Town Square

Post a New Topic

Applicants seek to change planning commission's tone

Original post made on Nov 2, 2018

When the Palo Alto City Council meets in late November to interview 13 candidates for the city's influential but polarized Planning and Transportation Commission, questions about ethics may loom as large as those pertaining to housing and traffic.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 2, 2018, 12:00 AM

Comments (32)

72 people like this
Posted by L'Etat, c'est Alcheck
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 2, 2018 at 4:31 am

The article doesn't mention that Alcheck illegally converted his carports into garages without even obtaining city permits and was forced to undo this and go through the regular permit process after a neighbor complained. Alcheck had been on the Planning Commission for years and is a real estate attorney. You would think he knows people have to get permits for these conversions.

He then also used his position as commissioner to try to change the law so these houses could have garages and not just carports, without revealing his personal interest in doing so.

Amazingly, despite this all being made public, Alcheck remains on the Planning Commission.

This is why public trust in our local government is collapsing. The City Council needs to set high ethical standards for people appointed to commissions and not just reward and promote their political friends.


26 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 2, 2018 at 9:16 am

Online Name is a registered user.

What about Elaine Uang, PAF co-founder? As of the 10/19 article she was also hoping to be appointed?

Web Link
"Also on the list is Elaine Uang, an architect who co-founded the housing-advocacy group Palo Alto Forward and served on the citizens group that in 2017 worked on updating Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan."


61 people like this
Posted by Be Cautious
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2018 at 10:15 am

Shame on the Council majority, Mayor Kniss, Wolbach, Scharff, Fine, and Tenaka for not only re-appointing Alcheck when his destructive antics were known, but now not simply joining with the minority Members to fire him, which they can do at anytime.

And William Rogers seems to still not understand that the P&TC is an advisory Commission to the Council and feels it not a good use of time, serving. Given he doesn’t show up for meetings, he should resign now.

As to some of these choices here, be careful. It was Rebecca Eisenberg who, upon her first rejection to appointment to the P&TC, issued a public “Diversity ranking” for each Council member that was irrelevant, inappropriate and insulting. She does not have the temperament to be on any Commission.

Nor does Dena Mossar have the temperament, who, while Mayor, heaped fuel on the fire at every turn, rather than calming the incendiary battles between Council Members that brought media TV cameras into meetings and resulted in the Council having to pass its own “civility guidelines” just to be able to conduct business. Once Bern Beechem became Mayor, evenhandedness was restored and calm resumed.

Elaine Uang of Palo Alto Forward [portion removed] is on the extreme and will push PAF's agenda for massive growth [portion removed.]

Please check the legal residence of all these applicants - one may not live in town? Do P&TC members need to live in town?

What I am not reading here is of the vital role of P&TC members to ensure their work upholds our Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, not to push personal or hidden political agendas.

Thank goodness we do have some good Commissioners that will remain on P&TC with the evenhandedness needed, who show up at meetings, and some with deep knowledge of land use issues, knowing well their role in relationship to the Council.


5 people like this
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 2, 2018 at 10:40 am

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

Dena and Bern, with all due respect, should MOVE ON. MTFO, or as I joked, in my 2014 campaign not Get Out The Vote GOTV but GT#O!
Not that it’s up to me but I’d pick Eisenberg and Kraus in nano- second.

Not to be cynical or slyly self aggrandizing, but lead-pack gamed the system — probably in violation of Brown Act — and played Arthur Keller in fall 2014 by using my rhetorical and Socratic application for PATC while also on the ballot for Council to put off the commission selection until post- election.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 2, 2018 at 10:46 am

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

Also I think Michael Alcheck is a stalking horse and scrape goat and tempest in a chai-pot.
I support Michael Alcheck.


43 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 2, 2018 at 11:08 am

We will never forget another Council majority (a lame duck one) with the same bent as the current one with Larry Klein and Nancy Shepherd, etc. who refused to reappoint Arthur Keller to the Commission despite his incredible grasp of land use and planning, because of their agenda and politics. Didn’t matter that these two were about to be off council - he termed out, she lost re-election. They couldn’t wait to appoint less qualifieds to ram their agenda thru beyond their terms inspite of voters or a far better qualified reappointmentment.


27 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 2, 2018 at 11:21 am

Online Name is a registered user.

"Didn’t matter that these two were about to be off council - he termed out, she lost re-election. They couldn’t wait to appoint less qualifieds to ram their agenda thru beyond their terms inspite of voters or a far better qualified reappointmentment."

Maybe that's why they planned it -- to ensure a pro-development majority forever after.


14 people like this
Posted by Be Cautious
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Here is the so called Diversity Chart that Rebecca Eisenberg created when she was rejected the first time she applied to the Planning Commission. It devalued diversity because it made no rational sense and insulted the council.

To see the chart, copy and past this, then just click on the download.
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 2, 2018 at 12:31 pm

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

@becautious
I clicked on your clicks and got as far as saying one, somebody did a lot of work here and 2, someone named Reshma Singh is also overlooked. Of course the larger context to this is somewhere like San Francisco where all the appointments 100% are completely spoils 100%.


26 people like this
Posted by PTC observer
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2018 at 3:50 pm

>Shame on the Council majority, Mayor Kniss, Wolbach, Scharff, Fine, and Tenaka for not only re-appointing Alcheck when his destructive antics were known, but now not simply joining with the minority Members to fire him, which they can do at anytime.

Wolbach didn't know about Alcheck's garage manipulations? It was in all the papers! That's how I learned about it. Wolbach is not trustworthy, he is either lying about this, or incompetent.


28 people like this
Posted by Disgusted
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 2, 2018 at 4:55 pm

Planning and Transportation Commission was a total joke when Adrian Fine, Kate Downing and Eric Rosenblum were on it. At least some respect and validity was brought back to this commission with the adults there now, Lauing, Summa, Waldfogel and Gardias, who have some maturity and life experiences.

With the likes of Kniss, Scharff, Fine, Wolbach and Tanaka, it will be likely that PTC will be a joke again.

Vote for DuBois, Boone and Filseth.
Vote No for Measure F.
Vote No for Measure E.






3 people like this
Posted by Fake news
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 2, 2018 at 5:05 pm

What a sharade. I'm quite familiar with Alcheckgate. His participation in the meetings was in favor of perserving the code the way it was - not changing it for his benefit. [Portion removed.] And the City Attorney cleared his name twice by publically acknowleging that his property rights were in no way affected by the discussions he participated in because they were after the fact and also forward looking.

Now, regarding the fact that the building and planning department misinterpreted the local laws to deny his permit request and that he had to hire an attorney to represent his interests - Well I for one believe that says more about how terrible our planning and building department is than it says about Alcheck's ethics. Who here doesn't know someone that has been treated very poorly by our permit approving planning staff. They deserve to be sued by countless Palo Altans for the nonsense they put residents through. They didn't relent to Alcheck as the article suggests from lack of will, they gave up the goose because they had no legal basis to continue to deny his permit. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm with you Mark, I believe Tom Dubois is out to get Alcheck off this commission because Alcheck is the most effective advocate for reasonable and responsive housing development. It is no secret that the slow growth council members are all talk and little action when it comes to voting for actual housing units. Alcheck is a huge thorn in their side becuase he isn't showing any signs of energy depletion. Most pro-growth advocates have better things to do than waste their breadth at the planning commission. Not suprised that Riggs is showing a decrease in stamina and if I were Monk I wouldn't want to re-apply either. It looks very painful to have to debate Summa and Waldfogel every month.

To Alcheck I say: thanks for your steadfast support for housing and for your public service in general.


7 people like this
Posted by Rebecca Eisenberg
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 2, 2018 at 5:14 pm

Rebecca Eisenberg is a registered user.

Hi!

First, Mark, thank you so much for the kind words and for using your real name on your posts -- a small club of which I too am a member, despite how it opens me up to criticism. As you probably know about me by now, I don't think I am beyond criticism - none of us are.

To "Be Cautious," I think caution is not a skill in which our City is lacking, and, while caution certainly has its place, sometimes measured and thoughtful risk-taking is a more productive strategy.

As Mark alluded, I created that chart because I did not understand how it could be that our Planning Commission could be so non-reflective of the demographics of our community. Although Palo Alto is predominantly female (as most aging communities are) and also is minority-white, our Planning and Transportation Commission has not included ANY or only one woman (out of 9). This was the case even when most of the applicants were female, and IMHO some of the best applicants (more qualified than I am) were minority women. Additionally, in recent memory, there has not been any representation for primary caretakers (of children and/or seniors) on the Commission, even though primary caretakers/stay-at-home parents arguably USE our planning and transportation resources more heavily than any other group of people in Palo Alto, in particular when you include the needs and use of the children and elderly -- neither of whom drive or contribute in the least bit to the "traffic" problem -- of whom they take care. Despite this use, knowledge and experience in this large and growing segment of our population, the City Council has not appointed ONE representative of this group to the Planning and Transportation Commission.

When I set out to investigate the cause of this lack of representation and diversity, I started and ended in the most obvious and impactful place: the votes cast by our elected officials. When I looked at the votes of our elected City Council members, I saw that more than half of them had not voted for ONE female applicant despite the ample supply of qualified women from whom to choose. Those few who did vote for women did so only once or did so because of a well-publicized political allegiance. This in particular disappointed me about Mayor Kniss, who has stated numerous times in the past that she is proud of her background of not hailing from one political sub-group or another. I like that about her too, as these Council positions are supposed to be "non-partisan" -- as printed in black ink on my absentee ballot which I filled out today.

Finally, as to Michael Alcheck, I mostly have a question: who is his employer? It neither stated it on the PTC website nor does it say on the California Bar website. I thought that Commissioners needed to disclose their employers in order to provide transparency under the Brown Act and to avoid any appearance of conflict. When I searched the internet to find the answer to that question, I couldn't find it there either.

It's the lack of transparency, I think, that often detracts from people's trust in government. My chart was about providing transparency and I am proud of the numerous hours I spent researching it and putting it together. Out of all of the criticism I have received -- of which there has been much, as well as name-calling and attacks on my integrity -- the one complaint I never received is that I was inaccurate. So I hope it is taken for what it is: a record of the voting decisions made by the people whom we elected to office and whose salaries are paid by the taxed levied on our own hard-earned income. Our officials certainly know that the votes they cast are public record, and if I had the opportunity to cast votes, I would do my best to vote on behalf of the community I love and whose interests -- much less, demographics -- I reflect and represent.

Sincerely,
Rebecca


5 people like this
Posted by Coastal elitist
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 2, 2018 at 5:46 pm

[Post removed.]


9 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 2, 2018 at 6:24 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

I doubt Palantir and Soros are on the same team.


26 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2018 at 9:08 pm

Marie is a registered user.

It is very possible to be pro-housing without being in favor of reduced parking. IMHO, reduced parking for complexes in areas with huge parking deficits will just making matters worse.

I am very much in favor of additional housing, especially for low-to-moderate income residents. However, I don't think they should have inadequate parking just because they have lower incomes. Shift workers are more likely to have odd shifts that do not correspond to the minimal mass transit schedules that are currently available. Give us housing projects that meet current zoning with adequate parking, and most people will support the project.

Ridership surveys that only count parking spaces in a complex (where a unit has a reserved parking spot or spots) without looking at how many occupants are parking on the street, come to very strange conclusions. Complexes assign parking spots. They are not first come first serve. You still have a reserved spot if you are on vacation or a business trip or out at a club. That it is empty does not mean there is an oversupply. So if a complex thinks there are unused spots, allow the residents to rent the spots to someone else in the complex that needs the space. How many people really do not use their spots at one time or another?

It is so frustrating. We need to meet the needs of the residents we have, not the ones we wish we had.


25 people like this
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 2, 2018 at 9:16 pm

Fred Balin is a registered user.

Fake news writes:
"His participation in the meetings was in favor of perserving the code the way it was - not changing it for his benefit.”

Alcheck’s participation in the November 29, 2017 Planning & Transportation Commission hearing, when staff’s proposed amendments to the Contextual Garage Placement code came before him, was to have the item removed from a list of minor code amendments moving forward to the city council.

As was the case when staff first brought this item before the commission two years earlier in 2015, shortly after “carport-in-the-front” exceptions had been granted on two properties in which he had an economic interest, discussion related to the Contextual Garage Placement code at the commission could significantly impact Alcheck’s interest on those two properties. For instance, if Commissioner Alcheck’s disclosures and/or information from staff led to information about the dates, places, and ownerships of such exceptions, the discussion could possibly move to initiate a change in the law to disallow a carport-to-garage conversion after this type of exception had been granted.

In each cycle through the commission (2015 and 2017), Alcheck neither disclosed his economic interest nor recused himself from discussion thereby denying other commissioners and the public the knowledge and ability to inquire about these circumstances. Rather he remained at the dais and pushed to have the item removed from a list of minor changes headed to the council (and therefore from discussion), while also expressing his dissatisfaction with this section of the municipal code altogether.


2 people like this
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 3, 2018 at 11:43 am

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

Fred, if you succeed in ousting Michael Alcheck for building an illegal carport, you can celebrate by hiring Garaj Mahal to play at a party. The one with Fareed Haque and Kai Eckhardt that plays world music at nightclubs worldwide, not the one comprising high school students playing covers. On the other hand, the fake Garaj Mahal (who played the fake “World Music Day”) seem oddly appropriate.


3 people like this
Posted by Do your homework
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 3, 2018 at 9:55 pm

Rebecca Eisenberg's "research"on Michael Alcheck is ludicrous. Why does he have to have an employer? Havent you heard of attorneys who practice independently? Have you heard of wealthy people who don't need to have a job?

Alcheck sold the garagegate house in April for 8 million dollars. He doesn't need a job. In addition his family owns millions and millions$ in real estate, one example, 1000 Fremont St in Los Altos. And much more.


14 people like this
Posted by CeCi Kettendorf
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 3, 2018 at 10:09 pm


@Fake News:
"Most pro-growth advocates have better things to do than waste their breadth at the planning commission."

Really?! The meetings I have observed over the past two years have been overwhelmed by PAF and progrowthers. The Ventura neighborhood reps were outnumbered as speakers six to one by progrowthers at just one of the hearings about the 60 unit condo to be built. It is of note that not a one of the progrowth speakers advocating to CC or PTC are stakeholders who LIVE in the neighborhood, a neighborhood to be so heavily impacted by an underparked structure. Mr. Levy has affirmed that even nonresident PAF supporters speak before CC, fooling us into believing they are Palo Altans. Per usual, the concerns of the neighborhood are drowned out by PAF who pad their numbers by projecting names, not signatures, on the wall of City Hall as supposed supporters. (My shady cousins in Ohio got their names on their list of supporters. Easypeasy!)

PAF overwhelms with their numbers so the concerns of all real stakeholders are unheard. Speakers at City Hall should be required to give name and full address, as other municipalities do, to dissuade the abuse that I see there.

I do love Mark Weiss so I will continue to read here, and enjoy reading, as FAKE NEWS and MARK WEISS present as a fascinatingly odd duo in support of Mr. Alcheck.
I am still waiting to hear from I LOVE MR. ALCHECK who has been silent for so long! Where, oh where, is that Unicorn?!


8 people like this
Posted by Rebecca Eisenberg
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 3, 2018 at 10:15 pm

Rebecca Eisenberg is a registered user.

Dear "Do Your Homework"

I know of attorneys who practice independently because I am one. Still, I list that on the California Bar site, and I also state that in my application for Planning Commission, as both the application and the law applicable to the application requires (which of course is why they ask!). If Michael Alcheck is self-employed, he should state that. Instead, he states nothing.

The only references that can be found online regarding Michael Alcheck's employment is a public filing for his father's property management company that Alcheck serves as the CFO of his father's commercial property management company, as well as a mention in the press that Alcheck left his role at a law firm to work for a commercial developer in house. I have no idea if that is true because Alcheck does not state who is employer is. In sum: it is not my - our your - obligation to do any homework about Alcheck's employer because the law requires that Alcheck tell us who his employer is.

For legal references, you can refer to the Brown Act, as well as related federal, state and local laws requiring that all public officials disclose all actual *and potential* conflicts of interest. As an aside, you also may refer to common sense.

I get that lots of people are very emotional about Michael Alcheck, but I hope we can refrain from name calling. It's not a rational way to discuss things, nor is it polite. Even if I knew who you are, I would not respond in kind.

Sincerely,
Rebecca


19 people like this
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 3, 2018 at 10:48 pm

Fred Balin is a registered user.

PTC Observer quotes from Be Cautious:
"Shame on the Council majority, Mayor Kniss, Wolbach, Scharff, Fine, and Tenaka (sic) for not only re-appointing Alcheck when his destructive antics were known, but now not simply joining with the minority members to fire him, which they can do at anytime."

and then PTC Observer follows with:
"Wolbach didn't know about Alcheck's garage manipulations? It was in all the papers!“

---

The story did not hit the press until March, 2018. Five months prior, at the PTC candidate interviews in October, 2017, very few people knew what was going on, and our citizens’ investigation has not revealed that Council member Wolbach knew anything more or less than any other council member. His comments on this situation at the October 3 Weekly forum were both valid and appropriate as were those of the other candidates.

The City Council, but not the public, was informed of this matter in an internal email from former Planning Director Hillary Giltelman on October 2, 2017: “… we wanted you to be aware that we've investigated complaints related to conversion of two carports to garages by property owners that include Michael Alcheck, the Chair of our PTC. In both cases, a new single family home was constructed in a neighborhood context that did not allow a garage to be built at the front of the lot. As currently written, however, the code does not restrict the placement of carports at the front of the lot and both projects were approved with carports. Immediately after final inspections, the carports were converted to garages without benefit of permits. This is a violation of the building code and we asked the owners to submit building permit applications to legalize the conversions.”

Gitelman went on to say that staff would not be approving the permits.

A few days later, Michael Alcheck and his investment group hired attorney David Lanferman to represent their interests. We do not know if the city council was advised of this by the time the PTC candidate interviews were held on October 24, 2017.

Seven candidates had applied for two positions. Three council members were absent: Fine, Kiniss and Scharff. Why? Of the six present, none asked Alcheck why the two carports had been illegally converted into fully-enclosed garages without applying for a permit.

In his opening comments, Alcheck did state the following:
"… Five years ago, I joined a real estate property management firm that manages over 200,000 square feet of retail; a quarter of a million square feet of office space and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of apartments in a large apartment complex format. None of those properties -- those properties range from Sacramento all the way to San Diego -- none of those properties are in Palo Alto, and for that reason I’ve never had to recuse myself from a single issue on the PTC in the five plus years I’ve been on it.”

Commissioner Alcheck, neglected, however, to mention his own property and investment for which the citizen's investigation believes he had a conflict of interest during the planning commissioner hearings in 2015 and where he was legally and ethically required to disclose his economic interests and to recuse himself from participation in discussion of the Contextual Garage Placement code. And in the Fall of 2017, with his carport-to-garage applications submitted but unapproved at the time of his interview and still unapproved five weeks later, when the same item (Contextual Garage Placement) as well as definitions of carports and garages would come to the commission, he would face another conflict of interest situation.

The PA Online/Weekly reporter surmises: "Given the current makeup of the council, any move to oust Alcheck is unlikely to succeed in the near-term.” I am more optimistic and believe there is a reasonable chance that this council will still correct it’s mistake of last November. Toward that end, we are pushing to complete and distribute our final report.


11 people like this
Posted by Rebecca Eisenberg
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 3, 2018 at 11:28 pm

Rebecca Eisenberg is a registered user.

Fred,

Thank you for your helpful information.

Given that Michael Alcheck insists that his commercial property management company does not manage any property in Palo Alto, why not list the name of that company, since there is nothing to hide?

Also, I'm a little concerned by Alcheck's statement that he works for a commercial real estate property management company that manages "over 200,000 square feet of retail; a quarter of a million square feet of office space and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of apartments in a large apartment complex format." The lattermost reference in particular is worth asking about and would be benefited by disclosure. When he says he manages so many (thousands?) of apartments, is he a slum lord? Shouldn't the residents of Palo Alto be entitled to know exactly what kind of apartment buildings Alcheck maybe owns, maybe rents, maybe brokers for a living? Have there been any complaints against his employer, for example? Have they been cited for any code violations? Has there been litigation against them. e.g. by tenants or by government entities? THESE are things we would know if we knew whom he works for. And if the answer is no, why hide the name of the employer?

Secrets inevitably lead to suspicion, especially when secrecy violates black letter law, public policy, and common sense.

Best,
Rebecca


27 people like this
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 4, 2018 at 11:12 am

Fred Balin is a registered user.

Rebecca,

Michael Alcheck’s current employer is Vintage Property Management, Inc. It is located in Los Altos and is a family-run, real estate business, for which he has been listed as Chief Financial Officer since 2/13/15 as per California Secretary of State filings. The company is not specifically named in his brief bio on the city’s PTC web site, but was listed in his application for re-appointment to the commission a year ago. It also remains his employer as of a few weeks ago, as it was included on the most recent pre-election FPPC filing for the campaign he contributed to, prior to that contribution being returned.

My focus with regard to the commissioner has been on two things only:
(1) his inappropriate behavior on the commission, and particularly since he was about to give up his position as PTC chair a year ago, and
(2) the "carport/garage caper" related to the two residential properties in which he had an economic interest, and which I was informed about a few days after I had complained at the PTC last February in regard to his inappropriate behavior.


20 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 4, 2018 at 2:35 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Fred, interesting that Alcheck's firm is based in Los Altos since Los Altos was smart enough to tell him not to screw up LA and to confine his pro-development stance to PA 4 years ago.

"Los Altos official blasts Palo Alto planning commissioner. Dec 9, 2014

Palo Alto planning Commissioner Michael Alcheck is perhaps the city's most strident advocate of growth, but his pro-development message proved to be a hard sell at the Dec. 4 meeting of the Los Altos Planning and Transportation Commission, which was reviewing a mixed-use development in the Loyola Corners area where he works.

After more than a dozen speakers criticized the proposal, Alcheck said the opposition "is exaggerating every angle here because they oppose change." "They hear the word 'developer' and they start picketing,'" Alcheck said.

In response, Commissioner Ken Lorell said it was "really amusing to me that a member of the Palo Alto planning commission would come here and lecture us on how we should build our buildings when the stuff that has been going on in Palo Alto is absolutely amazing." The commission ultimately turned the project down. "


6 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 4, 2018 at 2:36 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Oops. Here's the link to the above story. Web Link


23 people like this
Posted by Disgusted
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 4, 2018 at 3:40 pm

One of Alchecks' houses which he chose not to recuse himself from and continued to make policy recommendations is 11 Phillips Road in Palo Alto sold for $8 million. The Alchecks purchased it in 2014 for $2.9 million (it was listed for $2.395 million).

There you go...pro-development Council majority's appointment.


8 people like this
Posted by Do your homeework
a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 5, 2018 at 1:06 am

Vintage Realty appears to be the real estate agency of Alcheck Properties which says it is a Nonresidential Building Operator.

The two entities have the same office, 1000 Fremont Ave., Ste. #120, Los Altos.
The Alchecks may own that building.


2 people like this
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 5, 2018 at 11:03 pm

Mark Weiss is a registered user.

To me a billionaire trying to ram thru a crazy office tower on top of parkland and historic site, and getting the city to pay for his plans is a problem but a realtor, appointed to commission, building an outlaw carport is just white noise.
I rang his number, chatted him up for 30 minutes then hung up thinking he is not the problem.
Of the thirteen candidates to PATC, three would definitely be better for Palo Alto than MA is. But five would be worse, IMHO.
I probably have a list of 200 Palo Alto cases, since 2009, that bother or worry me, more than the carport.
Or, as Joe Hill said, don’t moan, organize.


7 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 6, 2018 at 10:43 am

Annette is a registered user.

Per the article: "Alcheck moved ahead with the conversion despite the city's findings, and in December 2017, the city relented under pressure from Alcheck's attorney and gave him the permits."

So that's how it works? Good to know. Also good to keep in mind that the lawyer who was successful for client Alcheck in the garage caper is the same lawyer who wrote the long letter on behalf of AJ Capital that challenges the City's position regarding the Hotel President. Like it or not, that's one effective lawyer.


11 people like this
Posted by Fred Balin
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 6, 2018 at 11:40 am

Fred Balin is a registered user.

And, at the time (October 2017), when Alcheck and Alcheck Investments bought in Lanferman to handle their interests with regard to the two residential properties (i.e., the denied carport-to-garage conversion applications), he was also the attorney of record for Edgewood SC, LLC, the owners of Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center, and was involved in two trials against the city with regard to fines Palo Alto had assessed his client for failure to provide a grocery store as required by the Planned Community ordinance governing the property.


9 people like this
Posted by jh
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 6, 2018 at 12:43 pm

jh is a registered user.

@Mark Weisz

The issue isn't the carport. It is the unethical behaviour demonstrated by Michael Alcheck. He (a) not only didn't declare his financial conflict, (b) he illegally converted his carport into a garage. By doing so potentially increasing the value of his property because it freed up extra space elsewhere on the property that would otherwise be taken up by a garage. The code was changed after the fact during the the second Commission meeting he participated in.

Is that the standard we want from our representatives?


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

Shake Shack Palo Alto to open this weekend
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 4,750 views

Ten Tips for Teens and Young Adults to Survive a Dysfunctional Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,663 views

Farm Bill Passes Congress
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 1,132 views

What is a Life?
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,013 views