assertion that the Brutalist building is "ugly" or "unsightly" and contends that many residents he has spoken to do not share this view. The new building, he concedes, will likely be an architectural gem. It will also stand as a "monument to venture capitalists" and "a symbol of ultimately wealth." In some parts of the city, such a project might make sense, LeVine said -- for example, if it were replacing one of El Camino's motels.

"But what's unique about this project is that in this building you have so many small businesses," LeVine said. "Almost all of them are being dislocated out of Palo Alto."

Yet he acknowledges that the Sand Hill proposal, while problematic for existing tenants, is consistent with the zoning code and will likely be approved. The Architectural Review Board is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the project in the next few months (its September 2015 discussion was a preliminary review, which took place before the application was filed and featured no votes) and make a recommendation.

If the board recommends approval and the city's planning director OKs the project, Sand Hill will be able to obtain building permits without any additional reviews by the council or the Planning and Transportation Commission, barring an appeal.


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


72 people like this
Posted by TorreyaMan
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 14, 2016 at 10:29 am

TorreyaMan is a registered user.

I am not a no or even "slow" growth proponent, but this is a waste of resources, replacing a perfectly decent (if indeed outmoded) building with one providing the same square footage of office space but booting out small tenants. A shame.

52 people like this
Posted by TTurner
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Jul 14, 2016 at 10:41 am

TTurner is a registered user.

Palo Alto is rapidly catching up with Menlo Park as the dumbest and most greedy town in the area. Its hell with the citizens, we need more money to waste. My CPA has been here as long as I can remember. Now where is he going to go. Th town does not care, hell with me.

35 people like this
Posted by juan olive
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 14, 2016 at 10:54 am

There is absolutely nothing any one person can do to stop the madness. Your right. The Hell with people. Hail the almighty dollar.
Money isn't the root of all evil.

The LOVE of money is the root.

53 people like this
Posted by Tired of these Claims
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:16 am

This building is a good example of mid-20th design - INCLUSIVE OF ITS ACCOMMODATING SMALL BUSINESSES AND NON-PROFITS. Who says the big new box that is supposed to replace it fits better with the surrounding building? Why those in favor of carpeting El Camino - here we have the vision of a so-called Grand Boulevard playing out in spades - that's who! Why, a lot of old buildings on the Stanford campus of "old and outdated" design as well, yet they are lovingly preserved. So these blanket statements about how inadequate the existing structure is are bunk in the first degree as well. Ever met a developer or an architect that would say otherwise? Of course not - this building should be persevered for attributes, not demolished for its deficits, which are being blown all out of any reasonable proportion.

52 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:49 am

I also get tired of seeing perfectly good buildings getting razed for no reason other than they need some remodeling. A good remodel can be done for less money than razing and starting all over but unfortunately codes and zoning laws don't make that a sane option quite often.

I would love to see this building remain with a good remodel of whatever needs to be fixed and brought up to date. I would also like to see office space that fits the budget of smaller businesses who have been here for a long time rather than always looking for the next big thing to come into town.

I was recently at the office of a small local business who are having to move to make way for a huge hotel. They are not sure where they will end up but I hope they make it. A small office with people who feel they are a family may have to be broken up if they move too far away. What a shame!

26 people like this
Posted by Hermia
a resident of Triple El
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:50 am

The project's architect said the new building would be "a great improvement."

Gosh. I'm shocked.

How about if they were only allowed to do it if 50% of the space was for well-below-market housing?

48 people like this
Posted by Annie's Biped
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:54 am

How sad that this building will be torn down and replaced with something "more current." This building is just fine the way it is. Look at the monstrosity that has replaced JJ&F. If that's a sample of something more appealing, we're sunk! By comparison, the Brutalist architecture looks great! But basically, what a waste.

17 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto native
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 am

I wish the City would renovate the stretch of El Camino between Los Robles Ave and Hansen Way. Demolish the Glass Slipper.

18 people like this
Posted by Observer
a resident of University South
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:57 am

If you limit office development, you'll find that rents go up. When rents go up, only deep-pocketed companies can afford to locate here. When rents go up, small businesses that need to move can't find new space they can afford.

If they didn't leave for a new building, they would have left when scarcity drove rents up in this building and another tenant came looking. If office development were easier, these small businesses would have been able to find an alternative place to rent in Palo Alto.

This is the predictable result of policies that make office development hard, not policies that would make it easy. Whichever side you land on, that's just how it works.

54 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 14, 2016 at 12:08 pm

"... Sand Hill Property Company will take over a new long-term ground lease with Stanford."

Sayyy, ain't they the company that royally screwed up the Edgewood redevelopment project?

43 people like this
Posted by BudButtrill
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 14, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Yes, Sand Hill Property is the same company that has not met its commitments in the Edgewood Shopping redevelopment project. Palo Alto should refuse to grant them any new approvals until Sand Hill gets Edgewood fixed.

27 people like this
Posted by Jozie
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Tearing down a building so they can charge more rent to deep pocket tenants? Sometime change is necessary, but this 'progress' is forcing middle class business owners and their services to leave town. Starbucks and tech only need apply.

26 people like this
Posted by TheComplaintsAreCrazy
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 14, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Wait a minute. This is an ugly building. It does not meet code. The owner wants to tear it down and build a new building that does meet code (and is, hopefully, not so ugly). This will not cost taxpayers any money.

So why the incredible and vitriolic complaints?

I assume it is because the rents will almost certainly be higher (in order to pay for the demolish and rebuild). And that current tenants will have a difficult time finding new space. And that they are likely to have to pay more than their current rental rates.

But that argument is essentially the same as the one that wants to protect Buena Vista Park. The only real difference is that there are laws that promote (force) the building of new low income housing and attempt to protect existing low income housing. There are not (to my knowledge) any laws that attempt to define a class of deserving businesses and protect them from raise in rent or eviction.

That is the way it is.
If you want to 'save' this building and preserve its tenants and existing rent, then (find someone to) buy the property.

BTW, I would like to see link to the new plans and read a summary of the differences between old and new such that the new has the same floor space but meets new requirements.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Evergreen Park

on Jul 14, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Midtown

on Jul 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

17 people like this
Posted by Chip
a resident of Professorville
on Jul 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm

Tastes change. Of course this architect deems his planned building "a great improvement." His income is dependent on persuading customers to pay for his designs & project oversight. Personally, I don't find the present building attractive, but lots of others built in the 1960s & '70s are also borderline if not actually ugly, including houses.
Calling a building "antiquated" is a great way to find an excuse to demolish something which could be retrofitted at far lower cost & spare landfiills, to say nothing of the environmental costs of transporting tons of debris through town and off to "disappear" from local view. Sure will help air quality too with all the particles floating & being inhaled. Let's hope there's no asbestos in the building.
I marvel at the ability of Europeans to continue utilizing very old buildings while we can't seem to figure out how to retrofit & update ours.
Oh, well, this planned beauty will be old & probably considered ugly in 50 years. Too bad we'll lose a couple of functional movie theaters. Palo Altans will continue heading to MV, RC, & Cupertino for movies. The Aquarius & Guild are great but obviously can't provide adequate viewing for the needs of PS population.

23 people like this
Posted by Past Midtown local girl makes good
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 14, 2016 at 3:13 pm

Some of us remember when this building was built. Across from Polly and Jake and close to our first McDonalds. Maximart a stones throw away. I may be dating an era fond and held close in a distant memory of growing up in Palo Alto. Piers Dairy, The Menu Tree in Mountain View, The Fuller Brush Man,and milk delivered to your doorstep. Redevelopment where our once family homes are now bulldozed making room for "Feng Shui" style homes that take up the entire lot. Who needs a garden and fruit trees with the most fertile soil in the area when you can have a McMansion? And to boot, robots at the mall that run over children? Wake up and smell the money people, "Dorothy, we are not in Palo Alto any more".

22 people like this
Posted by Chrisc
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 14, 2016 at 3:48 pm

None of these new buildings are an improvement. I'm not buying this building is more dense than new ones. Calling the building "unusual" is an improvement over the last article by this reporter when he called it "ugly." Some think Corbusier buildings are ugly, but nobody is rushing to tear them down. I love modern architecture, but the new, super dense and similarly colored buildings going up on El Camino are mediocre at best and horrific at worst. When will Palo Alto Square be torn down? A lot of "wasted" land there, not making the big bucks. As for justifying change by saying old buildings aren't up to current Pal Alto restrictions--might there be some historic homes that should be razed for the same reason?

18 people like this
Posted by Alexander DeLarge
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 14, 2016 at 4:15 pm

I LOVE Brutalist architecture! This building reminds me of the theatre at Brunel University at Uxbridge. Palo Alto is fortunate to have such a wonderful example. Enough with the noodle houses and coffee bars.

13 people like this
Posted by Bombom
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2016 at 4:19 pm

This is the very same building that a very important person came to see in the 1970's. It was historic.

10 people like this
Posted by Sjw
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 14, 2016 at 8:06 pm

I agree that the building should not be replaced, my reasoning is that you can't trust the city to make good architectural decisions. Just look up the street on El Camino to the up and coming low housing building with it's 1940s bathroom tiled surface or the total mess of a mega building that's between College and Stanforf. Are aesthetics completely passé?

11 people like this
Posted by Preservation
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 14, 2016 at 11:46 pm

Is the Historic Building board going to review this project? It really is unusual for Palo Alto. And I love the second floor terrace dining with views of the foothills.

21 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 15, 2016 at 6:56 am

The old building is hideous and proof that zoning works.

15 people like this
Posted by Downtown
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 15, 2016 at 8:25 am

Super ugly building. Its a blessing they are replacing it with something better. Change is good.

13 people like this
Posted by BalancedCarefulConsideration
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 15, 2016 at 10:17 am

BalancedCarefulConsideration is a registered user.

...trading in the first wife for a similar, but younger and up-to-date second...

12 people like this
Posted by Hmm..
a resident of Professorville
on Jul 15, 2016 at 11:07 am

So, if we have a non-conforming house, are we given the same privileges of getting the same square footage if we re-make it to code?

Yet another example of screwing the people who live here and handing money to developers.

Oh, and yes, Sand Hill Properties should not be allowed any Palo Alto project until they ensure that they meet their prior promises to the City.

Like this comment
Posted by Change
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 16, 2016 at 12:37 am

Super ugly building. Change is good!

3 people like this
Posted by SmallBusiness
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 16, 2016 at 11:13 am

We need places for small business in Palo Alto. Some cities have ordinances that protect existing tenants when new buildings are built. Maybe we need something like that. Unfortunately, when a new building replaces an old one, what we have seen happen way to often is that a single, large high tech company replaces many of the small businesses who serve the community. Palo Alto appears to be be worse at preserving small business than our neighboring communities.

Come on Council - time to save these businesses! Require the new building to provide leases to current tenants at reasonable rates!

Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 16, 2016 at 11:32 am

To the post from "Change"

You keep your kids don't you?

9 people like this
Posted by Peter LeVine
a resident of another community
on Jul 16, 2016 at 11:45 am

The only reason the building at 2600 El Camino Real is being demolished is because the landowner, Stanford University, wishes to extract the most money possible from a new land lease. Stanford was not content with a new land lease on the current building, which is a Class A/Class B building in excellent condition and compliant with all Palo Alto City and California State codes. Nor was Stanford content to have the building retrofitted for a cost of a $12 million to have a sprinkler system installed for additional fire safety as well as other improvements. Instead, Stanford wishes to exponentially increase its income from its land by requiring a new building to be built. Stanford's income from the land is a combination of rent from the land and a percentage of rent charged by to the end user lessee or lessees. There are members of the Palo Alto City Council who object to this project for the reasons stated in the excellent article by Gennady Sheyner but they will only oppose the project if there is a significant and vocal opposition to the project by the community. If you object to demolishing a perfectly functioning building so that many small businesses can be displaced by
the very wealthiest of the wealthy in the Silicon Valley (most likely a single tenant wealthy, cash rich venture capital firm, or software firm), voice your concerns and protest this project. Attend the Architectural Review Board Hearing in September. Attend the meeting of the Palo Alto Planning Department and Commission when it considers this tear down "redevelopment" project. Voice your concerns to your elected Palo Alto City Council members, especially those who are running for re-election this November. If enough voters voice their objection to this proposed monument to the wealthiest of the wealthy at the expense of small business people, there is a real possibility the project would, at a minimum, be modified to require Stanford University and Sand Hill Property to redesign the proposed building so that there are affordable offices for small businesses. There many people working for the Palo Alto City government, especially in planning, who object to this project as a needless displacement of small businesses but who cannot voice their objections on political grounds. The Architectural Review Board is comprised of one or more local architects who know the architects who designed this project as well as the owners of Sand Hill Property Management professionally and/or personally. An objective review by the Architectural Review Board is not possible. However, statements and voices of dissent must be noted by the Board and included in their report to the Planning Department and Planning Commission. And, the elected City Council Members may want to consider their political future by rubber stamping a recommendation by the Planning Department and Planning Commission to build the Ritz Carlton of office buildings which displaces small businesses so that Stanford University can extract the most money possible from its land by building a monument to extreme wealth and materialism. Don't just sit back and watch this monument to the rich and famous be built. Object to this project by participating in the democratic process.

1 person likes this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 16, 2016 at 11:59 am

Sounds like a lot of entitlement coming from these small businesses, not every business needs to be located in Palo Alto, rents are much more reasonable in the east bay.

10 people like this
Posted by M. Blue
a resident of Green Acres
on Jul 16, 2016 at 12:11 pm

@Palo Alto native
Demolish the Glass Slipper ?
It is a part of my fondest childhood memories of Palo Alto and I always smile when I drive past it. When I was little, I always wanted to stay there, somehow imagining it was a Disney-like fantasy castle.

I feel like a misfit in this town more and more. I have so many happy memories, friends, hangouts, and frankly, love for this town, but it seems to be getting overwhelmed by the growing negativity of the community. Look at the paper today.. Complaints about noise, poop, trains, planes, cars, architecture,... Why do so many people spend so much time seeing only the worst in everything. I love the Glass Slipper and would stand in front of the bulldozers if it came to that.

5 people like this
Posted by Two peas in a pod
a resident of Stanford
on Jul 17, 2016 at 12:31 pm

Stanford Development offices are separate from the education and research university. They are an embarrassment to the academic university. Billions (yes billions) of an endowment has made them even more aggressive and hostile to Palo Alto.

Not surprising Stanford chose Sand Hill Property, the developer that still pretends it cant find a supermarket for its project at Edgewood Plaza. They have proven more than once that they can violate contracts and get away with it. Could be that's why Stanford developers like them.

Like this comment
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 17, 2016 at 5:33 pm

These comments about greed and money being the root of all evil
may be right, but are surely not a productive way to discuss this issue.

The point is that not all people in all situations behave the same, we are
all different, but in general when you are working, productive or making
money you want to maximize it and enjoy it. I don't know if this is greed
or not ... I tend not to think it is, or if it is it is a meaningless term.

The real point is that we concentrate power and decisions in the hands
of these people who are not thinking about anything but their own rights,
how great they are, how smart they are, how superior and how they ought
to be able to decide how everything is done and tell everyone else what
to do.

Look at Donald Trump. To me he seems like a scoundrel, a scammer, a
used car salesman - everything but a responsible leader. Someone who
met with him described him as a person with no innate curiosity who has
not read a book in 20 years.

Somehow in the US we have been led down this primrose path of thinking
that the ONLY thing that matters in political and public policy is business
and money, and from that we have gotten both politicians and business
people who have set the world up to demonize everything that does not
fall in place with a view of the world that makes everything easy and
permanent for them ... just like royalty.

Thousands of years ago this kind of thinking must have begun, and we
had just begun to crawl up from this historic muck with the Constitution,
Bill of Rights and the progress we have made and now we have set in
place a system that practically ensures it is coming back in a powerful
and permanent way.

It is not that people are greedy, all people are, it is that we do not have
the sense or the institutions to talk about it and put in place policies that
protect everyone else ... we have in place policies that make all of this
look right, proper, productive sustainable and critics of it as groundless
and baseless.

People are not and were not paying attention to what our system has
really stood for. We have gotten around to calling basic principles of
fairness and sustainability names like unAmerican or socialist.

When our government began a policy of taxing citizens to support it the
accepted and understood policy was that those who benefitted the most
from our system paid the most. That is the only way things work. All
of our problems including this one of not being able to plan cities
sensibly and fairly in a way that supports and sustatains all of us in
a reasonable way falls out of the failure to evolve and refine this one
basic tenet.

Until people get the high-level values right, quibbling about every minor
breakdown is going to be exponentially more frequent and more difficult
because we do not have the basis of a real form of civilization ... we have
feudal economic fiefdoms that fight their wars at the expense of all the
people who don't have the luck or ability to live behind the castle walls
under the protection of some billionaire or global corporation.

Like this comment
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 17, 2016 at 6:29 pm

I have seen some test building of this nature. The problem is in a place like Palo Alto where to put them? It's a shame industry has taken most of the space out by the bay. That seems like the natural place to put high density multi-unit place like this. This is all I would have needed just out of college to either go to school or work to save some money and decide to stick it out in the Bay Area or go elsewhere.

Single people now make up a third of New York City’s households and with the average rent for a studio at $2,600, the city responded in 2012 by announcing a competition to design units smaller than the minimum size of 400 square feet. Mimi Hoang and Eric Bunge of nArchitects won with their ‘My Micro NY’ proposal (now called Carmel Place). Web Link

NYC's micro-modular, Minecraft-era building rises in 1 month

Web Link

6 people like this
Posted by Nanette S. Stringer
a resident of another community
on Jul 22, 2016 at 9:03 am

As a professional with an office at 2600 El Camino Real since 2002, and a lawyer practicing in Palo Alto for the past 33 years, I feel moved to add a comment here. While I agree with the general comments that "change can be good" and that the building in fact is unattractive and out of place, it has nevertheless long been a wonderful small community of professionals who are devoted to serving the community and who have enjoyed working with each other over a very long period of time.

It is true that solo practitioners and professionals with thriving small practices are essentially being driven out of Palo Alto and the clients they serve through the apparently conscious decision to build only large-firm office space. There is very little affordable, good quality small-office space left in Palo Alto and few if any of the 2600 El Camino tenants have been able to find adequate office space here; most of us are dispersing north and south of the city itself and the clients we serve.

It is hard to describe adequately the emotional toll that is being taken on those of us who are essentialy being forced to leave the community that we love and that we have served our entire professional lives. Presumably we will all land somewhere and be able to continue to work with the people we love (Palo Altans and environs!); but it is also entirely true that Palo Alto government and developers do not seem to care about providing space for us any more within this city.

8 people like this
Posted by BalancedCarefulConsideration
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 22, 2016 at 10:22 am

BalancedCarefulConsideration is a registered user.

@Nanette S. Stringer:
This is very much the situation we - who are tenants of 550 Hamilton Ave. in downtown Palo Alto- were also facing a month or two ago, as developers planned to tear down the building (which also houses many solo practitioners and small businesses that serve the community) in order to erect a huge, multi-use structure. Very fortunately we were able to come together as a tenant group and appeal to the Palo Alto City Council very early in the process, to at least stall out/stop the plans for now (and hopefully if resurrected the PA City Council will again join with us to ensure a significantly downsized and modified project ). I have loved living in Palo Alto for the past two decades-plus. However the changes of late in Palo Alto do make me want to flee to a more staid, sleepy, and affordable town.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Anne Le Ziblatt, formerly of Tamarine and Bong Su, is back with a Vietnamese noodle bar in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 3,229 views

Local Pols Debate Climate
By Sherry Listgarten | 10 comments | 2,643 views

Letting Christmas Linger
By Cheryl Bac | 5 comments | 1,395 views

The E.R.A. – no real equality yet. Why not?
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 858 views

Truth Matters (and so does good beer)
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 683 views