Council to weigh zoning code change

YOu know what the most strking thing about that article is? No mention whatsoever of what Fry's wants/needs to assure a long term presence in Palo Alto.

Is the PA Council operating in the dark on this?

eric wrote:

YOu know what the most strking thing about that article is? No mention whatsoever of what Fry's wants/needs to assure a long term presence in Palo Alto.
Is the PA Council operating in the dark on this?

Eric, I agree with you on this one.

PA has not been business friendly for decades.

So, what's new?

If PA allowed a higher building height limit, it could solve a lot of its current economic problems.

Don't hold your breath....

not that I'm opposed to increasing the height limit, but exactly what do you expect this would accomplish in terms of increased revenue for PA?

eric wrote:

not that I'm opposed to increasing the height limit, but exactly what do you expect this would accomplish in terms of increased revenue for PA?

Bigger hotels/Motels on smaller lot size. Corporate headquaters, especially financial/ real estate enterprises.

I'm old enough to remember that the Hare/Brewer/Kelly building and the Dillingham project was fought to the mat by the local lefties. Both of those projects finally got built, but the paradigam changed thereafter. In the early '60s the business community wanted to make PA a major financial center. By the late '60s that concept was as dead a dodo bird. We are now paying the price.

We DON'T need "shop Palo Alto" - we need powerful new business entities that can make a profit in this town. The height limit restriction prevents these businesses from even taking a look at us.

eric wrote:

not that I'm opposed to increasing the height limit, but exactly what do you expect this would accomplish in terms of increased revenue for PA?

Eric,

I replied to this one, but it didn't go through.

In brief:

Allowing height limits would allow more hotel/financial/real estate/corporate headquarter per acre.

Do you remember Hare/Brewer/Kelly? How about Dillingham? There was a time when PA was headed towards big time corporate headquarters. We are now suffering because it didn't happen.

Do you remember what happened?

Craig wrote:

<quoted text>
Eric,
I replied to this one, but it didn't go through.
In brief:
Allowing height limits would allow more hotel/financial/real estate/corporate headquarter per acre.
Do you remember Hare/Brewer/Kelly? How about Dillingham? There was a time when PA was headed towards big time corporate headquarters. We are now suffering because it didn't happen.
Do you remember what happened?

I am very familiar with HBK, but I don't know what you're getting at. Are you implying that they imploded as a result of PA's height limit?

Height limit changes would have an impact, but not quite how you envision it. There would be some gain- possibly significant in downtown, MAYBE a few projects on el camino, but not as widespread as you seem to think- certainly not in the rsch park (since you tossed out the best site there....). Corporate HQ's do not need to go vertical- in fact, there's been a bias against that among end-users for quite a while now.

Craig wrote:

<quoted text>
Bigger hotels/Motels on smaller lot size. Corporate headquaters, especially financial/ real estate enterprises.
I'm old enough to remember that the Hare/Brewer/Kelly building and the Dillingham project was fought to the mat by the local lefties. Both of those projects finally got built, but the paradigam changed thereafter. In the early '60s the business community wanted to make PA a major financial center. By the late '60s that concept was as dead a dodo bird. We are now paying the price.
We DON'T need "shop Palo Alto" - we need powerful new business entities that can make a profit in this town. The height limit restriction prevents these businesses from even taking a look at us.

.
I'm reading in reverse a bit.

Craig, name ONE corp HQ deal that PA lost due to height limits. That is a totally unsuportable statement. There is a reason why there are few highrises in suburb and exurb locales- its not what the market wants and there are infrastructure issues as well.

"shop palo alto" is small potatoes- you are correct. The fact is, however, that car dealers and hotels are where the revenue is. If you haven't yet (despite the many times I've used the data with you), do your homework and look at some historic info on top sales tax generators in PA.

eric wrote:

<quoted text>
.
I'm reading in reverse a bit.
Craig, name ONE corp HQ deal that PA lost due to height limits. That is a totally unsuportable statement. There is a reason why there are few highrises in suburb and exurb locales- its not what the market wants and there are infrastructure issues as well.
"shop palo alto" is small potatoes- you are correct. The fact is, however, that car dealers and hotels are where the revenue is. If you haven't yet (despite the many times I've used the data with you), do your homework and look at some historic info on top sales tax generators in PA.

Eric,

Were you around in the late '60s/early '70s to understand what happened in this town? You don't sound like you were.

There were two BIG deals:

1. Hare/Brewer/Kelly
2. Dillingham (Palo Alto Square).

There was also a big deal made about the current civic center ("waffle toaster"/capitalist/corpo rate/feudal/imperialist/... blah blah leftist horseshit).

I am, bascially, with you on this one, Eric. But you need to do do your homework.

Palo Alto has been in an anti-business mode since the late '60s.

Now, we are paying the price.

You ask me to name a current corporate deal that has been lost. Eric, are yo smokin' something?!!

This thing goes back a long way. PA quit being friendly to corporate stuff several decade ago.

Come on, Eric, get up to speed!

nice history lesson. The question is: what would easing height restictions NOW do? You are missing th point.

PA square was the "hq" for a few law firms for a while, now its a bunch of smaller tenant. Same w. 525. no big tax reveune sources that I can think of at either.

So, yeah, PA has been business-unfriendly for decades. Duh. now come back to something relevant

Ill ask again- what "headquarters" deals were lost specifically over a lack of high-rises?

eric wrote:

nice history lesson. The question is: what would easing height restictions NOW do? You are missing th point.
PA square was the "hq" for a few law firms for a while, now its a bunch of smaller tenant. Same w. 525. no big tax reveune sources that I can think of at either.
So, yeah, PA has been business-unfriendly for decades. Duh. now come back to something relevant

OK, Eric, I will offer the following (addressed to the corporate business community):

If you are interested in us, we are interested in you. If you are willing to consider basing corporate headquarters in Palo Alto, we are willing to increase our zoning heights to accomodate your needs. We are willing to talk, and to expedite the "PA process" so that you feel at home here. We are in business, again,...FINALLY! We will maximize our services to our citizens, but we will also maximize our serivces to you. This is a great town, with many possibilities. We are NOT anti-business. We are PRO-BUSINESS! Let's talk.

It's a new day! We welcome you!

what hq deals were missed because of height restrictions?

I was about to ask you what possessed you to watch a council meeting, but then I realized- there should BE a sitcom half that funny!!

eric wrote:

what hq deals were missed because of height restrictions?

Probably quite a few, but I can't name them, because Palo Alto has been off the radar screen for several decades.

If we take the first step, by offering to increase height limits for income producing properties, we may actually begin to get some action. For instance, Town & Country is due for a face lift. Will it be constrained to single/double story? Why not allow it to go to several stories, if the bottom levels are are retail (with reseidential on top)? This would send a positive signal to the business community that we are, finally, back in business.

We could also offer up part of the landfill site for a future nuclear power facility - that would provide all the taxes we could ever dream of!! There are no rational reasons to object to such an idea.

Craig, do we have to go down this path again? Corp HQs echew PA first and foremost over rents. Corp HQ's RARELY go vertical.

Oh, and T&C? Have you been there lately? There has been massive renovations underway for months.

Please catch up, and keep your comments to subjects you know something about...

mod points wrote:

well, a "mixed use" zoning orinance was passed on Monday, which would permit housing over retail in T&C, but Ii don't see it happening because the current momentum is to get the place right again, and anchor it with a winner.
I hear it's gonna be a Trader Joe's, which is another dumb PA idea. Alma Plaza, and the rathole Edgewood Plaza would be ideal for TJ's.
TJ's up north will compete with the Menlo Pk. TJ's (further depressing MP's sad commercial scene - imagine of Draeger's ever left :)
Anyhoo, TJ's up north will kill JJ&F, and the other little markets. Weird...but what's new? weird is often normal, here...

I'm glad the mixed use zoning for T&C went through. I knew that the developers wanted it, but it wasn't clear to me that it would pass. This is one possible sign that PA is beginning to wake up.

I don't know if a TJ would kill JJ&F, which will be going through a major remodel and expansion down the road. But I agree with you, Moddy, that it would be better to have it at the Albertson's site (but then it would compete with the Mt. View TJ, so it probably wasn't in the picture).

mod points wrote:

well, a "mixed use" zoning orinance was passed on Monday, which would permit housing over retail in T&C, but Ii don't see it happening because the current momentum is to get the place right again, and anchor it with a winner.
I hear it's gonna be a Trader Joe's, which is another dumb PA idea. Alma Plaza, and the rathole Edgewood Plaza would be ideal for TJ's.
TJ's up north will compete with the Menlo Pk. TJ's (further depressing MP's sad commercial scene - imagine of Draeger's ever left :)
Anyhoo, TJ's up north will kill JJ&F, and the other little markets. Weird...but what's new? weird is often normal, here...

TJ may be the right thing for Alma Plaza/Edgewood, but I doubt that those centers are the right thing for TJ-- both have horrible access and/or visibility.

eric wrote:

<quoted text>
TJ may be the right thing for Alma Plaza/Edgewood, but I doubt that those centers are the right thing for TJ-- both have horrible access and/or visibility.

I agree with you, Eric, about Edgewood, but not, necessarily, Alma (Albertsons). Albertsons was willing to stay there, if they were allowed to expand (they were not). There is a lot of traffic on Alma, so there is a fair amount of visibility. There is no access problem for north bound traffic; south bound is a problem, but it only involves a U-turn at the nearby intersection. I think a TJ could do well there, and there is a demand for it, but it WOULD compete with the TJ in Mt. View.

I suspect that the demand for a TJ in T&C is pretty good. Maybe that is why it is being discussed.

With the new zoning change at T&C, there could even be a built in population. Interesting idea.

Why weren't you on top of this one, Eric? I knew about it for several months. I just didn't believe it would pass the Council. Apparently the housing element on the Council put it over the top. You just catching up?

Knew about what, the zoning overlay? I was aware that it was in play. What makes you think otherwise? It wasnt exactly secret-- in fact, I may have commented on it (in relation to Frys specifically) on the old board--not sure.

Alma Plaza would be very problematic for a user like TJ. Yes, Albertsons discussed staying a while back, but they arent exactly the model of success locally, and that is a far cry from attracting a TJ-type tenant. Albertsons and its ilk target local shoppers, while a TJ (and probably Whole Foods) looks a bit more regionally. The traffic patterns on Alma would not cut it for a major retailer any more, trust me.

eric wrote:

Knew about what, the zoning overlay? I was aware that it was in play. What makes you think otherwise? It wasnt exactly secret-- in fact, I may have commented on it (in relation to Frys specifically) on the old board--not sure.
Alma Plaza would be very problematic for a user like TJ. Yes, Albertsons discussed staying a while back, but they arent exactly the model of success locally, and that is a far cry from attracting a TJ-type tenant. Albertsons and its ilk target local shoppers, while a TJ (and probably Whole Foods) looks a bit more regionally. The traffic patterns on Alma would not cut it for a major retailer any more, trust me.

TJ would have MORE visability at Alma, compared to the rear side of San Antonio SC. Access would be about equal, considering everything. However, it makes more business sense to go into T&C. More shoppers would be more interested at T&C, even though that site has MORE access problems, compared to Alma. TJ has developed a certain elan that attracts regional shoppers (as you say, Eric), and the fit with T&C may be the right chemistry.