BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Neighbors are trying to stop two developments in Palo Alto that are using a new state law that allow taller apartment buildings near Caltrain stations.
“I moved here to live in Palo Alto, not Manhattan,” resident Dan Mahoney said in an email to council on Friday.
The city received nine applications for a total of 341 apartments using Senate Bill 79, which requires cities to allow seven-story buildings with a quarter-mile of Caltrain stations and six stories within a half-mile.
Residents like Mahoney are upset about two projects in particular: a six-story building at 2497 High St. and a four-story building at 340 Palo Alto Ave. Neighbors of the High Street project are worried about having only two parking spaces for 19 apartments in the already crowded Ventura neighborhood.
“A building of this height will cast longer shadows on to nearby homes, yards and gardens,” said resident Gary Holl, who lives at 200 Colorado Ave.
The development was proposed by Wei Wu Cheng, 55, of Burlingame, during a two-week window before Palo Alto City Council’s limits on SB79 took effect on July 16.
Realtor Celeste Johnson said the development “will ruin the current residential character of the neighborhood and will definitely adversely impact home values.” Resident Ilya Veygman is taking the opposite position from her neighbors after one of them encouraged her to try to stop the development.
“Ignore the haters and build, build, build,” Veygman said in an email to council.
Building near the creek
Neighbors of the Palo Alto Avenue project don’t like how six new condos would get built near the San Francisquito Creek.
“A project of this scale raises serious concerns about exacerbating flood risk for neighboring properties,” resident Sophia Xu said in an email to council.
Neighbors are also concerned about the building’s height, losing old oak trees and that the condos won’t be affordable.
The property is currently owned by Darel Robert Chapman, 61, and Elu Chapman, 65, of San Mateo. They’ve listed the property for $6.3 million, marketing the “rare development potential” north of downtown Palo Alto.
Limited discretion
In an interview on Tuesday, Councilman Pat Burt said the city has limited discretion in denying SB79 projects.
“There’s very little that council can do,” he said.
Burt encouraged residents to speak with state legislators. He called SB79 “an arbitrary piece of legislation that was designed as one size fits all out of Sacramento.”
I wonder how many of the folks that are against the impacts of SB79 were staunch Democrats, you know, the faithful supporters of Obama, Biden and Harris and of course our beloved darling..Gavin Newsom. Well folks, you reap what you sow. The California legislature approved this and signed into law by Gavin Newsom. This is what you get with a one-party system. But hey, this will create “equitable” housing solutions so that should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Now you will hear, vote them out!, vote who out and who is going to run against them? a Republican candidate? You nailed the coffin shut with that, calling any opposition to your past liberal views a Nimby, racist, bigot, etc.
100% !!!! Well said.
Ilya Veygman, the one reasonable Palo Alto resident
More big ugly buildings for rich people.
The rendering of the development near Molly Stones shows 12 story buildings, not 7. Either rejection of this project should be a no-brainer, or the Post graphic has overstated the size of the project.
I found the article hard to follow. The initial image is of a large project at the California Ave. Cal Train station. More than 7 stories, it seems. Looks very impressive, and I would like to know more about the plans.
The article itself, however, mentioned lots of other proposals and said very little about this one.
I would also like to know about the proposed timing of the projects and any statements from the government, not just people writing to the comments.
I hope there will be another article on this topic with more information.
Have you been living in a cave? There have been many articles in the paper about these projects. Do these stories need to be reprinted now for you because you don’t keep up on the news?
Obviously a product of the California public school system.
Ah, sorry. I see the one quote from the councilman now. Perhaps there is nothing more to be said.
You can’t pick and choose what you want done … think before you vote for politicians who lean into left-leaning policies on housing. Such predictable behavior of the “empathy” voting Palo Alto crowd. It’s easy to stand on corners with signs, put out the lawn sign and chatter at your Montrachet dinner parties about the poor unhoused… when it actually affects your property (and it will!!!), please don’t complain.
These projects have nothing to do with transit although that’s the excuse for them. Virtually no one who lives in them is really going to use CalTrain which is completely obsolete.
And the people who want to use CalTrain can’t since they’ve eliminated parking near the the stations.
Lose-lose for everyone except the developers and the mouthpiece DODO politicians to whom they keep donating tens of thousands of dollars while laughing at the “residentialists” whose donations are only a hundred or a few hundred dollars.
DODO — Developer Owned Developer Operated politicians
You say developers are donating to.our local politicians. Can you be specific and list donations found on their 460 forms? Name the developer, the recipient, the amount and the date.
Crickets
No crickets here. As you should know, the Palo Alto Daily Post doesn’t allow us to cite or even reference outside sources here in comments.
But let me suggest you do an archival search on the contributors to the various campaigns, especially the ads where the “sponsored by” attributions kept changing, and you’ll see exactly which candidates are getting big-dollar contributions from organizations vs individuals and from outsiders vs Palo Alto residents.
Easy peasy.
Not crickets. My comment about how outside links and quotes being verboten here is still awaiting moderation.
Not all campaign contribution are filed with the FPPC and available to the public before the election. Campaign contributions received in the last week before the election do not have to be reported until after the election. In 2016 fearful that she would be swept out of office in a populist wave, Liz Kniss ran to Chop Keenen begging for campaign funds and did not report the contribution she received from Keenen until after the election. In that same election cycle Greg Tanaka left blank or misreported the occupations of real-estate developers Chop Keenan, Jim Baer, Roxy Rapp, Mark Gates Jr., Joseph Martignetti Jr. and Perry Palmer in his FPPC filings.
“Jam,” I think you’re dodging my question. Can you list the donations council members got from developers in the 2024 election cycle? It’s not hard to do, and I’m sure the Daily Post will allow you to report the results of your search. Just go to https:// efile. cityofpaloalto. org, go to “Campaign Disclosures.” Narrow the search field to the 2024 campaign. Hit “Search.” Then look for the Form 460 that each council member filed. On their 460, they have to list their donations. There you will find your answer.
I can tell you about Independent Expenditure committees if you want, but they haven’t been active in Palo Alto campaigns.
Instead of dodging the question, do your homework before making such allegations. You might find that the truth is more interesting than just spouting bumper sticker cliches.
The issue of building skyscrapers in downtown Palo Alto is close to everyone’s heart. These large buildings do not belong here, they belong near the JCC in proximity to Mountain View, because that is the character of that area. The area along 101 can easily accommodate the future needs of Palo Alto and solve the problem because this area is close to Costco and will not generate massive amounts of traffic and congestion.
Fact Checker, I am NOT dodging the question; you obviously haven’t been paying attention the policies repeatedly stated and enforced here by The Daily Post. Instead of making baseless accusations, I suggest you direct your questions to the DP’s publisher.
You might also get a reality check by searching the archives for news about the campaigns and who has consistently raised the most money in the last 3 elections which has been covered in great depth by the local media.
OR you could simply execute your search and post the results =here to enlighten y=us all,
Some of the most valuable contributions aspiring DODOs receive are non-monetary in nature and are very difficult to track. DODOs benefit from political intelligence collected by the real-estate industrial complex: proprietary polling numbers, focus groups results, access to political consultants, advice from experienced DODOs, and smear campaigns directed at their adversaries conceived and coordinated by activists in the industry.