Building eyed for busy Palo Alto intersection Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Feb 7, 2013 at 1:51 am
A vacant Palo Alto parking lot on the prominent intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road would make way for a four-story commercial building under a new proposal from the company that has recently purchased the site from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 10:16 PM
Posted by Palo Alto Parent, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 9:23 am
Building offices on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino is a no-brainer (as is the proposed project on Page Mill on the other side of the street. Although there is are some apartment/condo complexes nearby and a few small houses, this is really a commercial and office area, not residential.
I understand the concerns of the Sunrise Assisted living next door, but I suspect their primary concern is losing "their" parking lot.
Posted by architecture, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 am
What ever they build please make it aesthetically pleasing not generic. Build something beautiful, unique, exiting... Not another box please! I will have to drive by it every day. How traffic won't be impacted.
Posted by Midtown cynic, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 10:48 am
As I read it, the plan is to bribe the city into allowing the zoning exception by "a contribution of $750,000 toward upgrading the lights on the soon-to-be-renovated commercial stretch of California Avenue."
Hah!!! Lighting five blocks away!
This seems typical of our Palo Alto zoning exception activity.
Posted by Annette, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 10:55 am
Can someone other than Weekly Staff confirm that there's a "pedestrian tunnel under El Camino Real, near the Mayfield Soccer Complex"? Also,does anyone recall an article/report re the history of public benefits in PA? I vaguely recall a review that concluded that many are promised,few are delivered, and the City turns a blind eye to that. In this case the dedicated right hand turn sounds like a winner to me so if this is approved and that is part of the basis for the approval, I surely hope that benefit is delivered.
Posted by size matters, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 11:16 am
My issue is with the massive size, not the use, It is not ideal for housing, probably better use and tax income as retail, but office is king at $1000/sq ft. Stay in the existing, much smaller, entitlements.
Posted by I, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 11:20 am
I don't care what they do in building a structure but instead of a dedicated right turn lane they should have two dedicated left turn lanes. It is so annoying to have people cut into the lane when only one lane is legally available. Lots of people turn left at El Camino Real. I hope the City's transportation person is reading this!
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 11:59 am
I agree, grammar and spelling are important. It is hard to take serious an article full of grammar and spelling errors.
The question I want answered is what will happen to the vehicles parking at this location? They will, presumably, need to park somewhere. Has that been taken into account? This parking lot appears to me to be well used as there are always many vehicles parking there. Where will they park?
Posted by RT, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Palo Alto Parent - yes, there are, eventually, two left turn lanes onto El Camino - but the second is FAR too short. Both lanes need to extend back to where the single lane begins. I rarely see any back up on the right turn lane onto El Camino.
Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 3:39 pm
@ palo Alto Parent - It is kind of an awkward two left lanes (1 lane expanding to two). Often one lane backs up, blocking access to the second, so it could be improved. I think a dedicated right turn lane would be of greater benefit, but you might be able to do both.
I hope this kind of reasonable development can be supported as a signal to developers that they will be rewarded for asking for something reasonable.
Posted by PA resident, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 3:52 pm
It's not just Gennady, it's his EDITOR (assuming he has one).
It's not just his grammar, it's the inflammatory language in his article: "targeting", "wrestling", "targets", "colossal". What happened to impartial journalism?
May I suggest "identifying" or "choosing", and "considering" or "discussing", and how about "large" or even better, give the square footage, because both colossal and large are relative terms: colossal compared to what? The Taj Mahal?
Posted by Not an issue, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 4:23 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] By now most of you must realize that the Weekly is not impartial-- it has an agenda and depends on the good will of certain residents to stay in business. Obviously the group that the weekly is catering to on this issue is against this project, ergo the use of inflammatory words.
Posted by Hm-m, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2013 at 6:41 pm
We are supposed to avail ourselves of public transportation, but where in the world are people supposed to park their cars if that parking lot is removed?
I question whether all the new office buildings recently built or renovated have been filled i.e., Homer Ave. near Whole Foods, the building near the phone store at the corner of El Camino & Page Mill and a few other places I can't think of right now.
Posted by JM, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Feb 10, 2013 at 6:38 pm
City staff LIES
About 3 or 4 years ago I attended Planning and Traffic department's public presentation for the California Avenue lane reduction proving there would be negligible traffic impacts.
But I noticed they were only taking current traffic into account.
Mindful the Planning Department just designated the California Business District area for high density development, removing the previous neighborhood commercial zoning, I asked why the traffic projections ignored any future increase in traffic that would be generated by high density development.
The Director of Transport looked taken aback so I pressed him, at which point the DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT QUICKLY STOOD UP, AND I QUOTE, QUIETLY RESPONDED;
"WE CAN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE NO CURRENT BUILDING APPLICATIONS FOR CAL AVE."
End of conversation and a quick change of subject before anyone noticed.