News

Changed economic landscape complicates Palo Alto's plans to redevelop Ventura

Residents push back against new proposals to 'go big' on housing

Palo Alto's ambitious but uncertain plans to reimagine the Ventura neighborhood confronted a stark political reality Wednesday night, when neighborhood residents and some planning commissioners warned that the latest alternatives fail to reflect community's perspectives or account for the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The concerns came out during the Planning and Transportation's public hearing on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a land-use document that will create a new vision for a 60-acre area bounded by Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, Lambert Avenue and Park Boulevard. The centrally located but historically underserved area has long been viewed by Palo Alto officials as one of the city's most promising sites for new housing. Palo Alto's Housing Element document estimates that it can accommodate about 354 units of housing, Assistant Planning Director Rachael Tanner said.

Among the most promising sites in the planning area is the 12-acre site at 340 Portage Ave., which until recently housed Fry's Electronics. The site, which is owned by The Sobrato Organization, is zoned for residential use, though the council voted in 2006 to allow commercial use in perpetuity to appease Fry's. While the council is still hoping that the site will include housing, Sobrato signaled last year that it has no plans to redevelop its commercial properties.

The planning effort, which the City Council launched in 2017, has run into numerous complications over the past year. Sobrato's reluctance to redevelop has prompted some council members to lower their expectations, culminating in a decision last December not to approve a contract extension with a consultant to provide the kind of analysis had initially hoped for. Some members of a specially appointed working group, which includes residents and property owners from the neighborhood, have criticized the process that has ignored their input. Others suggested that staff and consultants are ignoring key constraints — including development standards and existing zoning — in issuing their recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which crippled the retail and theater industries seemingly overnight, added another level of uncertainty. Commission Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar argued Wednesday that the city should pause the process until the pandemic ends and the city has a better understanding of the new reality.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

"We just don't know what the world is going to look like," Roohparvar said. "We know it's going to be different, we just don't know how."

The rise of telecommuting during the economic shutdown may have important ramifications for both the value of office space and its traffic impacts, she said. The economic downturn that resulted from the imposed shutdown — and the mortgage default that it may ultimately engender — may have bearing on the type of housing mix the city would like to see in Ventura. And the rise of e-commerce and online streaming of entertainment — to the detriment of brick-and-mortal retailers and theaters — can also influence what types of commercial amenities the neighborhood should strive to attract.

"I know we already invested a lot of time, but I think we need to wait to see what happens when we get on the other side of COVID to really be able to evaluate what we want this space to look like," Roohparvar said.

Commissioner Michael Alcheck took the opposite view and argued that many of the issues at the heart of the debate — including height and density of buildings — were contentious before the pandemic and will remain so after. He suggested that planners continue to think about crafting a blueprint for the neighborhood even as the pandemic stretches on and explore ways to add more housing.

Alcheck and most of the other commissioners agreed that the city should go big on housing but faced a larger question: How big? Staff presented on Wednesday three alternatives, which would add 386 units, 979 units, and 2,475 housing units to the site, respectively. Both Alcheck and Commissioner Barton Hechtman made the case for the two alternatives that go well beyond the Comprehensive Plan's vision, though he suggested that the city should proceed slowly and gradually, starting with five-story buildings and only moving to larger residential complexes once they become more palatable politically.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"It's pretty clear that Palo Alto … must become more dense in its housing — not over the entire city but in opportunity areas where we can become more dense," Hechtman said. "I think this area is a fantastic opportunity for us to be looking at these things."

Commissioner Doria Summa, who represents the commission on the working group, suggested that the plans remain too vague to warrant meaningful feedback. Though residents had a chance to weigh in on the planning effort at a February community meeting, members of the working group have not had an opportunity to fully discuss the proposed alternatives, she noted.

"I just think this needs a lot more work by staff and (the) working group before we can have a very valuable discussion about it," Summa said.

Some residents shared her view and pushed back against the proposals that were put together by staff and consultants from the firm Perkins&Will. While planners suggested that significant densification is needed to make housing developments economically feasible (the most ambitious of the three options calls for 100 units per acre), critics maintained that this goes far beyond what the residents had called for and what the city would allow in other neighborhoods.

Ken Joye, who lives in Ventura, suggested that city planners ensure that any new developments approved in the neighborhood "fully mitigate" their own impacts on traffic and parking.

"I'd suggest to you it is inappropriate to make policy decisions based upon whether a project pencils out for a commercial developer," Joye said. "Rather, we should zone for what we want in a community and not allow commercial developers to build something that is nonconforming."

Angela Dellaporta, a Ventura resident who serves on the North Ventura working group, said she and her neighbors are concerned about the construction that is already taking place in the neighborhood and urged the city to put a freeze on new development until the vision is formulated. Becky Sanders, moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, also asked for a moratorium on development. Sanders said that while she supports new housing, particularly at the Fry's site, the type of developments that the current plans call for are at odds with what residents had proposed.

"None of the proposals put forth by Perkins&Will really reflect the wishes of the people in Ventura and do not really reflect the will of the working group," Sanders said.

Others, however, argued that greater density is exactly what's needed. Housing advocate Kelsey Banes said Ventura represents an opportunity to serve many residents, both that live there today and that will be there in the future.

"If we care about affordable housing, if we want to prioritize it, it will require density," Banes told the commission. "The way you get a lot of affordable housing is with density."

Residents should have ample opportunity to weigh in over the coming months, as the alternatives continue to get refined and as the working group presents its own plans for the neighborhood. The plans will then return to the planning commission for further input before moving to the council for approval.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

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

Changed economic landscape complicates Palo Alto's plans to redevelop Ventura

Residents push back against new proposals to 'go big' on housing

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 9:17 am

Palo Alto's ambitious but uncertain plans to reimagine the Ventura neighborhood confronted a stark political reality Wednesday night, when neighborhood residents and some planning commissioners warned that the latest alternatives fail to reflect community's perspectives or account for the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The concerns came out during the Planning and Transportation's public hearing on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, a land-use document that will create a new vision for a 60-acre area bounded by Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, Lambert Avenue and Park Boulevard. The centrally located but historically underserved area has long been viewed by Palo Alto officials as one of the city's most promising sites for new housing. Palo Alto's Housing Element document estimates that it can accommodate about 354 units of housing, Assistant Planning Director Rachael Tanner said.

Among the most promising sites in the planning area is the 12-acre site at 340 Portage Ave., which until recently housed Fry's Electronics. The site, which is owned by The Sobrato Organization, is zoned for residential use, though the council voted in 2006 to allow commercial use in perpetuity to appease Fry's. While the council is still hoping that the site will include housing, Sobrato signaled last year that it has no plans to redevelop its commercial properties.

The planning effort, which the City Council launched in 2017, has run into numerous complications over the past year. Sobrato's reluctance to redevelop has prompted some council members to lower their expectations, culminating in a decision last December not to approve a contract extension with a consultant to provide the kind of analysis had initially hoped for. Some members of a specially appointed working group, which includes residents and property owners from the neighborhood, have criticized the process that has ignored their input. Others suggested that staff and consultants are ignoring key constraints — including development standards and existing zoning — in issuing their recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which crippled the retail and theater industries seemingly overnight, added another level of uncertainty. Commission Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar argued Wednesday that the city should pause the process until the pandemic ends and the city has a better understanding of the new reality.

"We just don't know what the world is going to look like," Roohparvar said. "We know it's going to be different, we just don't know how."

The rise of telecommuting during the economic shutdown may have important ramifications for both the value of office space and its traffic impacts, she said. The economic downturn that resulted from the imposed shutdown — and the mortgage default that it may ultimately engender — may have bearing on the type of housing mix the city would like to see in Ventura. And the rise of e-commerce and online streaming of entertainment — to the detriment of brick-and-mortal retailers and theaters — can also influence what types of commercial amenities the neighborhood should strive to attract.

"I know we already invested a lot of time, but I think we need to wait to see what happens when we get on the other side of COVID to really be able to evaluate what we want this space to look like," Roohparvar said.

Commissioner Michael Alcheck took the opposite view and argued that many of the issues at the heart of the debate — including height and density of buildings — were contentious before the pandemic and will remain so after. He suggested that planners continue to think about crafting a blueprint for the neighborhood even as the pandemic stretches on and explore ways to add more housing.

Alcheck and most of the other commissioners agreed that the city should go big on housing but faced a larger question: How big? Staff presented on Wednesday three alternatives, which would add 386 units, 979 units, and 2,475 housing units to the site, respectively. Both Alcheck and Commissioner Barton Hechtman made the case for the two alternatives that go well beyond the Comprehensive Plan's vision, though he suggested that the city should proceed slowly and gradually, starting with five-story buildings and only moving to larger residential complexes once they become more palatable politically.

"It's pretty clear that Palo Alto … must become more dense in its housing — not over the entire city but in opportunity areas where we can become more dense," Hechtman said. "I think this area is a fantastic opportunity for us to be looking at these things."

Commissioner Doria Summa, who represents the commission on the working group, suggested that the plans remain too vague to warrant meaningful feedback. Though residents had a chance to weigh in on the planning effort at a February community meeting, members of the working group have not had an opportunity to fully discuss the proposed alternatives, she noted.

"I just think this needs a lot more work by staff and (the) working group before we can have a very valuable discussion about it," Summa said.

Some residents shared her view and pushed back against the proposals that were put together by staff and consultants from the firm Perkins&Will. While planners suggested that significant densification is needed to make housing developments economically feasible (the most ambitious of the three options calls for 100 units per acre), critics maintained that this goes far beyond what the residents had called for and what the city would allow in other neighborhoods.

Ken Joye, who lives in Ventura, suggested that city planners ensure that any new developments approved in the neighborhood "fully mitigate" their own impacts on traffic and parking.

"I'd suggest to you it is inappropriate to make policy decisions based upon whether a project pencils out for a commercial developer," Joye said. "Rather, we should zone for what we want in a community and not allow commercial developers to build something that is nonconforming."

Angela Dellaporta, a Ventura resident who serves on the North Ventura working group, said she and her neighbors are concerned about the construction that is already taking place in the neighborhood and urged the city to put a freeze on new development until the vision is formulated. Becky Sanders, moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, also asked for a moratorium on development. Sanders said that while she supports new housing, particularly at the Fry's site, the type of developments that the current plans call for are at odds with what residents had proposed.

"None of the proposals put forth by Perkins&Will really reflect the wishes of the people in Ventura and do not really reflect the will of the working group," Sanders said.

Others, however, argued that greater density is exactly what's needed. Housing advocate Kelsey Banes said Ventura represents an opportunity to serve many residents, both that live there today and that will be there in the future.

"If we care about affordable housing, if we want to prioritize it, it will require density," Banes told the commission. "The way you get a lot of affordable housing is with density."

Residents should have ample opportunity to weigh in over the coming months, as the alternatives continue to get refined and as the working group presents its own plans for the neighborhood. The plans will then return to the planning commission for further input before moving to the council for approval.

Comments

commonsense
Hoover School
on Apr 30, 2020 at 10:46 am
commonsense, Hoover School
on Apr 30, 2020 at 10:46 am

Increase density so fewer of Palo Alto's workers need to drive into town to work. Increase height because 50' is an arbitrary, low number. Afraid of losing our amazing Palo Alto views? Maximize and charge a LOT to help get PA out of the coming major financial budget problems. Quit complaining about successful developers making money. Sobrato has been super successful, following the law and building a good chunk of Silicon Valley. Also, a very generous dude. It will languish as is for decades if it doesn't make sense financially. Let's see max density, lots of it affordable, 100' high an approvals in two months. Or perhaps we should just continue to pave over the central valley and make commutes longer and longer...


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2020 at 11:02 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2020 at 11:02 am

>> starting with five-story buildings

No! Not needed to achieve higher density.

Posted by commonsense, a resident of Hoover School

>> Increase density so fewer of Palo Alto's workers need to drive into town to work.

Specious reasoning that has been refuted numerous times.

>> Ken Joye, who lives in Ventura, suggested that city planners ensure that any new developments approved in the neighborhood "fully mitigate" their own impacts on traffic and parking.

Absolutely! Don't allow a new development complex to make traffic and parking worse.

The bottom line is that the keystone property, "Fry's", is zoned residential. Sobrato is leasing out chunks of it as office space now. Convert that office space to 100% housing.

No more office space. No high-rises. High-rises and continued office space development will, in the end, destroy Palo Alto. If you want to destroy something, go destroy someplace else.


public "servants"?
Ventura
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:12 pm
public "servants"?, Ventura
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:12 pm

Let's see...Michael Alcheck and Bart Hechtmann are for high rises and with more density than the community really wants. Now are these fine public servants really concerned about affordable housing for the less-than-affluent? Or could it possible be that their interest in massive density is because they are both real estate attorneys with clients who benefit from this unbridled growth they seek?

Just like Gregg Scharff, a real estate attorney who is friends w/ Alcheck and who lives in a $10 million house in Old Palo Alto and and is likely to re-emerge as a City Council contender.

We need to carefully look at people' s motivations and personal financial interests whenever appointing people to these roles.


Mark Weiss
Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:25 pm
Mark Weiss, Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:25 pm

This is by far the most corrupt issue in Palo alto starting with the fact that Wheatley sold the land to Sobrato and then quietly bought back a bunch of the housing surrounding Fry’s and then had the area expanded from 15 acres to 60 acre Special Corruption District what about a park a big park for people and living creatures and ...wait for it...sunshine?!

It was 9 years ago this week that GS started covering this:
Web Link


Asr
College Terrace
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:41 pm
Asr, College Terrace
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:41 pm

Build small townhouses for the neighborhood.


Mark Weiss
Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:51 pm
Mark Weiss, Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2020 at 12:51 pm

It is notable that Matt Sonsini the CEO of Sobrato went to Gunn high school and grew up in Evergreen Terrace about a mile and a half from Fry’s. Maybe if he personally spoke at council and commission meetings, and did a walk through of the site, with neighborhood activists like Sanders and Joye that would go a long way in humanizing the process of redevelopment.


Another Giveaway
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2020 at 1:20 pm
Another Giveaway, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2020 at 1:20 pm

Density is not a virtue.

Density is just a way for real-estate developers to make more money, for local governments to collect more property tax revenues, and for corrupt politicians to collect more campaign contributions from predatory real-estate developers.


Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on This
Crescent Park
on Apr 30, 2020 at 2:41 pm
Stop Wasting Tax Dollars on This, Crescent Park
on Apr 30, 2020 at 2:41 pm

This absurd effort to enrich a few developers is, incredibly enough, mostly funded by a $638,000 grant from the VTA, that is, our public-owned county bus and transit service. Rather than keeping buses running, which are always struggling for funding and serve people who can't afford their own cars, public money is going to figure out how to help wealthy property owners earn more through rezoning.

The VTA should be embarrassed to have wasted so much in desperately-needed public funds on this.

The City of Palo Alto is also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on this effort – while facing a deficit of tens of millions of dollars.

Let developers find others ways to get rich.

Stop This Stupid Waste of Taxpayer Money!!!


Don't give away zoning to help developers
Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2020 at 5:29 pm
Don't give away zoning to help developers, Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2020 at 5:29 pm

What we do know is that overpopulation and cramming people into dense housing causes more exposure to disease. Why are we trying to kill people? The Covid outbreak made clear that we need more park and open space. This is a great spot for a large community center and park. The city of Palo Alto, per the comprehensive plan, already owes the residents of Palo Alto over 100 acres if they were to follow their stated amounts of parkland per population.

Don't let them add any more housing. We are already over consuming in this area with too many people. Allow livable housing, resident serving businesses and lots of park and community space. It is time to make this city livable again, not cram in more people.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 30, 2020 at 6:37 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 30, 2020 at 6:37 pm

There is a new development going in RWC at Woodside Road near 101 that is in process. The acreage is similar to the Fry's site - end to end. It is a shopping center that will be converted to housing with a number of amenities. It will support the growing SU campus in RWC. It has been vetted and approved. Rather than trying to spend money to create a new footprint start looking at other successful, approved footprints to see how they fit into the land available.

In no way is the Fry's site and land going to be allocated to "business". Whether it pencils out - or not - it will be housing or there will be a law suit. We have a requirement to provide housing for our teachers, city workers, low income, retired people, etc. And if any city employee goes forward with anything but what is required at this time then they will be subject to a law suit.

We keep reading about all of these people that no one voted on who seem to be arranging the city based on their ideas and financial standing.. Time to stop that.


ventura resident
Ventura
on May 1, 2020 at 8:01 am
ventura resident, Ventura
on May 1, 2020 at 8:01 am

Thanks to Becky for standing up for us Ventura residents. The fact is, there is NO housing shortage and no need to make high density housing a priority. The Fry's site would make a fine park. If the city council wants high density housing, put it it Old Palo Alto, maybe next door to a white billionaire, and see what happens.

Ventura is a mixed-race neighborhood that includes more young and working-class people than any other in the city. We don't want to become a property tax farm for a greedy city council and developers. We want a nice, suburban place to live, just like where the developers and the city council members have.


Towns Biggest Ever
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2020 at 8:06 am
Towns Biggest Ever, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2020 at 8:06 am

Planning staff are facilitating the biggest development ever for our town. As noted by one speaker at the PTC, it's 18 times denser than anywhere else in Palo Alto. There is no way to mitigate the impacts should any of the Alternatives be built.

Staff's slide of Alternative Plan #3 showed one building with 2,595 units of housing. In Palo Alto, the average household was 2.2 (I think its a little higher now but lets go with that), equaling 5,709 people in that building (units would differ in size, but overall, this number is workable). Also included in the gargantuan Alternative #3, is 597,000 square feet of offices (which demands more housing, and 1 new tech job brings 5 support jobs with it), and 93,000 square feet of retail. And, are you ready - 2.7 acres of "centralized open space". Don't confuse that with a park. Open Space can be set backs from buildings, narrow strips, hardscape plazas, or some grassy areas.

A person speaking at the PTC meeting mentioned park requirements. I looked up the city requirement for development - 21.8 acres of new parks would be needed there, not 2.7 acres of so called "open space". That's real park - grass, picnics, play structures.

Can you imagine in these times of Covid-19, living in Alternative 3 (or Alternatives #1 of #2 - also ridiculous)? One giant super-dense, New York City style tower, sheltering in place, with no parks, crammed between El Camino and the Railroad Tracks? I would be frantic.

A couple people spoke in favor of this sort of development - neither lived near this neighborhood. Neighbors spoke in clear rational opposition, but will be ignored. They supported the BMR Wilton Court project there - so don't anyone dare call them names. These plans for are terrible, as our most ethnically diverse, lowest income neighborhood ,with the fewest city services and one of the smaller neighborhood parks in the city, It seems nearly colonial to exploit it this way.


Towns Biggest Ever
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2020 at 9:55 am
Towns Biggest Ever, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2020 at 9:55 am

One other thing - one of the speakers at the PTC meeting (who didn't live in the area) actually suggested off-site parking should be considered for the residential component in Alternative #3.

As noted above, that is 2,595 residential units to include about 5,709 people. Yet she thinks off-site parking is a good and reasonable option. This thinking speaks for itself.


Covid-Kid
Mountain View
on May 1, 2020 at 11:36 am
Covid-Kid, Mountain View
on May 1, 2020 at 11:36 am

Three words. Bring Back Frys!


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2020 at 12:49 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2020 at 12:49 pm

>> gargantuan Alternative #3, is 597,000 square feet of offices (which demands more housing, and 1 new tech job brings 5 support jobs with it),

That this is even an "alternative" is -proof- that these folks don't care at all about the jobs/housing imbalance. "Housing" is just a smokescreen to build more office space.

>> and 93,000 square feet of retail.

IOW, to be converted to office space a little later after the retail is "discovered" to be not viable. Oh, and, to add insult to injury, we, the public, will be told we were stupid for ever imagining that retail would work, or that we could/should believe "promises", or, "contracts".

No office space, no retail. If they want to build housing-- 100% housing. Make "them" prove they are actually honest, and that they actually care about housing, with one project that is 100% housing. I'm not holding my breath.


Family Friendly
Old Palo Alto
on May 1, 2020 at 12:55 pm
Family Friendly, Old Palo Alto
on May 1, 2020 at 12:55 pm

"the council voted in 2006 to allow commercial use in perpetuity to appease Fry's."

For the love of God, why?

It always comes back to the same thing, imo. We need a change in the law so that all up-zoning of density and all conversion of residential zones to commercial requires a ballot initiative voted on by actual Palo Altans. We will never be able to trust our "servants" to do what we choose, otherwise.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2020 at 1:05 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2020 at 1:05 pm

I see comments from people in Ventura area against any upgrades for housing. I don't get that. There are numerous activities in process for rebuilds in the area. The businesses on El Camino in the area could use an upgrade. The buildings are old and tacky. Any new housing if done correctly would upgrade the entire neighborhood.


Another Giveaway
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2020 at 2:10 pm
Another Giveaway, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2020 at 2:10 pm

@Resident-1,

What do you mean by "upgrade"? Is "upgrade" anything like gentrification?

If the commercial properties along El Camino were "upgraded" would the property owners raise the rent? If the properties were "upgraded" would the small business still be able to afford the rent or would they be priced out of Palo Alto?

Just wondering how "upgrading" works.


Resident
Ventura
on May 2, 2020 at 11:21 pm
Resident, Ventura
on May 2, 2020 at 11:21 pm

More density? So we've learned nothing from the pandemic? The worst outbreaks happened in high density population centers. Shouldn't we be reconsidering density?


Artur77
Community Center
on May 3, 2020 at 6:41 am
Artur77, Community Center
on May 3, 2020 at 6:41 am

Maybe their interest in mass density is due to the fact that they are both real estate lawyers Web Link with clients who benefit from this rampant growth that they are striving for?


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on May 5, 2020 at 10:57 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on May 5, 2020 at 10:57 am

No one individual in the city can dictate the states requirements regarding the housing / work balance. It is a negotiation. But every one has an opinion with more or less ability to exercise that opinion. If you drive down El Camino you can see in other cities - MP. MV, RWC that new apartments with business on the first floor are happening at a rapid rate. That is a reflection of the state imposing some requirements so that cities get more funding - or gets sued.

A lot of El Camino has been upgraded already with new business and hotel / apartments. There is a section between Oregon and Charleston with very old buildings. A lot with "for Lease" signs. If there is a lack of business in that section then it is ripe for redevelopment - and it responds to a qualification from the state for funding.

The next question is who owns that land? The tax base must be very low. The fact that that topic is not addressed tells me that some high end Palo Alto family is sitting on the land waiting for some great bonanza to fall on their heads. If we are going to be sued or penalized for state funding then we need all of the cards on the table. There has to be a short and long range plan for how to address redevelopment in other that a R-1 neighborhood.
So far the PACC is focusing on R-1 residential neighborhoods -easier to pick off an individual homeowner. Not so easy a corporate or legal entity that has more teeth.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 6, 2020 at 11:11 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 6, 2020 at 11:11 am

Posted by Resident, a resident of Ventura

>> More density? So we've learned nothing from the pandemic? The worst outbreaks happened in high density population centers. Shouldn't we be reconsidering density?

I suggest townhouses (rowhouses, townhomes, etc.) with separate ground-level entrances per unit. No shared elevators with stagnant air full of virus aerosols, no shared entrances with knobs, levers, keys to be pressed, etc.


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

Post a comment

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