Will Fry's be grandfathered into Palo Alto (in terms of store size) if they move/build at a new or rebuilt location? I can't imagine being forced to travel elsewhere.

How foolish to turn down planning funds. Why plan ? We love run down 50 yr old outdated sprawling bldgs , dont we ? Well then again, this is the same group that turned down a state of the art $45+M Police Station because , God Forbid, there might be redevelopment at a CalTrain Station. When will it stop? When will the silent Majority wake up and overrule the vocal Minority in this town? Sensible growth is the mainstay of an evolving community. Keep it up PA, hope you like Detroit !

Can we say "appearance of conflict of interest"? Letting a developer pay for a master plan can't be good practice. The City already collects plenty of taxes from residents and others. Planning should proceed without developers driving the processes, policies, and practices.

Good. And those piddly grants rarely cover the real cost to Palo Alto residents in both dollars and hassle.

How much did we get for the $7.5 million Cal Ave "redesign"? A few hundred thousand dollars and years of construction.

PS: How much does Fry's generate in annual sales tax revenue? More than the grant?

"Keep it up PA, hope you like Detroit !"

Excellent segue. Thanks.

Once upon a time everybody thought Detroit would be on top of the world forever. After all, making cars required a lot of infrastructure, and Detroit had more auto factories than the rest of the world. Then came the competition... .

Palo Alto's software boom is way less permanent. You cannot make a Chevy on the kitchen table, but you can write lots killer aps there. The rest of world knows that, even if our local parochialists do no

Palo Alto needs to heed the lesson of Detroit and plan for the after-boom comedown.



"PS: How much does Fry's generate in annual sales tax revenue? More than the grant?"

Annual is the wrong period, unless the grant renews annually.

I hope the author of this is either intentionally deceitful, or is not a product of Palo Alto schools. [Portion removed]

How this significant site is developed needs to part of a larger perspective and by this I don't only mean that adjacent areas but Palo Alto as a whole. Long term what does Palo Alto need that this site could provide?

PACC got it right again. And they're not as dumb as some people think. They know $300,000 is a bigger number than $256,000. C'mon CC, lighten up. I'm just teasing with you. You should know that by now.

PACC got it right again. They aren't as dumb as some people think they are. They know $300,000 is a bigger number than $256,000. C'mon CC, lighten up. I'm just teasing with you. You should know that by now.

NEW HOUSING NEW HOUSING NEW HOUSING NEW HOUSING NO WATER NO SCHOOLS NO PARKING MORE TRAFFIC CALMING BY JAMMIN' DA STREETS. Another great asset to be plundered by the Real Estate interests.

Isn't Sobrato the guy who sued Sunnyvale to stop sewer hook ups to new commercial buildings so he could jack up the rent is his already built rentals?

From the article:

"A report from city planners calls it one of the city's "largest underdeveloped sites" and says it provides "a unique opportunity to plan for a variety of uses," with housing topping the list."

And its owner has not expressed any interest in developing the site. The city might lose the $256,000 grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, but how much of its own money would it have to chip in to do the study? Would it be worth it given that the site will not be redeveloped for some time, perhaps many years?

Another example of a short sighted decision by politicians who are being reactive and thinking about their re-election rather than what's best for the community. This site will redevelop and it's best for the community and local government to guide this process. Five years is short term for planning purposes, the city should act now to identify what they would like to see at the site - 2020 will be upon us before we know it.