News

Hope fades for housing at Fry's site

Despite shifting plans and new setbacks, Palo Alto commits more funding for Ventura plan

The site at 340 Portage Ave., which includes Fry's electronics, is at the heart of the Ventura area for which Palo Alto is now creating a concept area plan. Photo by Veronica Weber.

With its ambitious effort to revitalize the Ventura neighborhood in danger of faltering, Palo Alto officials agreed on Monday to raise the budget and lower the expectations for the complex planning process.

The city is now in the midst of putting together the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a document that will lay out a new vision for a roughly 50-acre section of the Ventura neighborhood bounded by El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, the Caltrain tracks and Park Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan, which articulates Palo Alto's long-term land use vision, specifically calls for reimagining the area "as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek improvements and an interconnected street grid."

At the heart of the site is 340 Portage Ave., a large parcel that is anchored by Fry's Electronics and that city officials have identified as an ideal site for future housing.

Yet plans to redevelop what's known as the "Fry's site" — as well as the broader area — have run into some trouble of late. Despite a December 2020 deadline set by a state grant, the planning effort has slowed to a crawl over this spring, thanks in part to disagreements between the city and its consultant, Perkins + Will. The city has only recently resolved its dispute with the consultant over its responsibilities and compensation.

The Working Group, a 14-member stakeholder panel that is helping to put the plan together, hasn't met since April and some members have voiced frustrations with the process and are now calling for changes in how meetings are conducted.

Concurrently, the city's consultants had recently determined that the Fry's building, a former cannery, is "historically significant," potentially complicating any redevelopment plans.

And The Sobrato Organization, which owns the Portage Avenue property, has signaled to the city that it has no desire to demolish or renovate the building, adding another blow to the city's grand plans.

Despite these fresh setbacks, the City Council reluctantly agreed by a 4-3 vote to add $367,112 to its contract with Perkins + Will contract and to extend the planning process by another 11 months, with a goal of finishing it by fall 2021.

Mayor Eric Filseth and council members Alison Cormack and Greg Tanaka dissented and argued that the council should stay within its means, even if that means a less robust planning process and fewer planning alternatives on the final menu of options.

Even those who supported the expanded contract weren't particularly thrilled about where the project currently stands.

"We're 10 months into the project, we're about a year behind and we want to almost double the budget," Councilman Tom DuBois said.

Planning Director Jonathan Lait told the council that Sobrato's position on the Fry's site reflects today's economic climate. He cited the area's hot construction market, high labor costs and returns on rents as factors in Sobrato's position on the Fry's building.

Lait said he has met with a representative from Sobrato, who indicated that "the conditions at the moment are not ripe" for the type of development that the city was hoping to see at the Portage Avenue site. It indicated that housing at the Fry's site would not be economical at the heights and densities that Palo Alto has historically tolerated for residential projects, Lait said (Sobrato did not respond to the Weekly's inquiry on Monday).

"It doesn't make economic sense to redevelop it in a way that would yield the kind of units we're talking about," Lait told the council.

The Fry's site isn't just at the heart of the North Ventura plan; it is also a central component of Palo Alto's overall vision for housing. The city's Housing Element identifies the Fry's site as one that could accommodate up to 249 units.

It's now unclear how the city would be able to achieve that many new units while also preserving the Fry's building, Lait said.

Even so, some welcomed the idea of preserving the Fry's site. Councilwoman Lydia Kou argued that it's important to honor the legacy of Thomas Foon Chew, who bought the site in 1918 and built a cannery that became the region's largest employer.

Former Mayor Karen Holman, a longtime proponent of historic preservation, disputed the idea that historic preservation and housing production are necessarily incompatible. The building, she suggested, could be repurposed without being entirely redeveloped.

Other cities, Holman said, have turned their industrial buildings into modern hubs. Palo Alto can similarly create places that contain brew pubs, art galleries, wine tasting rooms and other amenities.

Vice Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilwoman Liz Kniss both supported investing more money in the Ventura planning process, even under the changing circumstances. DuBois and Kou were somewhat more reluctant but joined them in directing staff to bring back a new contract with Perkins + Will.

Filseth made the case for staying within the original budget. The planning process, he noted, was up until now funded largely with grant money and a contribution from Sobrato. Adding funding to the planning process would require the city to dip, for the first time, into the general fund. And it would be doing so at a time when the project's goals seem less likely to be achieved than in the past.

"There is such a thing as giving a startup too much money," Filseth said, in making the case not to add another contract.

The council was more united about the prospect of removing the concrete channel at Matadero Creek and restoring the creek to its natural state. It unanimously approved a $93,000 contract with the firm Water Resources Associates Environmental Consultants to explore the idea of converting the channel into an open space corridor.

Lait said the study will consider both the prospect of enhancing the existing channel by building recreational amenities around it and the more ambitious idea of removing the concrete and converting Matadero into a natural creek.

The council generally agreed that the plan is still worth doing, even if a change is unlikely to arrive any time soon. Cormack said she feels the city has lost "a big component of this that is driving urgency."

"I understand we committed to doing this in the Comprehensive Plan (and) we probably need to keep going," Cormack said. "But it's not clear to me it will achieve the things many people in the community have been hoping for in the medium-run."

---

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

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

25 people like this
Posted by Don't be EVIL Companies
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2019 at 2:11 am

"It’s now unclear how the city would be able to achieve that many new units while also preserving the Fry’s building, Lait said. "

It's unclear how the city would be able to achieve that many new units without the wizards of Hogwarts to magically expand the infrastructure.

The City owes the South a huge back log of amenities and open space, they are not equitable on both sides of town. This has become a problem as amenities in parts north have become all but inaccessible due to traffic.

The Fry's site is walkable to a lot of South Palo Alto that needs amenities, especially for our youth. We should reduce the amount of office space to reduce the housing obligation, incentivize converting office space to housing, and remember there is more to civic life than serving companies' short-term entry-level workforce housing needs. (Those entry-level workers need ingress and egress from neighborhoods, too, and you can only do so much with that area without help from Hogwarts.)

Minimum the plan should include a city swimming pool like Rinconada for kids on this side of town who can less afford a country club than the other.


28 people like this
Posted by Stop Funding Dumb Ideas
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 20, 2019 at 6:46 am

North Ventura is suffering from ever worsening traffic because we keep trying to make it "better." Four little houses are currently being replaced by a huge complex. Other major office buildings are going up on Park and a massive housing project is approved for El Camino to replace the bike store.

One expansion on the AOL site (now Cloudera) was scrapped by its owner when his own study revealed it would add to traffic delays along Oregon. The city could save a lot of its time and our money by admitting that these current lofty plans to further "upgrade" Ventura will actually make its traffic far worse and harm other parts of the city too. This seems to have been ignored by all the rah-rah city planners and it's not mentioned even once in the article above.

We should spend funds to fix traffic in this town, not on making it worse.


11 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 20, 2019 at 9:29 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

What a disturbing meeting to watch. Lydia Kou - who I generally like - thought that the Chinese element should be honored so save the building. It made her feel good. That is similar to McCormack who wants to gut CUB so she can show her friends. Holman is no help here. These are people that we elected to office to function in the best interest of the city and what we ended up with is a bunch of people who are busy satisfying their personal feelings. Meanwhile the "consultant" has been running the show while the guys are doing what? If this is the key development area for this year then who is paying attention except the paid consultant? Who appears to be the talker at meetings and not listening to the community participants. Sorry Ventura - you deserve better.


39 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2019 at 9:39 am

"I hate to say I told you so, but, I told you so."

Here we go again. You can be sure that developers are going to go all out to make sure that more jobs are created on that land than housing units are built, and that it will make the jobs/housing (im)balance worse, and, increase auto traffic. That site should be zoned for 100% housing and parks.

-No more office space!-


34 people like this
Posted by George
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 20, 2019 at 10:29 am

If we're not going to be building more housing to even out Palo Alto's 4 jobs for every 1 working resident, then we need to start evicting businesses NOW. Less jobs in Palo Alto means LESS TRAFFIC! The problem is all of the people driving into Palo Alto to work. If there were less people coming into the city daily and ballooning its daytime population, then traffic would be better!


25 people like this
Posted by Not historic
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2019 at 10:44 am

Business as usual for Holman - mention the word historic and of she goes. I am surprised we did not hear "design contest" and "iconic*. Nothing really historic at the frys site, just old.


17 people like this
Posted by palo alto
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 20, 2019 at 11:17 am

"Hope fades for housing at Fry's site"...but of course blow another $367,112 of tax payer's money for a "study"...what a waste!

Hope it's never built. This place is an overcrowded traffic filled wasteland anyway


22 people like this
Posted by Mama was right
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 20, 2019 at 12:36 pm

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "Mama always sad, 'Stupid is as stupid does.'"

The project is a year behind, the key stakeholders are pulling out, the committee members are fed up with the process, the contractor is holding you up - and PACC votes to double the budget.

Yep, Mama was right.


26 people like this
Posted by Turn Fry's Into A Chinese Cultural Center
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 20, 2019 at 1:02 pm

Since the Fry's building is a historical Palo Alto landmark with Chinese heritage, it could be turned into a Chinese-American cultural center & museum.

The Chinese population in increasing in Palo Alto & the surrounding areas. To acknowledge their vast heritage & contributions to the local housing market should not be overlooked..


16 people like this
Posted by Sam Tyler
a resident of another community
on Aug 20, 2019 at 1:41 pm

This is the Palo Alto way. Grudgingly acknowledge the housing crisis (which was created by post-Prop 13 policies throughout the Bay Area that promote commercial growth and discourage housing since "housing cost cities money") but make sure you create a process that collapses under its own weight.


28 people like this
Posted by Carol
a resident of Mayfield
on Aug 20, 2019 at 1:59 pm

More housing = less traffic and stronger local businesses. When will people figure that out, possibly only after every single retail establishment on Cal Ave closes and there is gridlock because everyone who works here doesn't LIVE here.

You need PEOPLE to support retail and create community. Go 10 stories, limit parking, improve the bicycle infrastructure, provide TDM programs, and construct loads of small-unit housing there. Let's get REAL, before the state forces Council's hand - which is coming.....


17 people like this
Posted by Stop Funding Dumb Ideas
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 20, 2019 at 2:09 pm

Sorry Carol, but more housing equals more traffic. Even the City of Palo Alto planning department admits this.

And when you limit parking, you're just forcing people to park in front of someone else's home. It's a giant problem already plaguing parts of Palo Alto.


14 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2019 at 2:24 pm

Posted by Stop Funding Dumb Ideas, a resident of Crescent Park

>> Sorry Carol, but more housing equals more traffic. Even the City of Palo Alto planning department admits this.

Of course more housing results in more traffic. Web Link But, it results in less traffic than office space and far less traffic than (non-"local") retail. And, it adds more housing, something that political forces insist we do. So, I'm still in favor of putting housing on the Fry's site. 100% housing. Because, if that doesn't happen, somehow, office space will be developed at Fry's. "Guaranteed."

>> And when you limit parking, you're just forcing people to park in front of someone else's home. It's a giant problem already plaguing parts of Palo Alto.

Agreed. New housing should have fully-sized parking. Just look around almost every apartment complex around. Massive overflow street parking. A couple of those parking studies are comically bad-- look at lot, discover that not every slot (allocated per apartment) is in use, and, ignore all the people parking in the street for various reasons (need extra parking slots, visitors and guests, people who have slots but park in the street for faster access, etc.)


7 people like this
Posted by commonsense
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 20, 2019 at 2:28 pm

Haha. Gotta love it. Damn the developer!...so let's take a commercial building built by a developer that creates traffic and preserve it in the name of Chinese heritage. Haha. It's a giant shed! And only 250 units on the whole site? That would be a waste of a great opportunity to add much more housing and create a new, community serving neighborhood. Will be fun to watch this one over the coming decades.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 20, 2019 at 3:56 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

People keep talking about added traffic. If you build housing for the people who work in PA then they can bike to work. That is the whole point of putting housing in the designated traffic zones in the city - ECR, Alma. If you have a number of towers then you can designate each by apartment size as BMR, Teachers, city staff. Another tower for the hi-tech people who will go to FB or Google. If the people work in PA then that reduces the traffic on the freeway.
You have the ideal response to the requirements that are being imposed on cities to add housing. So why are you dithering about it? You are conjuring all of these manufactured responses so you do not have to make a decision.

If you are holding out for any decision on CUB/PAUSD property then don't hold your breathe. Then you will see a hail storm for gutting the educational system of the city. Say good by to your political aspirations. And that includes PAUSD people who think the school population is going to shrink and therefore add housing to PAUSD property. If your name ever appears on a ballot then you can forget your political aspirations.


7 people like this
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2019 at 4:05 pm

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

I’ve posted a version of this before: Matt Sonsini the CEO of Sobrato, grew up with his mother in Evergreen Park and went to Gunn and would certainly know the neighborhood in Ventura and all that history – – he went to high school with people who attended the actual Ventura elementary school — I.e. people of color — Matt the son of a genius multimillionaire and married into a billionaire family — so someone with some clout and purchase should reach out to him and offer him a walk-through. And all these ludacris consultants and hand-picked head- nodders can go jump in the creek , and pull weeds, like Drekmeier.


22 people like this
Posted by No to development
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2019 at 4:20 pm

We need parks and open space and community centers in this ever more crowded city. What we don't need is more office space and pod homes and obstructed views. Life is already awful here. Why make it worse.

So great keep Frys or turn the whole space into a park (the city is 100 acres behind on park space) and community spaces. Just don't cover it with thousands of jobs and hundreds of homes that will make life worse for everyone.

Remember there are limits to all growth in a natural system. We are already in one of the most polluted areas of the US. We are water issues, clean air issues, endangered species issues, and severe quality of life issues, building more doesn't help with this at all.

Palo Alto needs to explore establishing a maximum population limit - which we may well already be exceeding- and then work to achieve it. Who cares if we are the epicenter of the tech world, I'd rather live in a nice place.


5 people like this
Posted by Wishful thinking
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 20, 2019 at 5:42 pm

No more tax dollars spent on this wasteful process. The owner doesn't want to lose money building housing. Ok then. The owner can't be forced to lose money.

The city doesn't owe that area this or that. Wow. Entitlement? Build it yourself w your own money.


22 people like this
Posted by Step Up To The Plate PA & Show Some Humanity
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 20, 2019 at 6:46 pm

How about turning the Fry's complex into a city homeless shelter with shower facilities, a laundromat, dining hall with kitchen & separate sleeping dormitories for women with children, single males & single women?

There is plenty of square footage available and Park Boulevard is easily accesible via Caltrains, ECR or the California Avenue subway beneath Alma.

Social Services & healthcare could also be provided via a joint Palo Alto-Santa Clara County program.

The money is there & fundraising is also another possibility to renew a portion of the funding requirements.

It is time for Palo Altans to show some humanity.


17 people like this
Posted by Samuel L.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 am

Samuel L. is a registered user.

Why is the city spending money on developing a plan to develop an area where the main stakeholder has no plans to develop? That would be like me taking measurements of my neighbor's yard to see how big of a pool he can install.


7 people like this
Posted by Commercial RE Agent
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 21, 2019 at 9:55 am

> ...the main stakeholder has no plans to develop?

If the offer is good, he should consider selling the property.

I have 2-3 Chinese investors from overseas who are interested in purchasing it & they are willing to offer top dollar providing they can develop the area as they please. It is their understanding that the CPA is always amenable providing that it also benefit financially from the concept with the minimum of resident or citizen complaints. An administrator mentioned off-record that filling the coffers is always a municipal priority & that they are willing to work with those who wish to improve the city's appearance & revenues.


8 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 21, 2019 at 11:10 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

This whole narrative sounds like a set-up in which the city portrays itself with no options. We have been talking about housing for ages. The property is probably totally owned with a very low tax value to the city. Eminent Domain trades on the tax value. The city has been busy kicking other people out and plans to do so in the future in the noble name of housing dictated by the state and Caltrain improvements. Suggest you all quit playing around here and trying to provide a narrative in which the city is a hostage. The city needs to address the housing requirement and this is the place to do it. And selling it to a Chinese company is not the right way to do it. Where are our local builders? WE have some of the biggest builders in this location. Butler is doing a great job in RWC. Get over here Butler.


5 people like this
Posted by PhilB
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 21, 2019 at 11:18 am

PhilB is a registered user.

Commercial RE Agent is proposing that "overseas" investors be allowed to ignore all local zoning rules or other City policies. Does anyone think that the City will allow that? And if the City does somehow have a bout of temporary insanity, why not allow current property owner Sobrato the privilege?

@ Commercial RE Agent - no thanks from this resident.


9 people like this
Posted by Money Talks In PA
a resident of Ventura
on Aug 21, 2019 at 12:28 pm

> Does anyone think that the City will allow that?

The City often makes adjustments & changes in land-use policy providing it is a lucrative option to do so.

Unlike those of regular or modest means, the wealthy have their way with the City of Palo Alto.

It comes with the territory & the pocketbook.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2019 at 12:42 pm

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> This whole narrative sounds like a set-up in which the city portrays itself with no options. We have been talking about housing for ages. The property is probably totally owned with a very low tax value to the city. Eminent Domain trades on the tax value. The city has been busy kicking other people out and plans to do so in the future in the noble name of housing dictated by the state and Caltrain improvements.

The city uses eminent domain to acquire the land at tax-assessed value? Works for me, but, I find it highly unlikely.

If that does happen, then, sure, let's build a bunch of mid-market RM-40 condos, a bunch of BMR RM-40 for-rent apartments mixed in, and some parkland on the southeast edge nearest Boulware Park. Along with a small plaza and a plaque for the cannery with some relic canning machinery if we can find any. Some luxury apartments nearest Cal Ave. would make the whole thing "pencil out". I hope there is a way to amortize the additions to forestall ABAG/State-of-California griping for a while?


10 people like this
Posted by HonestDave
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 21, 2019 at 3:22 pm

This is the best news I've heard in years! This building needs to be saved. It was the first industrial building in town and the largest employer up until the launch of Silicon Valley. With any luck it will be the last industrial building standing, come the next Dot Com bubble burst. DOT BOMB 2.0!

I am so very tired of these new arrivals who want to tear everything down and rebuild Palo Alto in their plastic and soulless image.

It ain't over until it's over. Old Palo Altans are gonna fight tooth and nail to preserve what little is left.


9 people like this
Posted by Don't be EVIL Companies
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2019 at 3:38 pm

@ Carol,
It sounds like you would far prefer living in San Francisco. That would be far cheaper and safer for the rest of us than your pushing to bulldoze Palo Alto and replace it with SF mini-me.


9 people like this
Posted by Don't be EVIL Companies
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2019 at 3:44 pm

"The city doesn't owe"

Actually, the City does owe the residents open space/parks for development, it's in the code. They are very, very behind, especially on the south side of town.

This is where residents could probably make some headway by suing the City for it and in the process, getting some more holistic analyses of the impact of development.


10 people like this
Posted by Smizz
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 21, 2019 at 5:39 pm

Gotta love the city council and the people in this thread. While it’s a crumbling dump of an electronics store no one has cared about its historic value. But now that there’s a proposed housing site...


12 people like this
Posted by Dr Jose Takamoto III
a resident of Los Altos
on Aug 21, 2019 at 7:22 pm

Dr Jose Takamoto III is a registered user.

There is a petition online to turn the historic cannery into an arts and culture center. It would be a tourist attraction for Palo Alto.


6 people like this
Posted by III
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 22, 2019 at 8:22 am

III is a registered user.

I thought the land under frys was polluted.
That is why almost 10-15yrs ago, a similar proposal was dropped.
Guess land value gone up so much, maybe the developers
will pay for the clean up. ASSUMING THEY CLEAN IT UP.....
As to traffic. I suppose is another non event. The streets are
clogged with cars trying to get into that area currently....
What is another 2000 cars or more per day.
And kids trying to get to a school from that island
trapped by El Camino, Alma, Pagemill, Oregon Expressway.
Cars going 45mph or more. Another non event.
BUILD BUILD BUILD I guess is the cry...
III


4 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 22, 2019 at 8:39 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The building is not up to spec and current earth quake standards. You all better figure out who is going to spend the money to make that happen. Not the city of PA. We have other historical buildings that are languishing for lack of funds to bring them up to spec. It is one thing to think up ideas to address emotional resolutions to situation. It is another to bring these ideas to fruition with the required funding. We still have not heard from the owner - I don't think. However selling the building to a foreign investor who will do what ever they want is not in the cards here.
Meanwhile the city of San Jose is being torn apart - the old portion - for new Google buildings.


2 people like this
Posted by Simple Solutions
a resident of Ventura
on Aug 22, 2019 at 2:07 pm

> Since the Fry's building is a historical Palo Alto landmark with Chinese heritage, it could be turned into a Chinese-American cultural center & museum.

> There is a petition online to turn the historic cannery into an arts and culture center. It would be a tourist attraction for Palo Alto.

> I have 2-3 Chinese investors from overseas who are interested in purchasing it & they are willing to offer top dollar providing they can develop the area as they please.

> How about turning the Fry's complex into a city homeless shelter with shower facilities, a laundromat, dining hall with kitchen & separate sleeping dormitories for women with children, single males & single women?

>

>


2 people like this
Posted by HonestDave
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 23, 2019 at 7:04 am

Let's see some actual proof that the building is unsafe and "not up to earthquake standards."

We've had others claim that the building is rotting and ready to fall down, without any proof of course.

I know that some believe that their lies will win the day. Let's hope we're better than that.

Why lie?


2 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 23, 2019 at 9:51 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The city manager just dictated the life span of a building under normal use. He used that to justify what ever plans they have for CUB. Works for me - applies to all buildings in PA that are not being replaced and/or refurbished to upgrade the infrastructure of the building.

Go no further than Moffett Field where all of the older commercial buildings have been sold, raised, and replaced with new buildings. That is your YAHOO / Google, etc that replaced older LM buildings that were no longer financially sound. Tear it down and build a new building.

How about the original site of the PAMF? Still one building remaining that the historical group has not been able to put to good use for the local community. We have other buildings in the downtown area that are vacant waiting for some type of funds to make them useful.

Honest Dave lives in Old Palo Alto. How many buildings in old Palo Alto have been raised, or fully upgraded to spec.?
Anyone in PA who is now either upgrading their house or getting it ready to sell already knows what is required to make it up to spec and "insurable" under CA law.

This is a commercial site and is under more strict laws to keep it a safe place.
De Anza now has to reconsider their popular theatre and parking structure because they are no longer current. They are going to shut down the theatre and re-purpose it.
Can you not understand the reality of the status of the building and what is required to repurpose it? Your PACC members who are growing sentimental are in the business of real estate requirements specific to CA laws. So why do they not understand that those laws apply to all commercial buildings.


5 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 23, 2019 at 10:20 am

I guess I missed the memo explaining this. Just because that old building was used for something historic once-upon-a-time, why would that dictate that it can't be removed and replaced with, e.g. a small plaza and a plaque showing what was once there? I've seen that plenty of times.

My cynicism about this is unlimited at this point. Somehow, someone will put something job-intensive there, rather than use it as housing, and, we will go further into housing "debt". The "historic" thing is just a smokescreen, even if some people are suckered by it. Just like using sales tax for transit.

-No more office space.-


12 people like this
Posted by Christopher Linn
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 23, 2019 at 9:12 pm

"Councilwoman Lydia Kou argued that it's important to honor the legacy of Thomas Foon Chew, who bought the site in 1918 and built a cannery that became the region's largest employer."

I cannot believe my eyes. Preserve the legacy of a single-story wooden cannery built 100 years ago? I'm all for some amount of local historical preservation, but the Fry's building is not that. It's laughable to entertain that argument against the critical need for high density housing in every Bay Area community. Fry's is the perfect location for high-density housing, being near high-speed transit and a thriving commercial district.

I want housing. For teachers, police officers, and maybe even -- call me crazy -- for my children, who are overwhelmed by the high cost of living here.

I agree with Sonja Trauss: “You have to support building, even when it’s a type of building you hate,” she said. “Is it ugly? Get over yourself. Is it low-income housing? Get over yourself. Is it luxury housing? Get over yourself. We really need everything right now.”


6 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2019 at 2:47 pm

Posted by Christopher Linn, a resident of Midtown

>> I agree with Sonja Trauss: “You have to support building, even when it’s a type of building you hate,” she said. “Is it ugly? Get over yourself. Is it low-income housing? Get over yourself. Is it luxury housing? Get over yourself. We really need everything right now.”

I disagree. We have -plenty- of luxury housing. We only need low-income, below-market, middle-class, etc housing now. "The market" has taken care of all of our luxury housing needs and more.

I agree with you about preserving the Fry's building. A small monument with real information about the history of the cannery would do far more for preserving the history than preserving the Fry's building as it is now.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 24, 2019 at 4:30 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

For those who think that the building will sit there as is then you will have to deal with OSHA, the insurance company, and any and all state agencies that are involved with making sure that and facility that is commercial will be up to current standards and specs. Take the building down with a good set of photos to put in the lobby in a building then you will be good to go.

Oh wait - the property taxes will go up to current market value. Is this what this is all about? Someone has had a good ride here.

I am sure that the city fathers are well aware of the requirements being imposed on all cities - at least the Legal Department does. And I am sure that the real estate industry is well aware of all of the ins and outs here regarding taxes and trade-offs.

And making this a non-profit set of buildings will not be appreciated - we are having that same discussion on how taxes are applied to SU. If we are going to fill the buildings with teachers, city workers, and service providers then we want to make sure that we are getting the taxes that pays their salaries. Isn't that the way this is suppose to work?

Strangely enough it does not work that way but this time we will really zoom in and break up the old patterns that are not working. If the school system needs money then it will get money.


Like this comment
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 25, 2019 at 10:20 am

Although my heart is for more subsidized housing in Palo Alto my mind is not. It takes too much money because of prices to develop subsidized housing in Palo Alto now going for 700k a unit. Ditto most of the Bay Area. Meanwhile, on the battle front, the San Jose city council has been handed the San Jose Property Rights Initiative: Boot rent control out of San Jose lock stock and barrel. It's time California grew up.

George Drysdale initiator and educator


Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 25, 2019 at 10:38 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

My understanding is that the state is going to help pay for subsidized housing. It cannot go around and sue cities for non-compliance to meeting their housing goals and take money away from cities as a penalty then expect them to come up with the money for these projects. Does anyone who work for the CA gov have any accounting credentials? Do they just make up this type of nonsense?
We took advantage of the street re-labeling so it is time to take advantage of the funds being provided for housing - and for our requirements that is teachers, city staff, service providers, old people residences. People who are working in the city, paying taxes, and providing value to the city. We cannot do this without them. They are our citizens.


3 people like this
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 25, 2019 at 10:43 am

"We have -plenty- of luxury housing. We only need low-income, below-market, middle-class, etc housing now. "The market" has taken care of all of our luxury housing needs and more."

Absolute nonsense. If there were plenty of "luxury" housing, then why are the lower income and middle class areas being priced up? Now that you can find $1MM+ housing for sale in East Palo Alto, it's now luxury housing? I'm sure all those folks in Ventura think they are in "luxury housing," right?

Where do you think gentrification comes from? It comes from people who can't find enough "luxury" housing. And WTF does "luxury" housing mean anyway? A 2000 sq ft house on a tiny lot in Palo Alto is hardly "luxury" - it's overpriced because there's not enough inventory up-and-down the market.

And as for Fry's - this is ridiculous. I find it ironic that people who want to preserve a "historical" building because some Cantonese guy had a cannery there have no problems throwing around casual racism against Chinese from the mainland who supposedly are buying up properties (though apparently not at the rate that Stanford is).



9 people like this
Posted by PST
a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 25, 2019 at 4:57 pm

PST is a registered user.

This may be the last and best opportunity to add more housing in PA. I say build nothing but housing, some open space and maybe a community center. No retail, no business. Change whatever regulations you need to such as setbacks, height and build as many units as you can. Lease the land under the houses through a land trust and allow people to purchase at well below market rates. When it comes time to move the owner must sell at below market rates. The land lease continues. This assures the housing remains affordable forever. The one time money needed to launch this effort would be easily "affordable" to FB, Sobrato, Google and many others in the area.


2 people like this
Posted by Most Entertaining
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 25, 2019 at 11:23 pm

It is most entertaining declaration if we call Fry's building a historic site:)) Who said our city leaders don't have sense of humor. Has the council actually looked at this building from the parking lot!! I can see tourists from all over the world coming to line up to visit and take pictures of this historical monstrosity!


5 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 26, 2019 at 9:50 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The PAW has titled this article with a defeating title. Like do not bother - let the "experts" deal with this. So far I have not seen anything that suggests that this has been dealt with. The PA Historical group does not have any money to devote to this. And no Chinese company is going to buy this and turn it into a factory. Because that would totally screw the tax base for this property. We are seen a lot of comments about the tax base on properties in transition right now.
So if the city has not done anything than this is an open issue and the main requirements for the city right now is housing and tax base. And you can be sure that any decision will be questioned and the tax base will be questioned.
We are now in tax base watch. Tired of the Amazon's, et all who are taking the city to the cleaners.


8 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2019 at 10:02 am

Posted by PST, a resident of South of Midtown

>> This may be the last and best opportunity to add more housing in PA. I say build nothing but housing, some open space and maybe a community center. No retail, no business.

Agreed.

>> Change whatever regulations you need to such as setbacks, height and build as many units as you can.

Don't need height. Develop the site to New York City density with 4-story RM-30 townhouses. Or, if you insist, even more people with smaller RM-40 apartment/condos. Either way, you don't height, and, 4-story/50-foot construction is much less expensive per square foot.


12 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 26, 2019 at 10:41 am

Me2
While there is some overlapping competition among different income groups for housing, housing economics is not driven by simplistic supply and demand. The upper quintile of earners competes within their market segment with modest overlap to the second quintile and little effect below that.
More importantly, new high income tech jobs create four other jobs, mostly at lower income levels, Web Link. It’s those workers who are most in need due to having to compete for a limited and shrinking supply of modest income housing. As we’ve seen recently in MV and elsewhere, we are even losing lots of market rate modest income housing to redevelopment for higher profit, high income units.
Consequently, our biggest local and regional challenge is providing the massive amount of low and moderate income housing needed to keep up with the massive job growth being driven by big tech. And in today’s regional market those units will need subsidies of some sort to get built.


6 people like this
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 26, 2019 at 12:33 pm

Fred Balin is a registered user.

Questions:

1. Isn't (or wasn't) the Fry's site a non-conforming commercial use, where the underlying zoning is actually residentially, and the commercial use is in the last days, months, or years of amortization?

2. Isn't Fry's currently operating under the balance of the second of two five-year lease extensions?

3. Why are the Fry's shelves in the "IT" area (hard drives, networking equipment, cables area) so empty?

Anyone know?


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 26, 2019 at 1:00 pm

^ Don't know about #1 or #2, but for #3 even I have succumbed to shopping online.
I was a heavy Fry's customer in the past. Guess it's self-defeating for a store to sell
the items that make the store obsolete.


6 people like this
Posted by Family Friendly
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 26, 2019 at 1:01 pm

"Why are the Fry's shelves in the "IT" area (hard drives, networking equipment, cables area) so empty?"

It's a failing business, being crushed by Amazon and other online retailers. Inventory costs money. I recently went there on a Saturday looking for light bulbs, and found neither light bulbs nor customers nor cashiers. An old-west-themed ghost town.


7 people like this
Posted by margaret heath
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 26, 2019 at 1:31 pm

To follow up on Fred Ballin's post above, my recollection is that the current owner of the Fry's site bought the property AFTER the council decided that commercial uses on this site would be amortized and revert to the underlying zoning for housing only to coincide with the expiration of the Fry's lease.

That the current owner has now stated they do not intend to develop the site at the present time gives the city the gift of time to come up with a careful and thoughtful plan for housing without rushing and pressure from the owner to add non-conforming offices.

At such time as the red hot construction market slows down and the owner wants to develop the site, the coordinated area plan will ready. If the owner no longer wishes to develop the site for housing as per the conditions when they bought the site, they have the option to sell the property to someone who will.


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2019 at 8:28 am

"While there is some overlapping competition among different income groups for housing, housing economics is not driven by simplistic supply and demand. The upper quintile of earners competes within their market segment with modest overlap to the second quintile and little effect below that."

Define upper quintile of the market? What's the income level? What defines "luxury?" If what you say is true, then there would never be any gentrification. East Palo Alto wouldn't have $1MM+ houses for sale. When there's not enough housing at a certain segment, buyers will go down market, which drives prices up at what was previously "moderate or low income housing."

Atherton too high? Buy Palo Alto.
Palo Alto too high? Buy Mountain View.
Mountain View too high? Buy Sunnyvale or Santa Clara.
Sunnyvale and Santa Clara too high? Buy East Palo Alto.

That's what's happening.

That tells me there's not enough inventory at the high end and the upper middle of the market as well as the lower levels, which is driving people downmarket and bidding those properties up. We're losing "modest income housing" BECAUSE there's not enough inventory at the high end.

"Consequently, our biggest local and regional challenge is providing the massive amount of low and moderate income housing needed to keep up with the massive job growth being driven by big tech. And in today’s regional market those units will need subsidies of some sort to get built."

The biggest local and regional challenge is housing IN GENERAL - not just specific low income housing. BMRs are bad policy - it drives out the middle class. The so-called "upper quintile" will just go down and bid up mid-market housing and the small population of lucky low-income folks get their BMR. Meanwhile, the middle class gets booted to Manteca or Modesto.

You need housing built up and down the market. It's nonsense to say that we have enough so-called "luxury" housing and just need to focus on "modest income" housing.


12 people like this
Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 27, 2019 at 9:58 am

Allen Akin is a registered user.

Here's a good explanation of housing market segmentation from an advocate of more building. "One reason this debate is so frustrating is that Econ 101 is not the right class for housing policy. Housing is different from other goods and services in a number of very important and mostly well-understood ways. And because of this difference, housing is not generally covered in undergraduate economics courses. Housing is *advanced* economics." In general, the conclusion is that solving a housing shortage requires building at affordable levels, not at luxury levels.

Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 27, 2019 at 11:31 am

Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> You need housing built up and down the market. It's nonsense to say that we have enough so-called "luxury" housing and just need to focus on "modest income" housing.

There are now a number of good books out there which explain gentrification better than I can. Suffice it say that you are perceiving certain facts correctly, but, "upside down". Same picture, but, you aren't seeing the picture with the correct orientation. Please study gentrification a bit more.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 27, 2019 at 1:55 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Thank you Margaret - there is a legal stipulation concerning the property and resolution of disposition. So that is how this is going to go - if the current owner does not want to build houses then they will be required to sell to someone who will. And that someone could be SU?


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2019 at 3:54 pm

"One reason this debate is so frustrating is that Econ 101 is not the right class for housing policy. "

Supply and demand is a fundamental principle, regardless of how "advanced" economics is. Tell me how Palo Alto pricing has grown dramatically above and beyond inflation even for properties that have not had any work?

Is it because of magic?

Or maybe it's this "advanced economics" that you're touting. Please tell me more about how "Econ 101 doesn't apply" if you're so smart. Arrogance is not enough of an explanation of why you think you're right.

"There are now a number of good books out there which explain gentrification better than I can. "

So... you're telling me that you can't explain gentrification? You know what they say - if you can't teach it, you really don't understand it.


8 people like this
Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 27, 2019 at 4:34 pm

Allen Akin is a registered user.

@Me 2: Those words are from the author of the article, not me, so please read the article carefully for more thorough answers than I can give you.

Not trying to step on @Anon's toes, but perhaps one of the books @Anon has in mind is "How to Kill a City" by Peter Moskowitz. It was recommended to me, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.


17 people like this
Posted by Family Friendly
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2019 at 5:56 pm

We go round and round arguing about how to "solve" the housing "crisis." The solutions fall into two categories:

1. Build lots of offices and high-end housing, which would only serve to drive prices up higher by making more people desire to move here.
2. Build lots of low-end housing, which would drive down prices only by making the area so undesirable that fewer people desire to move here.

My own solution is not to solve it. There are vast tracts of undeveloped land all across the world. We don't need to stack all 7 billion people on top of each other in this one little town just to serve the ambitions of a few companies and special interest groups.


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 pm

Posted by Allen Akin, a resident of Professorville

>> Here's a good explanation of housing market segmentation from an advocate of more building. Web Link

Thank you! I was looking for that source. @Me 2 -- you seriously need to read that online article.


Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> "One reason this debate is so frustrating is that Econ 101 is not the right class for housing policy. "

>> Supply and demand is a fundamental principle, regardless of how "advanced" economics is. Tell me how Palo Alto pricing has grown dramatically above and beyond inflation even for properties that have not had any work?

Here is your textbook for the graduate-level course on how supply and demand works differently for housing:

Web Link

As a matter of fact, the Econ 101 version of supply-and-demand really is simplistic when applied to housing -- misleanding, and too poor an approximation to be useful.

And since the topic of this thread is the Fry's site, my suggestion is that Fry's be primarily a "Middle-Out" project with a large side order of "Bottom Up". I think that the Arbor Real development (Rickey's site east of ECR/Arastradero-Charleston) demonstrated demand exists for lowish-density townhouses; I would like to see a Fry's be mostly higher-density townhouses.


2 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2019 at 2:14 pm

Posted by Allen Akin, a resident of Professorville

>> Not trying to step on @Anon's toes, but perhaps one of the books @Anon has in mind is "How to Kill a City" by Peter Moskowitz. It was recommended to me, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

It is a good start, and probably a good introduction, but, a little unsatisfying somehow. The history, and, here's-what-is-happening-now are generally good, but, the vision for the future isn't consistent. There is a little too much nostalgia, vague Marxism, and "me" in the book. He does frequently mention Jane Jacobs, who literally wrote the book(s) on the subject:

- The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961)
- The Economy of Cities (1969)

“Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them.... for really new ideas of any kind--no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be--there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.”


3 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 28, 2019 at 10:19 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

We keep talking here like there is no city planning department or architectural board. No one is doing anything here without a lot of city approvals. We have processes in place. I hope that those elements of the city are still fully functional.


3 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2019 at 6:21 am

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> We keep talking here like there is no city planning department or architectural board. No one is doing anything here without a lot of city approvals. We have processes in place. I hope that those elements of the city are still fully functional.

So, anybody know how much is a site of that size which is zoned RM-30 is worth? What is the status of the site with toxics? Perhaps the city needs to get serious about eminent domain. Whatever it takes to make sure that no more office space is built on that site.


8 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 29, 2019 at 9:06 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Of late there is arguments about the gig economy which was one of the suggested uses. That is having people working who are not employees of the company. That includes H1B people who typically work for another company and are assigned to a company as a subcontract.
Zoe Lofgren has gotten involved in that situation. Can we be clear here? Employees of a company have FICA and SCI deducted from their paychecks. The company matches the FICA up to a stated level. That is your Social Security, and eventually your Medicare. The cost of deducting the taxes, reporting on the taxes, and paying the required matching amount is a big hit on a company. And if any unions are involved that is another deduction that then has to be reported to the union and paid to the union. Having actual employees is a big cost to manage. So Google, et all use subcontract labor from H1b companies which are foreign based - so no payroll taxes on those people.
Can we please decide that we are not going there for the purposes of this property? We need housing that pays current property tax rates that is filled with local people who work and pay taxes? You will all have to figure out that taxes are what is paying for your city services and your teachers.


8 people like this
Posted by Rick
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 29, 2019 at 6:54 pm

-No more office space!-


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 30, 2019 at 2:26 pm

"1. Build lots of offices and high-end housing, which would only serve to drive prices up higher by making more people desire to move here.
2. Build lots of low-end housing, which would drive down prices only by making the area so undesirable that fewer people desire to move here."

So you guys really want to know what's frustrating? Annoying categorization such as this. No one here is arguing for more offices. And I never advocated just building luxury housing. If you actually read my posts, you would know that. TL;DR - I am advocating for new housing of all kinds, not just BMR housing, where people seem to think this is a panacea to our existing situation.

Housing of all kinds. NO to just BMRs. If you want the end state - just look at SF, where middle class families have been priced out. Lots of BMRs and Section 8 housing. SF is now filled with wealthy people who can afford to buy and the service workers that clean their houses and nanny their children.

As for this link to ShelterForce - whatever. It's an opinion piece and really pretty simplistic. Duh, of course the market is generally segmented. All markets are segmented. What's happening is that in a such a constrained market such as California, there is (a lot) of evidence that the squeeze in the upper and middle market are putting pressure on lower markets.

Market segmentation goes out the window when supply is so constrained that people look for (wait! another Econ 101 concept) - Substitutes. Where people used to go to "middle class" housing now are looking in other areas. If the market were so hard-segmented then EPA would would not have $1MM housing.

So the evidence on the ground does not support any kind of hard segmentation in the Bay Area.

By the way, no one here has stepped up to define what "luxury" housing is. So, Anon and Allen, what is your definition of "luxury?" Is luxury defined by price level? Amenities?

Or is it a simple Residentialist definition of anything that's not a BMR to make sure no housing is built in Palo Alto?


9 people like this
Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 30, 2019 at 10:11 pm

Allen Akin is a registered user.

The terms "Moderate Income", "Low Income", "Very Low Income", and "Extremely Low Income" are defined by law, so we can talk about those with some consistency. The income levels change over time, but you can find the 2019 values here Web Link

So when people talk about housing for "Moderate Income" renters, that's actually pretty well-defined. In Santa Clara County, "Moderate Income" for a family of four is $104K/year - $158K/year. The guideline is that rent must be 30% or less of income, so a rental for a moderate-income family of four in Santa Clara County needs to cost $2.6K-$4K/month.

I took a quick look on Zillow. 2BR apartments in Palo Alto are going for a median rate of $4.2K/month. So if you're going to serve moderate-income households here, market-rate housing doesn't work; new housing needs to be BMR. (FYI, for 3BR apartments, the median is $5.5K/month.)

The Census says about 67% of households in the County are "Moderate Income" or below, so if you want to keep that fraction of the population stable, at least 67% of the new housing in the County probably needs to be BMR. (More than 67% if you want to make up for displacement that occurred over previous years, or accommodate population growth without increasing gentrification.)

These are back-of-the-envelope calculations, but I think they're close enough to give us some intuition about what the consequences of particular housing strategies would be. Note I'm not promoting a particular housing strategy here; as I've said elsewhere, I think the road to a solution involves rebalancing demand.


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 31, 2019 at 10:02 am

"I took a quick look on Zillow. 2BR apartments in Palo Alto are going for a median rate of $4.2K/month. So if you're going to serve moderate-income households here, market-rate housing doesn't work; new housing needs to be BMR. (FYI, for 3BR apartments, the median is $5.5K/month.)"

So your definition of "luxury" housing is simply market rate housing?

Really?

2BR apartment is luxury? Someone hasn't lived in an apartment recently. We are friends with a family that lives in a Mountain View complex that's has several kids and both parents work in tech. It's a nice, safe complex, but luxury is not the first word that comes to mind when doing a drop off.

But they're paying market rate, and by your definition, that's "luxury." Apparently it's a luxury to have to have both parents working.

Ridiculous.

For someone who is claiming that the housing market is "complex," it seems ironically simplistic to tab everything at market "luxury."



11 people like this
Posted by Allen Akin
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 31, 2019 at 1:50 pm

Allen Akin is a registered user.

"Luxury" housing is a real-estate term. Here's one good example of how it's applied to apartments:
Web Link

Key quotes: "High-end or luxury rental developments include those buildings classified by Yardi Matrix as Class B+ and above." (Web Link) "In 2017, the construction of luxury rental properties had risen to 79% of all apartment construction in the U.S." "Nationally, about 87% of all large-scale apartment buildings completed in the first half of 2018 are high-end."


Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 3, 2019 at 6:01 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The follow-up to this topic was in the local papers and identified Sobrato as the owner of the property. They have no interest in development at this time - so they say. I checked their web site and they have a map of buildings they have built and many are no longer owned by them. So time will tell but there will be pressure to build because they cannot leave such a big parcel of land to go to seed. Time will tell here. The city does have some jurisdiction as to the demographics of land within the city lines. It is also a matter of property tax on the land which is left unattended will be a legal issue. No wallowing here.


4 people like this
Posted by Zoned multi family
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 5, 2019 at 1:06 pm

Zoned multi family is a registered user.

The property is zoned multi-family. The property owner can build according to the zoning.


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

Email:


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


Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 5,821 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,840 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 1,657 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,639 views

Firing Judge Persky as a tennis coach was a big mistake
By Diana Diamond | 23 comments | 1,287 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info