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.